India's problem is her intellectual lot. They keep the pot boiling thinking after some time the problem will evaporate just like water boiling in a pot.

I personally thought, there couldn't be any better judgement than the verdict given by HC. However, all the so called intellectuals and journos are discussing the validity of such a decision in partisan manner. That's nonsense. There are so many churches, temples and mosques all around the world. Not real God live in there, just the faith of common people drive them to these places.

If a faith is thousands of years old, that's valid. Otherwise, I would ask these intellectuals to prove their ancestors were so and so.. they might know then name of few generations back but not all of them.

There are very few people who really seem concerned about in the interests of Muslim community. Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is one of them. All others experts, commentators, journalists, JNU types, commies and charlatans are more interested in instilling a deep sense of insecurity among the Muslims to ensure regular cash flow.

"The only solution to this problem is for the Muslims to decide to put a full stop to this issue. If they put a comma, then there will be no end to it. We have lost 60 years by putting comma after comma and now this is the last chance to bring closure to the issue so that the relationship between the Hindus and the Muslims may be normalised. And this full stop means either leaving it to the government to implement the verdict or agreeing to the relocation of the Babri mosque. There is, in reality, no third option."

http://timesofindia....icleshow/6730622.cms

"There are three obvious problems with the Allahabad High Court judgment on the Babri Masjid issue. Each of them in isolation is potentially damaging for the constitutional fabric of the country; together they can cause irreparable harm.

The first is the obliteration of the distinction between “fact” and “faith”, which represents a serious retrogression to pre-modernity.....
The second disturbing aspect of the judgment is the obliteration of the distinction between “negotiation” and adjudication.....The third problem with the judgment is that it has accepted the demolition of the Babri Masjid, an act that was a direct violation of the law of the land, as a fait accompli; and by remaining silent on this fait accompli while giving a verdict that echoes in essence what those who undertook the demolition were claiming, it has implicitly rationalized post facto that horrendous and unlawful act of demolition.

http://www.telegraph...n/story_13044306.jsp

>>What are the flaws of the verdict ?

1) It publically humiliated Wakf Board's expert witnesses (Historians) and exposed them for lying.
2) Offered 2/3rd land to Hindus.
3) Upheld the fact that there was an unbroken tradition/belief among the Hindu’s of the disputed site as being the birthplace of Lord Ram.

Sandip Dougal is a lying monsterous criminal thug because one of the Hindu litigants have offered hindu volunteers to rebuild the mosque and asked for muslim volunteers to helpbuild the temple.

Criminals like Dougal are out there to provoke the muslims.

"Having said that, let me add that in my opinion the Ayodhya verdict should be accepted even if it is flawed."

What are the flaws of the verdict ?

>> Great judicial system, but if verdict goes against us, the verdict is faulty!

Accepting each and every verdict as being perfect is not the sine qua non of any great judicial system. Having said that, let me add that in my opinion the Ayodhya verdict should be accepted even if it is flawed.

>>Rubbish!

Secular screams prove it is not!

>>Paeans to our judicial system, not to one court or to one verdict.

Right! Great judicial system, but if verdict goes against us, the verdict is faulty!

>> "The verdict has demolished the basic case of the Wakf Board which relied too much on fictitious history of frauds."

Rubbish!

>> it was his group which was singing paeans to our judicial system...

Paeans to our judicial system, not to one court or to one verdict.

>> Obviously it is never evident to the woefully blind! ...

Beautifully put RSM. Agree with your whole post.

>>These are meaningless statements. The verdict did not go as much your way as you think.

You really need to grow up and seen beyond ‘yours’ and ‘mine’. The verdict has demolished the basic case of the Wakf Board which relied too much on fictitious history of frauds.

>>And your assumptions about how the seculars would have reacted in different circumstances are ill-motivated.

