Ayodhya

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Ayodhya-Judgment-Day-postponed/H1-Article3-603667.aspx"]Ayodhya Judgment Day postponed[/url]

Supreme Court on Thursday deferred the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Babri Masjid title suit — that was due on Friday — by a week to give rival sides more time to settle out of court. A larger, three-member bench will hear the matter on September 28. All litigants, as well Attorney General



G.E. Vahanvati representing the Centre, have been told to be present that day.

The deferment opened up the possibility of a longer delay in delivering the verdict as Justice D.V. Sharma, one of three judges of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court that is hearing the title suit, retires on October 1. That bench had, on Monday, dismissed a plea to defer the judgment.

After 17 years now they want to give them one week to settle out of court , what a crap?

Basically, they will force Hindus to give land to Muslims to build Mosque next to temple.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/CJI-to-head-bench-on-Ayodhya/H1-Article1-604687.aspx"]CJI to head bench on Ayodhya[/url]

An appeal seeking to defer the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya title suit will be heard by a new bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia, on Tuesday. The newly-constituted bench was formed after an earlier two-judge SC bench gave a split verdict due to a difference of opinion between Justices R.V. Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale.



That bench had on Thursday deferred the title suit verdict, scheduled to be announced the next day (September 24), by a week on retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi’s plea that the litigating sides be given more time to settle amicably, out of court. It had also referred the matter to the CJI for the constitution of a larger bench to hear Tripathi’s petition.



While Raveendran was against entertaining the petition, Gokhale had said: “If there is a one per cent chance (for settlement), you have to give it.” Raveendran had gone along with his colleague, as is the tradition in the case of a split verdict.



Tuesday’s hearing is important as Justice D.V. Sharma, one of three judges of the Lucknow Bench of the high court that is hearing the title suit, retires on October 1

Here comes Congress fix.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.telegraphindia.com//1100926/jsp/nation/story_12983408.jsp"]Cong patient on temple suit[/url]

The majority of Congress leaders argue in private that no one apart from certain fringe elements is waiting expectantly for the verdict. Most party leaders cite Rahul Gandhi’s statement that the country has more urgent issues than Ayodhya to address.



“What Rahul said reflects the party’s mindset. Why should we pray for instability? After all, the Congress invariably becomes the worst loser in a polarised atmosphere,” a senior leader said.



The implication is, the Centre is unlikely to advocate an early verdict when the attorney-general gives his views in the Supreme Court on September 28.



One issue that will test the Centre’s attitude is that of granting an extension to Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, one of the three judges on the high court bench that is to deliver the verdict, who is due to retire on October 1.



If the verdict cannot be delivered by October 1, it will mean that either Justice Sharma will need to be given an extension or that a new bench will have to rehear the case all over again, which could take months or years.



Legal experts say that if the apex court seeks an extension for the judge, the Centre is expected to grant it. But a Congress leader said: “It (granting extension) is a cumbersome process. It is very difficult to say anything now.”



Another leader, who has a legal background, said: “What is the harm if the verdict does not come for the next 200 years? No government is going to relish a tense situation. Let the verdict come only when we are ready to accept it peacefully, not now when interested parties are itching (to squeeze it) for political benefits.”



Party leaders, however, expressed annoyance at insinuations of a Congress role in the verdict’s postponement.



“If you can’t believe even the Supreme Court, who would you believe? How can the government manage the Supreme Court?” one leader said.



Asked why the party had welcomed the Supreme Court’s interim decision when the entire country was waiting for a verdict, he said: “Who is waiting? Nobody is waiting except for the media and interested parties. The country has moved ahead and is grappling with other issues.”

Politicians including Gandhis don't understand , delayed judgement will only strengthen that Indian Judicial System is biggest joke on Indian citizens and total crap of highest order.

[acharya]

SEPTEMBER 25, 2010, 9:02 AM IST

What They Said: The Babri Masjid Case

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/...sjid-case/



By Tripti Lahiri



The verdict in the decades-long legal dispute over who has the rights over the Babri Masjid religious site in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh state was scheduled to be issued by the Allahabad High Court on Friday. In 1992 Hindu mobs partially destroyed the medieval Babri mosque there demanding to build a temple to Lord Ram, the deity who in Hindu belief was born at Ayodhya. On Thursday the Supreme Court decided to delay the verdict and ordered a hearing Sept. 28 on the possibility of a reconciliation. India Real Time presents a summary of the opinions expressed in the run-up to the verdict and on its deferment.





AFP/Getty Image

A man prays at a temple in Ayodhya this week.

