What's new

Allahabad Court's Ayodhya Verdict is Unjust and Unwise

@fallstuff

because you are constructing real debate than flaming I would answer it.

In real Sunni Waqf board's plea was rejected because of time barred it doesn't stop them to put forward evidence that both Hindus and Muslims use to worship at the same masjid at least or before 1855 which is also noticed by Justice Khan.

So, basically suit of Sunni Board of claiming whole land is rejected while similar claim of Nirmohi Akhara is also rejected. Even though Ram lalla suit is accepted it doesn't mean it will favor them. If you see the result, suit filing didn't resulted in anything.

Judges gave 1/3rd of the disputed site to Hindus while 1/3rd to Muslims while 1/3rd which was in possession of Nirmohi Akhara since or before 18th century get the share.

Now in real dispute is of 2/3rd of land of which 1/3rd is given to Hindus and 1/3rd to Muslims for sake that both community use to pray inside the dome Masjid. Hindus use to pray in center of dome while muslims on the left side of dome.

If you see the reaction of Mohm. Ansari, oldest witness of this case always want this type of partition and he also said that he is very happy with decision, but I guess does are politicians happy ?

I am not sure what is the confusion here...Can someone please help???

My simple question is any party successful in proving their title on the land??? To the best of my understanding the answer is no....Under such circumstances what else people were looking out as a verdict??
 
.
No such suggestion can be made without actually going through the heaps of evidence that have been presented both for and against the case. It took 50 years for the Court to get here.

In fact we are all opining without actually going through the, purportedly, 10,000 page verdict.

Yes you are right....however partially...Obviously it is not practical to go over heaps of evidence and then pass judgements but we can take the judgement on its face value and discuss about it....

Many sections are saying that Court went overboard and divided the land when neither party asked for it...Seems like this is what we are challenging here...no??? Now my question to all those members is what else do you expect??? If neither party has been able to prove beyond doubt about their ownership of the land then how can one of them get the complete custody???
 
.
The bottom line is that by awarding 2/3rd of the disputed land to the hooligans, the Allahabad High Court has set a very dangerous precedent.

The Allahabad High Court has awarded the hooligans land that they did not control. It's their reward that has been legitimized by the court for resorting to hooliganism and violence. This is going to prompt them to indulge in more violence at all other places of minority worship.

Haq's Musings: Ayodhya Verdict Belongs in the Hall of Shame of Indian Judiciary
 
.
Here is the reaction of Dr John Dayal, Secretary General, ALL INDIA CHRISTIAN COUNCIL on Ayodhya verdict:

The judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High court today [30th September 2010] on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute is patently based on populist and political sensitivities, rather than on points of law. Its implications, not just for the Muslims who were a party in the dispute, but all other religious minorities is yet to be fully assessed, but here is little doubt that there is an ominous aura to a verdict being touted by some as the only way to inter community peace in India. Judges SU Khan, Aggarwal and D V Sharma – the last of the 18 justices who have heard the case since its inception — have given a legal cloak to popular Hindu mythology and faith that the Lord Rama was born at the very spot where the mosque was built over the ruins of a Hindu temple sometime in 1528 AD during the reign of Emperor Babar.

The fractured judgement — Justice Sharma took an absolute and unabashed pro-Hindu line while the other two appeared to give somewhat more consideration to the arguments of both Hindus and Muslims — does not bring a closure to the dispute as an appeal in the Supreme Court is inevitable. But Hindu groups, who see the demolition of the mosque on 6 December 1992 as the natural outburst of an injured majority sentiment, have hailed this as a glorious victory. RSS chief Bhagwat has called upon all Hindus and others to join in a national campaign to build a “magnificent” Ram temple at the spot. Political leaders such as Mr Lal Krishan Advani have supported this move, and others have asked the Muslims to be magnanimous in defeat. The more virulent right wing of the Sangh Parivar, unmoved by calls of restraint, has demanded absolute control of the Mosque land, and everything else around it.

All sides have three months to move the Supreme Court. The time, some feel, may be used for out of court negotiations and dialogues which will make it easy for the Supreme court to make the High Court decision absolute and pave the way at some time in the future for the Ram Temple to take shape. The more secular elements, among them academics, hope the Supreme Court will take a long enough time for a new generation of Indians to accept the situation with the baggage of emotions and religious fervour.

That is as maybe. But jurists, law scholars and thinkers among the minority communities have been left numb at the Lucknow bench’s effort to play “village mediator”, accept mythology and theology as legal facts, and then proceed to divide the disputed land in a three way distribution – one part to the Muslims and two parts to two different Hindu groups. This surprised most because it is not even a prayer by any one of the many litigants. This also treads a very thin edge of the legal wedge in
India where land disputes between religious groups is legion, and documentation, written and archaeological very scarce. Even in the Hindu Muslim relationship, there are at least three other major Temple-mosque disputes and the Sangh Parivar lay claims to as many as 3,000 mosques built at various times over former temples. Forgotten in this claim is the history of Buddhist stupas and shrines all over the country which were demolished to make way for temples during the first Hindu resurgence a thousand years ago. There are, however, no Buddhists of Indian origins in any numbers to make a claim. Also apparently blown away by the wind is the law of the land that the religious character of a building, church, mosque, temple or gurudwara, has been “fixed” for all times from the moment of India’s Independence on 15th August 1947 and no one can usurp each other’s religious places.

The High Court judgment on Ayodhaya, if it becomes the law of the land through the Supreme Court, has ominous ramifications for India?s minority communities John Dayal
 
.
Yaar same thing again and again.....India has moved beyond that verdict and few people are still digging the grave....I heard that parties are going for Supreme court now......lets enjoy CWG at present.....