Obviously it is never evident to the woefully blind! It was this group which started a contrived debate - ‘India has moved on’, it was this group which sermonized that the verdict should be accepted, it was his group which was singing paeans to our judicial system prior to the judgment and it was this group which claimed constitution is supreme. But after the verdict, we saw a summersault that would put professional gymnast to shame! It was the same group which now said it was panchayati style judgment, the same group that started spreading the canard that it was ’faith based’, the same group that started talking about Muslims loss of faith in the constitution, feeling like second class citizens, same group which started questioning the ASI report despite the court exposing the despicable conduct of historians, the same group that started having an issue with the word ‘grand’ in grand temple, the same group which started making alarmist arguments about Kashi and Mathura when a law against it exists. It was the same group that kept on whining on editorials, TV programs for an entire week!

These secular scumbags give us clear indication that whether India has moved on or not, they haven’t! They have invested their entire careers on the lies of the fraudulent historians. Consequently they were cocksure the verdict would be as per their fantasies. Ironically, the first people to say that it was nobody’s victory or defeat were the RSS.

dear rajeev thanks for your kind words and i am all for a peaceful settlement of the ayodhya issue.the world may nevr become secular but all religions were basically meant/by/for monarchy and success of democracy in several countries shows there is hope for secularism too.the role of religion for most if not all in this world is like the role the british queen has/plays for the commonwealth countries

GANAPATHY:
You do have a point with an underlying assumption that the religions are fundamentally - themselves - are a problem.

This is an ideology which many pursue and it is very specific. Though, there would be a strong divide on this point amongst a huge cross-section of people who consider themselves secular!

I do not know if the world would ever become secular as per your definition.

I have noted your opinion during many debates on the forum and even with the risk of digression, I must state that I do support equal access and opportunity as devotess as well as priests to all in our temples in Hinduism and I personally believe that we have to work hard to ensure that our people come out of the divides in the name of caste and creed. The sense of disrespect and being wronged due to many social evils in our country must go and in spite of huge efforts on this front this evil has not gone away fully. The work on these fronts needs to continue.

In the end, being an individual, I only wish that the Ayodhya issue does get resolved amicably and we take the road to a technologically advanced and a prosperous nation based on a constitution that guarantees individual freedom and protection to all its citizens. The conflicts and difference of opinion would remain...but bitterness could indeed reduce.

KUMAR:
Thanks. Now I have much better perspective on your views. I agree with your points.

communism democracy secularism are the methods/words which r basically meant to make the world free from the clutches of religion and hence any religious person is antisecular.

>> Could those who support right of Hindus on Ram Janma Bhumi be considered secular by you if they DO NOT support demolition of 'disputed structure' by mobs and the associated political-communal incitement/frenzy ?

If one owns a land and has the required permissions etc, one can build a temple or mosque or church or whatever (including a Ram Janma Bhumi temple or whatever deity one wants). That does not, in itself, tell if a person is secular or not. If the person believes that the state should protect the rights/justice/freedom of all citizens and should not have a state religion, then he/she is secular.

Thanks Anwaar. Your answer on the definition of secular and the resulting clarity would greatly increase power and numbers of those who stand for a SANE India.

KUMAR:
Let me rephrase the question for you. Actually it is great to have clarity on assumptions and our forum would really benefit by doing so-

Could those who support right of Hindus on Ram Janma Bhumi be considered secular by you if they DO NOT support demolition of 'disputed structure' by mobs and the associated political-communal incitement/frenzy ?

>> What is the definition of secular?
>> Could those who support right of Hindus on Ram Janma Bhumi be considered secular by you?

They are not secular if they also support demolition of Mosque by mobs and the associated political-communal incitement/frenzy.

Dubey,

>> What is the definition of secular?

In this particular discussion, I would think those who keep religious arguments out of the equation and focus on the title issues and the fact that one should not profit as a result of criminal actvity. I support the court verdict because I am in favor of a compromise, so in this case I am not with the seculars, although I enjoy their arguments.