“It appears almost unreal to remember that this is, in legal terms, a mere dispute over the title to a small plot of land in a nondescript historical town of north India,” said an editorial in the Economic and Political Weekly, a week ahead of the expected verdict, calling for the country to guard against the rise of militant Hindu nationalism.”



“Unfortunately, for the past two decades and more, this dispute has not remained a mere legal one, but has been the core of a violent political movement which has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of India’s citizens in riots and massacres,” said the magazine.



Political observer Ashok Malik, writing in the Hindustan Times on Wednesday, laid out some of the questions before the court and suggested possible verdicts, based on the historical, archaelogical and other evidence presented.

[Guest]

Agra Muslim gave Ahuti during Havana for peace. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[rcscwc]

Why defer Ayodhya judgment?





All the parties to the except one feel there is no scope for settlement on the issue. Whom will one party talk to? It is infeasible though it is surely sincere about it.





Then why did the SC defer it?





But can SC do it even? That is to be seen now or in future. Such a deferment has not happened. At most, SC can stay hearings and call a case to itself. So why did it do it?





CJI is a Parsi. He has appointed a muslim judge to the three judge bench too. Can you guess the fate of the case?





What happens if the judgment is not delivered by 1 Oct? One and only outcome. It can never be delivered, as J. Sharma is to retire on that day. He would not be able to deliver his part of the judgment, as a judge MUST deliver the judgment in person in the OPEN court. It cannot be pre-signed in advance, nor can it be post dated. So the whole hearing becomes infructous. The will be defered indefinitely.







Who gains? Obviously Congi, it can keep the issue for a long time frighten the muslims with saffron terror.





Who loses? The litigants, of course are the immediate losers. The winner loses moral authority it could derive at the SC stage. Target seems to be VHP and Hindu parties. Thus Congi can deprive the BJP of a potent issue.



That maybe the political agenda of the Congi. But why is SC doing it? First bear in mind that even CJI have to retire ONE day. Has SC been "asked"? Is it not possible? Why could the SC not wait for the case till it came to it in appeals? After all, almost every litigant would find fault with a big or small point of the judgment.





Is it a Sonia or the Supreme?

[G.Subramaniam]

Moderator Alert, please put Ayodhya judgement on as soon as it is available

[acharya]

BJP hails SC decision on Ayodhya title suits verdict



2010-09-28 14:50:00

Last Updated: 2010-09-28 14:57:46



New Delhi: The BJP on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court decision dismissing a plea seeking deferment of the verdict in the Ayodhya title suits, saying it had always maintained that there should be no legal delay in the case.



Ayodhya verdict: SC says no to deferment



"We certainly welcome the Supreme Court decision. The party has already stated its position that it does not desire any legal delay and this verdict of the apex court has cleared the way for the verdict to be pronounced by the High Court," BJP spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman said.



A three-judge SC bench headed by Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia on Tuesday dismissed the plea seeking deferment of the verdict on Ramjanamabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suits by the Allahabad High Court. It gave its green signal to the High Court to go ahead with the judgement.



The BJP had held a meeting of its top brass last week and made a public statement that judicial delays of the last 61 years had prevented construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya.

[acharya]

http://sify.com/news/ayodhya-is-part-of-...edjdi.html



http://news.google.com/news/section?pz=1...D&ict=tnv7

[acharya]

Hindus will only accept Ram Mandir at disputed site'

TNN, Sep 28, 2010, 07.01am IST



Article

Comments (2)







Tags:ram mandir|jan kranti party



LUCKNOW: Whatever will be the decision of the courts, crores of Hindus will accept only a grand Ram Mandir at the disputed site, said former UP chief minister and president of the Jan Kranti Party Kalyan Singh in a statement issued here on Monday.



Dubbing as a mere `drama', the proposal to settle the Ayodhya issue through reconciliation, Kalyan Singh alleged that the Congress while welcoming the deferment of the verdict by the Supreme Court proved that it was in favour of delaying the judgment to serve its political gains.



Claiming that a solution to the problem was also not possible through negotiations, the former BJP leader said that several such attempts were made in the past but to no avail. "It is clear that on this issue which is based on faith and belief, courts cannot find a universally acceptable solution," he said.



Reiterating his earlier stand that there were only two options to solve the issue, he said that it could be either with Muslims giving up their claim over the land or through a law enacted by parliament like the one done in the Shah Bano case.



-----------------------





Disputed site may go to government

TNN, Sep 30, 2010, 12.31am IST



Article

Comments (1)







Tags:ayodhya



LUCKNOW: For those who thought that the Ayodhya title suit was only about whether a temple or a mosque existed at the disputed site, here is something more: It is possible that both the sides might fail to establish their claim on the property.



So what happens in case both the sides fail to establish their ownership over the disputed site? In such a situation, one of the possibilities are that the property rights may be vested in the state government.