@haq u are getting boring now......
 
.
To all those decrying the judgement tell me one thing:

What better judgement that caters to the sensitivities of all the religions and better than the existing one could have been given..?

IMHO the three judges yesterday were faced with one of the most difficult jobs they ever had to do and have done it in a way that hurts none's sentiments.

I guess one of the major point of contention here is that why did the judges make a decision on basis of religious belief. Their duty would be to make a decision on the basis of law and the constitution and not what the majority believes.

At least that is what I gather from the article from The Hindu.

Although the bolded part is not my opinion, but if it is true, then the Supreme Court must make an impartial decision based on the constitution if India's secularism is to be upheld.
 
.
The bottom line is that by awarding 2/3rd of the disputed land to the hooligans, the Allahabad High Court has set a very dangerous precedent.

The Allahabad High Court has awarded the hooligans land that they did not control. It's their reward that has been legitimized by the court for resorting to hooliganism and violence. This is going to prompt them to indulge in more violence at all other places of minority worship.

Haq's Musings: Ayodhya Verdict Belongs in the Hall of Shame of Indian Judiciary

Dont use that language. What do you know of the Hindu mahasabha and the Nirmohi Akhara? Were they involved in the demolition, if thats why you are calling them names?

Its like calling the WTC site Mosque as being built by terrorists! Do we call all Muslims terrorists?
 
.
Dont use that language. What do you know of the Hindu mahasabha and the Nirmohi Akhara? Were they involved in the demolition, if thats why you are calling them names?

Its like calling the WTC site Mosque as being built by terrorists! Do we call all Muslims terrorists?

This is absolute nonsense!

There is no comparison between the two situations.

The ground zero mosque has existed for years in its current location, it's been using an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory building legitimately bought by an American Muslim developer, and it has been operating with permission of the authorities.

All that is changing now is that it's being rebuilt to add other facilities such as an auditorium, prayer spaces for Christians and Jews and sports facilities.
 
.
There is wrong belief that Judges have given the verdict on the basis of Beliefs of Religion.

The reason belief was used is not in the case of dividing the land but is in the case questions which are filed attached to the case.

If you have look at the report of S U Khan. Click Here to see

You will find that he himself dismissed all the fact while deciding the land suit. In his wordings he says " As far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room for historical facts and claims. Reliance on borderline historical facts will lead to erroneous conclusions.”

Thus it prove that Justice SU Khan didn't gave the verdict according to belief but on the basis of possession, prayer offersing and all that.

According to Justice SU Khan, at least or before 1855 both community use to worship in the structure (de facto Mosque) and there were pictures of Hindu gods (means pillars itself includes the pictures which were taken from ruin temples). In his wordings, It is correct that in a mosque there should not be any photo or carving of any living creature however, it is for the conscience of the Muslims who in a mosque go to pray to decide as to whether it is appropriate for them to offer prayer even if it contains one or two such pillars on which such figures may be discernible even though with some difficulty. Although he maintain that although there photos in the pillar (Hindus), it still doesn't de facto makes it non-mosque, hence muslims still are in the case. That is the reason even though Sunni Waqf board's case was time barred, Muslims were still entitle to get the share in the land.
 
.
OH my my..............Musings.........This blog never fails to amuse me.

It was a title suit..............not a god damm partition thing.

Only one should have full control.............Muslims or Hindus or Jains......

Its just like political justice not legal.
 
.
I think Jains must file the case in supreme court that those pillars found match the material used in Jain temples built in 6th century rather those of Hindus.

I am really disappointed on the fact that ASI report has not been fully analyzed. It is quite possible that Jain temple was there before Babri Masjid was raised similar to Qutb Minar. Although I don't want more problems but because suit itself is a lot of problem we should in indulge in that. What thing we must ensure if we win is that no construction of any type of Religion. I hope Jain community get up and suit the title.
 
.
This is absolute nonsense!

There is no comparison between the two situations.

The ground zero mosque has existed for years in its current location, it's been using an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory building legitimately bought by an American Muslim developer, and it has been operating with permission of the authorities.

All that is changing now is that it's being rebuilt to add other facilities such as an auditorium, prayer spaces for Christians and Jews and sports facilities.

There absolutely is. You are generalizing people of one religion as hooligans and I (in my post above) as terrorists. If you can generalize one group be prepared to face the same tune yourself.
 
.
My simple question is any party successful in proving their title on the land??? To the best of my understanding the answer is no....Under such circumstances what else people were looking out as a verdict??
I agree to this point. It is virtually impossible for the legal system to rule a judgement purely based on faith and what was being practiced centuries ago. Neither can the hindus prove that this place was built after demolishing an ancient temple, nor can the muslims disprove that the masjid stood on ruins of an ancient temple site. We all have to take the judgement with a pinch of salt and settle with the compromise.

However I would have been happier with the judgement if the court would have allowed the masjid to stand at its place and instead given the empty land where the new temple could have been constructed.
 
. .
There absolutely is. You are generalizing people of one religion as hooligans and I (in my post above) as terrorists. If you can generalize one group be prepared to face the same tune yourself.

Robbie let it go! You do not want to get down to his level. Its people like him, who have deep hatred to Hindus, that give Pakistan a bad name. Such extreme prejudiced opinions and unjust classification of people of other religions is the reason why people like him want to voice their opinions when it has nothing to do with them!
He just wants to take a dig at Hindus thats all..The people of India have given him the answer when people across the border have protested on the streets. There lies the big difference. Now tell me who is "Hooligan"?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom