Comment removed for violation of Website Policy

Comment removed for violation of Website Policy

Comment removed for violation of Website Policy

Comment removed for violation of Website Policy

Even Dr Ambedkar who was vehemently critical of Hinduism has not accused Hindus of destroying Stupas, he credits Muslims with that act when he says that Buddhism was driven out of India by the Muslim invaders. That Hindus demolished Stupas seems to be a lie perpetrated by leftist and secularist historians to show Hindus in a bad light in an effort to drag it down to the level of Muslim invaders.

But there was a place of worship there already, so they could have built it elsewhere.

>> "The mosque in Janamsthan was built as a symbol of Islamic thriumphalism"

Could it possibly have been built as a place of worship?

"The mosque in Janamsthan was built as a symbol of Islamic thriumphalism"

Excellent. Yes, this is a major objection people have to the idea of a mosque in Ayodhya, and in Mathura as well. They are triumphalist symbols.

The mosque in Janamsthan was built as a symbol of Islamic thriumphalism. Ram Janamsthan is a sacred land for hindus and muslims should have voluntarily given up their claim for the mosque, as the mosque has no significant importance for their faith whereas the temple attaches significant importance for the hindu faith.

Further, the symbol of islamic triumphalism, Babri Masjid, should not have a significant bearing on the modern muslims of India. Their faith in Islam or Prophet Mohammad is not shaken if the babri masjid is not rebuilt or if it would have been relocated to a different location.

It is advisable for muslims to understand the sentiments of hindus attached to this site and give it up in the interest of communal harmony

As far as court is concerned, it can simply accept ASI findings without doubting it according to law.

Actually the court didn't. The findings were subjected to cross-examination by the opposing parties and they failed to debunk the evidence.

Law is very clear about demolitions of Invaders.
Any demolition and construction in that place,whatever it may be, will not become a legal structure just because, the invader had conquered the inhabitants.

In that case, invaders construction shall be pulled down and the orginal place of worship can be rebuilt according to Indian Law.

In one word to say, any construction would not gain a legal sanctity just because he(Babar) defeated the people living there.

In Kashmir, a dozen temples were razed to the ground, two of them are big temples,in very modern times in our own life times in 1980's.
Abdullah Government decided to rebuild at least six temples and contruction of those two temples had been taken up, and as far as I know, one temple construction at least is completed by now.

India is really an incredible country. No other nation,could have accepted such a vanadalization ,destruction of 1000 years to 500 years old temples in Kashmir by local muslim population.

All this murder and rapes inside the houses and vanadalization of temples went on in a country where majority are Hindus.
Now ,if an invader's power and his subjugation of local population is legal then, every constrcution taken up by them would become legal even if the land was not purchased by them for such a construction or a temple is razed to the groud.

That is why the existence of temple,underneath Babri Masque assumes importance. The temple was already in ruins is one argument, but even then it is illegal to construct a Masjid over there.

The burden of proof that ASI statement is wrong, lies with those who argues it. As far as court is concerned, it can simply accept ASI findings without doubting it according to law.

>>"Around 500m west, stands another of Aurangzeb's mosques, the impressive red sandstone Katra Masjid. This was erected on the foundations of the once-famous Kesava Deo temple, destroyed by the Moghul emperor, which had itself been built on the ruins of a Buddhist monastery."

Building a temple on the ruins of a Buddhist monastery is not the same as ‘destroying it to construct a temple’.

Anyway, this is what Wiki says:

“The Katra mound has been a site of extensive excavations and numerous Buddhist and Hindu statues have been excavated. In all probability, the debris of the temples and Buddhist monasteries was dumped at the site as a foundation over which Katra Mosque was build by Muslims.”

RSM,

On Mathura mosque:

"Around 500m west, stands another of Aurangzeb's mosques, the impressive red sandstone Katra Masjid. This was erected on the foundations of the once-famous Kesava Deo temple, destroyed by the Moghul emperor, which had itself been built on the ruins of a Buddhist monastery."

http://www.taj-mahal...es-of-vrindavan.html

>> Evidence?

What's that? The succus don't need it. Such mundane things are only for Sanghis.

Didn't the succus claim that if there was anything at all at Ayodhya, it was a Jain temple?