Though the law provides for a limited scope in terms of jurisdiction of court in adjudication of civil suits, the special Lucknow Bench of Allahabad high court on Ayodhya title suit can go ahead under article 226 of the Indian Constitution, which provides for the authority to vest the property in question in the state government.



The legal battle related to the Ayodhya case as on date comprises four suits and two writ petitions clubbed together as Ayodhya title suit.



The first suit was filed before the Civil Court, Faizabad in 1959, by Nirmohi Akhara and Others versus Babu Priyadutt Ram and Others. It was in 1961 that the second suit was filed before the Faizabad civil court by Sunni Central Waqf Board and Others versus Gopal Singh and Others.



The third suit too was filed before the Faizabad civil court in 1989 by Bhagwan Sriram Virajmaan and Others versus Rajendra Singh and Others. The fourth and the last suit was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad and Others versus Zahoor Ahmed and Others.



In 1986, two writ petitions were preferred. One was filed by Mohd Hashim versus District Judge Faizabad and Others. The second one was filed by Sunni Central Board of Waqf versus District Judge Faizabad and Others.

[acharya]

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2003/jul/60004.htm?zcc=rl

'Hindus never tried to destroy Babri masjid'

By: Date: 2003-7-31







Lucknow: Witness Krishna Chandra Singh, a retired teacher stated before the High Court here that the Valmiki Ramayana was written by Maharishi Valmiki during the reign of the Lord Almighty but he was not aware whether King Rishab re-established Ayodhya after Lord Rama left for the Heavens.



The witness had earlier stated that the Ayodhya of Lord Rama's time had become desolated. But the Sri Ram Janmabhoomi was revered even after this desolation.



The witness was replying to questions shot at him by Zafaryab Jilani, counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board. The counsel had asked the witness that when Ayodhya city had been destroyed and had become desolated after the Swargam of Ram (departure to the Heavens) how could people say now where the Janmabhoomi is when there is no clear mention about its location in Valmiki Ramayana.



Later the witness was cross-examined by Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui, counsel for Mohammad Hashim Ansari, a defendant in the Ayodhya title case.



When the counsel asked the witness whether or not it is true that the Hindus always tried to destroy and damage the Babri mosque out of religious hatred the witness replied in the negative.



The counsel then reminded him of the Shahjehanpur communal riots of 1934 after cow slaughter charges. But the witness refuted the counsel's suggestion that in retaliation to the Shahjehanpur incident the Hindus had tried to destroy the Babri Masjid in 1934 during the British rule.



The counsel had also pointed out that a large part of a dome of the Babri Masjid was destroyed during the incident and the British rulers had imposed collective fine on the Hindus for desecrating the religious place of Muslims.



The witness said that it was the Muslims who had attacked the Sri Ram Janmabhoomi temple and the British had imposed the collective fine on Hindus as they were anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim.



The witness said that even in 1934 the place was not a mosque nor was it regarded as mosque. No Muslim offered any prayers while the Hindus prayed from outside.



The witness stated that it was the Muslims of Faizabad and other districts who had attacked the Sri Ram Janmabhoomi temple and the counsel was wrongly trying to prove that even during British rule the place was regarded as a mosque. It was always a temple.

[acharya]

Ayodhya Verdict: Complete Coverage

By: Midday Date: 2010-09-30 Place: Mumbai

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/sep/300...verage.htm



Judges to give three separate judgements

Bench of the Allahabad High Court will give separate judgements in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid case today



AIMPLB committee to meet after Ayodhya verdict

All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) will meet after the pronouncement of the Ayodhya title suit verdict to decide its future course of action



Heavy security in India amid appeals for peace

From Kashmir to Kerala, many states were on ‘extra vigil’ fearing trouble



Ayodhya verdict not about Hindus, Muslims:

Babri panel Says judgment should not be taken by the people of India in the sense of victory or defeat of any party

[acharya]

Rs 5 crore marble Babri Masjid in Ayodhya'

By: Date: 2001-5-16







May 16, 2001

Hoping for a judicial verdict in favour of building a mosque at the disputed site in Ayodhya, Aalami Roohani Markaz (ARM), a socio-religious organisation, on Wednesday unveiled a proposed model of a "marble Babri Masjid" which they plan to erect at the site.



"The construction based on this model will start in Ayodhya only if the court ruling is in our favour," Aziz Burney, a supporter of ARM and the chief guest at its function told reporters in the capital. Claiming that the model was shown to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Union Home Minister L K Advani at their respective offices a few days ago, Aziz said ARM got "no reactions" from Vajpayee and Advani.