>> Seculars would be least concerned if the verdict went the other way.

These are meaningless statements. The verdict did not go as much your way as you think. And your assumptions about how the seculars would have reacted in different circumstances are ill-motivated.

"there were no offers by Hindus to help the Muslims build a mosque on the land given to them."

Hindus should make a substantial contribution if muslims of Ayodhya decide to build a mosque on their land.

"Seculars would be least concerned if the verdict went the other way."

Spot on. Then the advice would have been to hindus about respecting the rule of law, the need to respect the judgement, moving forward and not backwards etc etc

Ashok Malik hits bulls eye among all the opinions presented.

Only Ashok Malik hits the nail on its head:
"They are picking loopholes in the judgement, misrepresenting it where possible — for instance, a judge’s observation that there is a history to the Hindu perception of Ayodhya being the birthplace of Ram is being passed off as acceptance of Ayodhya being the physical birthplace of Ram."

and

"but at no stage are they pointing to an alternative solution that is legally workable and socially sustainable."

And everyone else is crying about "faith over law." They are either ignoring the ASI report or rubbishing it altogether.

"The sense that justice was denied has been growing, not just among the Muslims, but so is the secular opinion in this country"

In fact, a common muslim has accepted the verdict more than the seculars.

"In this battle no one is talking of the Constitution of India that was violated 18 years ago; sadly not even the judges."

What a BS from a commie writer from Hindu. The demolition was not part of this case anyway. Why didn't Seema and her ilks raise their voice before the verdict to include that as part of the case ? Can you outlook stop this crap ? We had enuf of this so called commentaries. Let us get some "analysis". We do not want opinions of ignorants.

I remember the huge surge of emotions amongst the Hindus during the days of the event that destroyed the 'disputed stucture'. I also remember the days when I went door to door asking for support for riot victims and then visiting the riot affected areas under police protection. I remember seeing the burnt houses, destroyed families and I still feel sad that it all happened.

I do not remember any of the people opposing the verdict so vociferously trying to apply healing touch to either the Hindus who have felt ignored and have felt humiliated due to vote bank politics and I have not seen any of the people opposing the verdict so vociferously trying to talk with Muslims about the triviality of the place for their religion. Hindus really mean to get Ram Janma Bhumi and the opposition is not able to gauge it. It is like playing with fire for the fun of it. But this fire is dangerous. I wish it was understood.

ANWAAR:
What is the definition of secular?

Could those who support right of Hindus on Ram Janma Bhumi be considered secular by you?

"The illogical janmasthaan finding, which both leaders and intellectuals feel is the flawed centre of the judgment, is hardly mentioned. Why?"

The verbal diarrhea of secular fundamentalists refuses to stop. What is logic to these people ? A monitored ASI survey combined with history of worship is not logical ? no wonder some of these fundamentalists even claimed Ram;s birthplace is in Afghanistan..

"In this battle no one is talking of the Constitution of India that was violated 18 years ago; sadly not even the judges."

Seculars always proved that their hearts are one sided. Now they have proved they dont have brains also.. Will someone point out to this lady that a seperate criminal case in the SC is going on for the demolition and this case has got nothing to do with it ? Suppose A and B have a property dispute in the court and C destroys it, should the judgement for A and B include C's act ? why is the court expected to pass opinion on C when they are no where related and C's case is already there ?

"There is an attempt to provoke Muslim leaders into intemperate rhetoric. There is criticism of the judges, even to the extent of the clothes they wear and the food they eat as if this somehow clouds their legal sensibilities. There is an attempt to scare the Congress that the ‘Muslim street’ is upset, that it will lose minority votes and that it should oppose the judgement if not promise to negate it by legislation."

"Ayodhya’s politics is gradually being buried. Will the ‘secular modernists’ please allow the Ayodhya industry to be dismantled as well?"

Malik is up to the point, as usual..

Sorry dicta

>>These are legitimate concerns. They should concern us all, not just the seculars.