Doesn't matter that ASI efforts didn't reveal any evidence of it. How could it? Don't we all know that ASI is filled with Hindutva sympathizers?

>>But we cannot prosecute Hindus who destroyed a Buddhist stupa in Mathura and built a temple on it.

Evidence? Hope to see something more than 'they have been discussed on these boards....'.

Shenoy,

>> How many Mussalmans have you seen prosecuted in Kashmir where there are clear record of 1300 Hindu temples having been destroyed.

What I said was that "Muslims who destroyed temples and Hindus who destroyed stupas committed heinous acts, but they are all dead and gone. We can only prosecute those who commit such atrocities now." We can. Whether we do or not is another matter. But we cannot prosecute Hindus who destroyed a Buddhist stupa in Mathura and built a temple on it, nor can we prosecute Muslims who destroyed that temple and built a mosque on it. The mosque stands next to Lord Krishna temple and the two of them look magnificent together.

>> it is that the people who are against law/constitution (due to its secular character, which they interpret as anti-hindu) suddenly started supporting law/constitution.

Wrong. Seculars like you were against constitution earlier too (e.g UCC), and still are.

>> Or rather, all the three parties should gift it to the poor/dalits etc.

Why?

"How many Mussalmans have you seen prosecuted in Kashmir where there are clear record of 1300 Hindu temples having been destroyed as recently as 1989? I am sure thousands of these Islamic destroyers are still alive and kicking ( even throwing stones at the government!)"

Excellent, BV Shenoy. And notice the crafty or extremely ignorant, attempt to link and equate a few questionable Hindu sectarian desecrations, with the undeniable and massive vandalism of Mahmud of Ghazni, Aurangazeb and Qutubdin-Aibak?

from the news from timesofindia,


"Justice Agarwal pointed out how representatives and lawyers of each party in the suit were permitted to shadow ASI officials during the actual excavations, Justice Sharma highlighted how "even Muslim members have also signed the report of ASI."

That is not enuf for seculars and historians and writers of 2 circles.net


"HC was also surprised to note the "zeal" in some of the archaeologists and historians appearing as witnesses on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board who made statements much beyond reliefs demanded by the Waqf."

It is not Zeal, but embarrassment for these so called historians who have been selling their own propaganda as historical facts. They all have been exposed by Arun Shourie already and HC just put the stamp on it. They can now whine or run, but cannot hide anymore.

No loopholes in ASI evidence

http://timesofindia....icleshow/6669039.cms

"The court has taken full care and issued specific directions to maintain transparency. Two judicial officers remained posted there. The excavation was conducted in the presence of the parties, lawyers and their nominees. Nobody can raise a finger about the propriety of the report on the ground of bias"

Nagaraj,

"Now,Muslims have not taken to streets only because they went on saying that they will accept a court verdict,as also because they are looking forward to the supreme court to reverse the judgement".

If the minds of the judges of the supreme court work like the secular fundamentalist, Rajiv Dhawan, then the verdict may surely be reversed. If the judges want to please the congress government and madam (remember Ranganath Mishra? Also, remember emergency?), well, you can see what is going to happen. Even otherwise, why the Muslims are quietly confident and are chanting the manthra of an appeal in the SC is that even if the SC gives a verdict keeping the HC's verdict intact, the Muslims know they have the congress government to reverse it by an amendment to the constitution itself, as they did in the case of the Shah Bano verdict. After all, the congress party can hardly live even a day without its vote banks.

Anwaar,

you said, "What I said was that Muslims who destroyed temples and Hindus who destroyed stupas committed heinous acts, but they are all dead and gone. We can only prosecute those who commit such atrocities now."

How many Mussalmans have you seen prosecuted in Kashmir where there are clear record of 1300 Hindu temples having been destroyed as recently as 1989? I am sure thousands of these Islamic destroyers are still alive and kicking ( even throwing stones at the government!)

>> Sunni Board even if it did not go to Supreme court, would not do much with that 1/3 of land. It is better for it to gift it away to Hindus ...

Or rather, all the three parties should gift it to the poor/dalits etc.

>> hearing arguments from people who were against respecting court verdict ...