Asked what would they do if the court ruling went against building a mosque, Aziz said, "we have not thought of any alternative place. We are hopeful that the court ruling will be in our favour."



Referring to the cost of the project, he said, "the expenses will be around Rs 5 crore which will be collected from Muslims in India and not from anyone abroad."

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Disputed-land-in-Ayodhya-Ram-s-birthplace-but-split-it-High-Court/H1-Article3-606452.aspx"]Disputed land in Ayodhya Ram's birthplace, but split it: High Court[/url]

[color="#FF0000"][size="5"]The majority also ruled that the central dome of the disputed structure, where idols of Lord Ram are presently kept in the makeshift temple, be allotted to Hindus.[/size][/color] Justice Khan ruled that the mosque was built by Babar, not by demolishing a temple, but on the ruins of a temple.



Justice Sharma categorically rejected the claim of Sunni Central Waqf Board and has ruled that the 'disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama'.



However, the entire bench was of the view that the central dome of the disputed structure goes to Hindu Mahasabha, where idols were installed in 1949 and again in 1992 after the demolition of the Babri Mosque.[color="#FF0000"][size="5"] The sita rasoi and ram chabootara have been given to Nirmohi Akhara.[/size][/color]



The judges said that none of the litigants would take any action on the land for the next three months.

WHAT THE JUDGES SAID



Justice S U Khan



"Disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belong to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque, but it was constructed on the ruins of the temple or some of its material was used in the construction of the mosque."



Justice Sudhir Agarwal



" It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janma Sthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiff- Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman. and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants, Rajendra Singh and others."



Justice Dharam Veer Sharma



" The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama. Disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain, but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus it cannot have the character of a mosque. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The ASI has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23 December 1949."

Muslim judge gave his pro religious view. Here everything is exposed how religion first is for Muslim.



Judgement is political correct not based on fact. They should have given this completely to Hindus. Now they had kept dispute alive.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Ayodhya-verdict-Sunni-Wakf-Board-to-approach-Supreme-Court/H1-Article3-606506.aspx"]Sunni Wakf Board to approach Supreme Court[/url]

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Verdict-not-a-win-or-loss-invite-all-to-help-build-temple-RSS/H1-Article3-606495.aspx"]Verdict not a win or loss, invite all to help build temple: RSS[/url]

Appealing for restraint, the RSS on Thursday said the Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya title suit should not been seen as anybody's victory or defeat and sought people's support for construction of a Ram temple. "The judgement has paved the way for the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya...The judgement is not a win or loss for anybody. We invite everybody, including Muslims, to help build the temple," Sarsangchalak Mohan Bhagwat told reporters.



"The court verdict should not be seen as anybody's victory or defeat," he reiterated. Bhagwat also said the joy and happiness over the verdict should find expression in a "controlled and peaceful manner" within the limits of law and constitution.



"Uncalled for provocation must be avoided," he said adding, the movement for a Ram temple was "not a reactionary one nor it is against any particular community."



Bhagwat also appealed to the Muslims to "forget the past".

[Guest]

Tomorrow is Friday, lets see how many mosque will use minaret for "Islam Khaterey mai Hai" rant to start riots.



Quote of the day RT“

@KanchanGupta: Babur was not quite Bob the Builder" -

[Guest]

[url="http://www.scribd.com/doc/38465570/Ayodhya-Verdict-Issue-Wise-Summary"]Ayodhya Verdict Issue Wise Summary[/url]

[Guest]

An interesting account of the Ayodhya conflict from the 1850s is found in the Handbook of Bengal Presidency published in the late 19th century. Below is digitized extract from Google Books found in pages 230 and 231 within chapter on Route 24 Jawanpur to Ayodhya Sect II.

[url="http://offstumped.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/ayodhya-verdict-live-blogging/"] link[/url]



Earliest British reference to Janmasthan in Ayodhya from 1819

[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=7bYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA287&dq=janmasthan&hl=en&ei=9cWcTO3HOISKlweLtIDxCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=janmasthan&f=false"]link[/url]



The Gazeteer of Oudh 1877 has by far the most extensive historical record

[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=8KQIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA5&dq=mahant+oudh&hl=en&ei=GBGUTOLvDcL7lwet4fyrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=mahant%20oudh&f=false"] link[/url]

[ramana]

Mudy a few questions:



1) Who or what is Nirmohi Akhara? How do they get an equal share of the holy grounds?



2) How could Babar or his minions use materials from a ancinet temple wihtout destoryin git? And the court has said its haraam per Koran to build a mosque on another religious site. Thats is great precedent.



3)Wouldn't the use of material from ealrier religious structures be sufficeint proof of the haraamness of more recent Islamic structures?