Seculars would be least concerned if the verdict went the other way. For all their pretence of liberalism, they follow only one dictum - ‘it is my way or the highway'!

Secular intellectuals want to court to rubber stamp what they want. They want to eat their cake and have it also.

They were howling from the top of their voice that we should respect the judicial verdict and now when the judicial verdict is upon us and it does not fit the idealogy of secular modernists then they outright reject the verdict.

These secular modernists have made an industry out of this issue and berated and demonised the legitimate rights of hindus over the disputed site. Now when the truth is out, like a deaf person they dont want to hear the truth and keep hiding behind the argument that faith has triumphed over law.

The law in India is required to uphold faith not denounce it. Hindus have a faith about the sacredness of the site before Babar came and build his site. History has shown how Hindus have always considered janamsthan as a sacred place for hindus.

The law is supposed to uphold faith and not denounce it and that is precisely what the verdict has done. I congratulate the HC for taking such a bold step.

Those who have seen and endured pre and post Babri destruction and blood lettings want peace,resolution of the problem. those who have not seen those hellish fires will have always the leisure of hair splitting 'oh not this and not that -yeh nahin hua woh nahin hua' These are empty talks.

These arm chaired ideologues never suffered nor they will ever suffer the consequences of their arm chair mind flights.Persons like me who have gone through those days know how innocents were killed or blasted will talk of peace and reconciliation .I saw Post Babri riots and saw innocents killed before my own eyes .I also saw the innocents blasted in the Mumbai Blasts. I saw an eighty year Muslim knifed before my own eyes from a distance of 30 meters in Mumbai riots .Another was saved due to sharpness of Hindu car driver .

Bhukat bhogi Persons like me always talk of peace and resolution. If again riots happen we will die not Seemas,Neerjas,Maliks ,Sibals ,Dasguptas or Sens.

They all are wind bags .So they are of no use to us .

Seema Mustafa:

"The sense that justice was denied has been growing, not just among the Muslims, but so is the secular opinion in this country. Any number of academics, historians and others have come out questioning the ruling. Union home minister P Chidambaram has said that this will not impact on the cases already in the courts against those held responsible for the demolition of the Babri mosque on December 6 1992. This, of course remains to be seen as the lawyers will definitely argue that the Lucknow Bench ruling makes it clear that a temple had existed on the spot, so those responsible for the demolition of the mosque, were only taking back what was theirs. In this battle no one is talking of the Constitution of India that was violated 18 years ago; sadly not even the judges."

These are legitimate concerns. They should concern us all, not just the seculars.

is ram temple part of the constitution.

hindus right to place of worship doesnt mean some fanatics entering a mosque/church/gurudwara and clandestinely placing the idols with the help of cunning district administrators with ulterior motives and becoming the rightful owner(NAYYAR later became an jan sangh MP).
there is a supreme court and the vindicated advani (if supreme court decides ulta he will voluntarily go inside the jail and lock himself)and ramjhanm bhoomi supporters can wait till it gives the verdict.
this talk of compromise after a defeated/victor judgement will do neither side any good

"In this battle no one is talking of the Constitution of India that was violated 18 years ago; sadly not even the judges. "

The counter opinion amongst the Ram Janmabhumi supporters is that the constitution of India was violated since the day it was framed, and then, all along till 1992 by the 'other' parties and hence such a strong outburst of mass feelings occured.

The Hindu community was forced to remain feeling humiliated by the very sight of the disputed structure before independence and even after independence.

The key sacred place of Hindus was held up hostage by a disputed structure and hence such a huge mass unrest took place. The constitution indeed guarantees Hindus right on their place of worship and that right was not restored by those in power by force and by unfair denials.

If the constitution of India was really followed the rebellion would have not happened.

The justice finally prevailed and the Ayodhya Verdict is first such step in that direction.

That is the counter opinion amongst the Ram Janma Bhumi supporters.