If there is one thing good that has come from this verdict, it is that the people who are against law/constitution (due to its secular character, which they interpret as anti-hindu) suddenly started supporting law/constitution. They are digging their own graves, as one odd judgment (which will be challenged anyway) does not change the overall character of the law/constitution.

there r lot of procedures to purify and the temple gets closed for some days if some death happens inside the temple premises.the temple gets closed if there is some death in the street and all these too r under hindu customs and laws.there r hindu laws on where a temple can be built and where it should not
where a idol has to be kept and where it should not be
how a temple loses its sacredness(like reciting tamil mantras),purification ceremonies if a menstruating women enters the temple etc.
can a temple be built over a known burial site

A Surya Prakash again - http://dailypioneer....verse-discourse.html

Those opposing this aspect of the judgement are people who are blissfully ignorant of the fact that Hindu beliefs, religious customs and practices are governed by a body of law called Hindu Law, just as Muslim beliefs and customs are governed by Mohammedan Law.

All matters pertaining to Hindu deities, temples, endowments, etc are determined from the days of the British Raj to the present by various aspects of Hindu Law. A person who has read Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, the oft quoted treatise by the celebrated Chief Justice of India, BK Mukherjea, the Privy Council’s judgement in Pramatha Nath Mullick Vs Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1925), the Supreme Court’s judgement in Bishwanath and another Vs Shri Thakur Radhabhallabhji ( 1967), the Allahabad High Court's Full Bench judgement in Jodhi Rai Vs Basdeo Prasad (1911), and, more recently, the Supreme Court's verdict in Dr M Ismail Farooqui Vs Union of India (1994) would be far more circumspect while dealing with this issue.

.
.
.

Ignorance of law is no defence. But going by the ill-informed discourse that is on after the Ayodhya verdict, it appears as if ignorance is the best excuse to pontificate on the judgement and to pour scorn on the law and those who interpret it.

we have suddenly started hearing arguments from people who were against respecting court verdict and was for a parliament legislation that supreme court will take away the 1/3 land for wakf board too.
dont count your chickens before they hatch and lets wait and see on how the supreme court decides.
as lord is a entity all those who have not been allowed inside temple before 1940 can sue him for damages and humiliation caused and can claim compensation.
is there no vaastu for temple.my friend rejected a house/plot as it was facing a former burial place/cremation(lower castes in tamilnadu have both practises) while babri has been a burial ground and mosque for 400 years.there r temples like sun temple in konark where no puja is held becos of some great fault@kalang in construction/land/king etc and we r talking of a grand ram temple at the most kalang spot one can remember.its better to give it to atheists/nonbeleivers for a hospital/school/college etc and they deserve it

‘Next friend’ helped Ram claim rightful place - A Surya Prakash

http://dailypioneer....-rightful-place.html

As regards lord Ram’s place of birth, the contention was that Sthan Sri Ram Janmabhoomi (the place itself) was an object of worship as a deity by the devotees of lord Ram and it personified the spirit of the Divine. The Sthan (the place) was thus deified and had a juridical personality of its own even before the construction of the temple and the installation of the idol of lord Ram. According to the faith of the devotees, lord Ram resides at this place and can be experienced by those who offer prayers there. An idol is not necessary for invoking the divine spirit. Other examples of places sanctified by belief, even though there is no idol, are Kedarnath, Vaishno Devi and Gaya.

The plaint also quoted extensively from the Gazetteers to establish the fact that Hindu belief in regard to lord Ram’s birthplace had been acknowledged by many authorities over several centuries. The evidence adduced on behalf of these plaintiffs included Ajudhia in Historical Sketch of Tehsil Faizabad by P Carnegy, Officiating Commissioner and Settlement Officer. Carnegy states that Janmasthan marks the place where Sri Ramchandra was born, and adds that “Ajudhia (Ayodhya) is to the Hindu, what Macca is to the Mohomedan, Jerusalem to the Jews…..” These Gazetteers, written by British officers, are seen as having considerable evidentiary value.

The court upheld these contentions. It said that lord Ram and Ram Janmabhoomi, the place of his birth, were juristic persons and that the “next friend” of the deities was entitled to represent them. It said that the suit filed on behalf of the deities was not barred by limitation and that the premises in question (or any part thereof) is by tradition, belief and faith the birthplace of lord Ram.

"What I said was that Muslims who destroyed temples and Hindus who destroyed stupas"

when you could not deny one community's heinous acts, you add the other to the list and say all are the same without any proof. No wonder seculars and jhollawallahs survive this long.

"""" judgment as "res judicata" and declare that the Muslims had not lost the site between 1949 and 1961 by which the time limitation had past; and the Hindus could not claim adverse possession. Curiously none of the judges accepted this simple argument which would have disposed off the case."

Rajeev Dhawan, a Supreme Court lawyer""""

Mr.Rajeev Dhawan's argumet is flawed.
the technical "res judicata" can not be applied to Hindu diety who can be a "juristic" person according to Indian Law , and it is as simple as that.

2) And in that case , placing of idols,though they were placed against wishes of Sunni Board as they claim, along with the fact that since 1986 the disputed site has had been open for puja (worshipping ) and darshan of Rama Lalla and Sita Rasoi
wheareas , Sunni bakf board or under their supervision any prayers (namaz) were never conducted perticularly since 1986 and before that time it was declared as disputed site ,kept under locked condition.

This alone would be enough to say, that Sunni Board's litigation is barred by time and hence could be summarily dismissed in Supreme Court.

The 1/3 of disputed land to Sunni Wakf board is almost like a gift. Such a sanction , Supreme court may not allow at all. ( Read Mr.GrurMurthy's commentary). The parties did not ask for any partition ,the suit is not about how to share but about claiming a place of worship.

Sunni Board even if it did not go to Supreme court, would not do much with that 1/3 of land.
It is better for it to gift it away to Hindus but what the board probably thinking is that since they have not really gained anything, they would not lose anything either by going to Supreme Court.

In future, these same parties(Hindu Mahasabha or Nirmohi Akara ) once they won a Supreme Court case against even that 1/3 of land to Sunni wakf board, may go to the next of level battle of pleading before courts to repeal the 1991 status quo act of religious places as that was against the spirit of Indian Constitution.

".... and Muslims too are not very averse to talks. "

The Waqf board has decided to appeal against the verdict.

I think Hindus have a very fundamental claim on the site. Even if some technicalities of law happen to create a situation contrary to what it is after the judgement, they would still be only the technicalities.

Technicalities exist if the system exists.

If Hindus and Muslims keep fighting for Ram Janma Bhumi, I think the fight would be grave and unending.

TV channels may keep saying that the issue is out of the minds of young modern majority of Hindus. That is just a self deception.

There is no fire because there is no need. Hindus have access to the place and they no longer feel humiliated by the site of a symbol of victory on their sacred place. Touch it by using such aruments as above and an explosive fire is bound to get ignited.

This is too big an issue for intellectual jargons.

Truth and justice on such matters cannot be time limited. Indian nation state is too young to justify terming such fundamental conflicts as trivial.

We must resolve it through mutual talks. Hindus are in a mood to talk and Muslims too are not very averse to talks. It is possible to close it. The two communities will be able to mutually respect each other and live in peace only if they are able to resolve this issue using the opportunity available as a result of the judgement from Allahabad High Court.

Irreverent,

Most of the arguments made by secular journalists and secular lawyers are valid and educative, but I am more in favor of a peaceful resolution than in legal and constitutional correctness or in secular purity.

@Anwaar: It is not difficult to clobber up comments that justify the verdict in context of complex history and national implications. The sickulars have selectively picked up comments that are poking holes into the judgement. The same set of jokers were affirming to court verdict just a week back.

What is the difference between a secular and a terrorist?
1. Beyond a point, the terrorist gives up
2. Sometimes you can convince a terrorist
3. A terrorist is consistent and non-discerning in his acts.

Going purely by 'circumstantial evidence',we have Hanuman Garhi on one side of the disputed structure,while there is Sita Rasoi on the other.So,what structure existed in between the two, before the mosque was built or was it an open land?On the other hand Muslims would never have allowed Hindu temples to come up on either side of a Mosque if they were built later.When Muslims have destroyed thousands of Hindu temples,a single case of Hindus desroying a strucure purported to be a mosque is getting so much attention.One should blame the despicable Congress party for making it such a big issue,more than the Muslims.Now,Muslims have not taken to streets only because they went on saying that they will accept a court verdict,as also because they are looking forward to the supreme court to reverse the judgement.

George,

>> The easiest thing in the world for the three judges would have been to follow a similar course for the Babri Masjid site, grant legal title to the Muslims, accept the 1881 judgment as res judicata and declare that the Muslims had not lost the site between 1949 and 1961 by which the time limitation had past; and the Hindus could not claim adverse possession. Curiously none of the judges accepted this simple argument which would have disposed off the case." Anwaar

Can you read? The above comment was made by Rajeev Dhawan, a Supreme Court lawyer, not Anwaar. You are such a pest!

George,

>> Anwaar says all this of demolishing hindu temples are all lies.

You are a habitual liar. What I said was that Muslims who destroyed temples and Hindus who destroyed stupas committed heinous acts, but they are all dead and gone. We can only prosecute those who commit such atrocities now.

"I say the Muslims do not have the slightest right to complain the desecration of one mosque. From 1000 AD every Hindu temple from Kathiawar to Bihar, from the Himalayas to Vindhyas has been sacked and defiled." NIRAD C CHAUDHURY

http://en.wikipedia....i/Nirad_C._Chaudhuri

Anwaar says all this of demolishing hindu temples are all lies. And anyway, what right the kaffirs have in the muslim land.

This is weird. Earlier we would get links to Two Circles, now we are getting copy and pastes from the post that he is responding to itself!

What, others can't read text not appearing under the name of Shri 'Anwaar'?

Constitutional expert and senior Supreme Court advocate P.P. Rao too finds fault with the Ayodhya verdict:

Not one of the judgments can stand strict legal scrutiny. They have raised more questions than they have answered. Whose property did they divide and amongst whom and who wanted such a division? How could they award one-third share each after dismissing the suits of Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board? Who dedicated the land to Ram Lalla and when? In legal terms, the judgments are incorrect, but innovative. They are liable to be reversed on appeal. The affected parties have decided to move the Supreme Court, keeping the door open for settlement. We should thank God that they did not take to the streets to settle scores. Reposing faith in the judiciary is the wisest thing to do in a country governed by the rule of law. The parties apart, members of the two communities at large deserve praise for their restrained response to the verdict.

S.Gurumurthy finds a serious flaw in the Allahbad High Court judgement. He says:

"So the settled legal position is this: even if parties, like the Ayodhya parties, who have filed suit asserting exclusive rights against one another, ask for partition, the court cannot grant it; and in no event the court can do it without the parties asking for it. None of these judicial rulings seem to have been noticed by the two judges. Had one of the parties asked for partition, the other party would have brought the case laws to the court’s notice. That is why law requires that the court should decide no issue that is not put to the parties. An order contrary to this principle is, in law, without jurisdiction. Civil law pundits would cite the old maxim of Coram Non Judici to say that the courts — read Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal — have no jurisdiction to do what they have done."

Rajeev Dhawan, a Supreme Court lawyer, makes a facinating argument:

"The Muslims correctly argued that the entire theory of destruction of a Hindu temple by Babur is traceable to the Imperial Gazetteers which are not based on any historical source but on local belief. It is tolerably arguable that the three judges, faced with the gigantic task of presiding over this mass of materials and documents, lost the wood for the trees. By contrast when the Privy Council dealt with the loss of the Shahid Ganj Mosque to Maharana Ranjit Singh, and this was accepted in a judgment of 1855, it wrote a six page unanimous judgment saying that it was too late to open any controversy. The site now belonged to the Sikhs and the 19th Century judgment was binding (in lawyer’s language res judicata). The easiest thing in the world for the three judges would have been to follow a similar course for the Babri Masjid site, grant legal title to the Muslims, accept the 1881 judgment as res judicata and declare that the Muslims had not lost the site between 1949 and 1961 by which the time limitation had past; and the Hindus could not claim adverse possession. Curiously none of the judges accepted this simple argument which would have disposed off the case."

Comment removed for violation of Website Policy

Comment removed for violation of Website Policy

Even Dr Ambedkar who was vehemently critical of Hinduism has not accused Hindus of destroying Stupas, he credits Muslims with that act when he says that Buddhism was driven out of India by the Muslim invaders. That Hindus demolished Stupas seems to be a lie perpetrated by leftist and secularist historians to show Hindus in a bad light in an effort to drag it down to the level of Muslim invaders.

Comment removed for violation of Website Policy