Allahabad Court's Ayodhya Verdict is Unjust and Unwise

[StingRoy]

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Lessons from Ayodhya

I think this paragraph from the article sums it all :

The verdict, at least on the surface, does seem to be a masterstroke. It has not only managed to cleverly soften the religious sentiments of both the communities (regarding the issue), it has also come out looking like a firm expression of India’s 63-year-old democracy its pluralistic dynamics.


Another interesting para:
However, despite of this, Pakistan too remained calm. No mandirs were burned, no Hindus killed. Perhaps already sickened and exhausted by the slaughtering of Muslims by Muslims and Pakistanis by Pakistanis, the ruling merely seemed to have had an academic interest in this country.

 

[justanobserver]

--------------------------------------------------------
Shia outfit asks AIMPLB not to challenge Ayodhya verdict

Hussaini Tigers, an organisation of Shia youths, on Friday urged the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) not to approach the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya title suits and instead let the matter end here for good. It also announced a financial aid of Rs
15 lakh for construction of the temple at the site.

Criticising Samajwadi Party president Mulayam Singh Yadav and Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid Syed Ahmed Bukhari for their criticism of the verdict, Shamsi termed them as "most unfortunate."

"Hussaini Tigers and some other organisations of Muslim youths want that the matter should not be allowed to linger for long by appealing against the High Court and we are meeting the members of AIMPLB in this regard", its state unit President Shamil Shamsi said.

"It was being stated by Muslim leaders as well as AIMPLB and the Sunni Central Waqf Board, the main litigant in the case, before the pronouncement of the verdict that everyone would accept it and now there was no point in going back on it", Shamsi said adding the Board should take an initiative to end the dispute for good.

Shamsi said that on the basis of the High Court verdict the Hindus and Muslims should present an example of communal harmony before the world and help each other in getting the mosque and temple constructed.

Announcing a financial aid of Rs. 15 lakhs for temple construction, Shamsi said Hindus should also cooperate for mosque on the one-third piece of land given to the Waqf board.

Noted Shia cleric and member of AIMPLB Kalbe Jawwad is the patron of Hussaini Tigers.

-------------------------------------------------
A remarkable gesture

 

[arihant]

Someone asked me what is my personal opinion. As far things are concern before giving my view, its better to declare that I am not Hindu and neither I believe every principles of the same. But still I do believe in mythological stories of Hindus and in fact I believe it true because at least I was able to verify the same through facts, dates and remaining ruins. But according to me all the historic characters were nothing but a common man with great vision, leadership, etc. They were one of the lakh of greatest ever since it was Satya Yug (A cycle of truth rather than false). Since I don't consider them god (I consider god as formless, nameless), I don't have problem if Mandir or Masjid or both are not created. But I do believe that this area, should be awarded to Central Govt. with condition that it will display the history, views and culture of RAMA. I am fan of RAMA and its way of living but certainly it can be heavy against my view on singe gold almighty whoever so.

To me Hindus should know that God created us not just to pray for them but to establish a society that live in peace and calm. What we are doing is against God's will by giving undue attention, spending money, killing through riots and all that.

I don't want say anything Muslim in this context, because they should himself decide what is best, as I am not affirmative with the Islamic laws.

If anyone can prove that helping the poor rather than worshiping the god, is un Islamic, non Hindu act, than I must surrender myself to this earth rather than giving to God, that is selfish.

 

[arihant]

--------------------------------------------------------
Shia outfit asks AIMPLB not to challenge Ayodhya verdict

Hussaini Tigers, an organisation of Shia youths, on Friday urged the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) not to approach the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya title suits and instead let the matter end here for good. It also announced a financial aid of Rs
15 lakh for construction of the temple at the site.

Criticising Samajwadi Party president Mulayam Singh Yadav and Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid Syed Ahmed Bukhari for their criticism of the verdict, Shamsi termed them as "most unfortunate."

"Hussaini Tigers and some other organisations of Muslim youths want that the matter should not be allowed to linger for long by appealing against the High Court and we are meeting the members of AIMPLB in this regard", its state unit President Shamil Shamsi said.

"It was being stated by Muslim leaders as well as AIMPLB and the Sunni Central Waqf Board, the main litigant in the case, before the pronouncement of the verdict that everyone would accept it and now there was no point in going back on it", Shamsi said adding the Board should take an initiative to end the dispute for good.

Shamsi said that on the basis of the High Court verdict the Hindus and Muslims should present an example of communal harmony before the world and help each other in getting the mosque and temple constructed.

Announcing a financial aid of Rs. 15 lakhs for temple construction, Shamsi said Hindus should also cooperate for mosque on the one-third piece of land given to the Waqf board.

Noted Shia cleric and member of AIMPLB Kalbe Jawwad is the patron of Hussaini Tigers.

-------------------------------------------------
A remarkable gesture

It is not only remarkable but will be first stone that will be put down to construct a temple of RAM side by the mosque.

What I am glad is that one of the party of muslim but not a party of verdict has asked both of them to come and bring harmony.

To me if VHP back the news with that Igdah masjid will remain forever on Krishna Janasthan than it would be really foot forward to secularism. But because its secularism one can't force anyone.

 

[justanobserver]

^^
Your location 'non-hindu' seems weird


ps: I'm a Jain too

 

[arihant]

^^
Your location 'non-hindu' seems weird


ps: I'm a Jain too

Jai Jinendra.

Well technically we might be same but in views I differ a lot from my parents also. My parents are pro hindu but I am anti hindu whenever there is any type of room to do so. But I am not a person who will bash but will consider their point and will answer accordingly.

 

[indiaworldpower]

The long awaited ruling of the Allahabad High Court on the disputed Ayodhya site was announced today.

Here's a brief excerpt of how the BBC has reported the Ayodhya verdict:

In a majority verdict, judges gave control of the main disputed section, where a mosque was torn down in 1992, to Hindus.

Other parts of the site will be controlled by Muslims and a Hindu sect.

Allahabad High Court is trying to create a false appearance of Solomon's wisdom by ordering what is being advertised as "split-the-baby" verdict.

In reality, though, the court has wrongly sided with the violent Hindutva outfits in practice by giving the main site where Babri masjid stood to Hindus.

L.K. Advani and other major Hindutva leaders, including Gujarat Chief Minister Narebdra Modi, have welcomed it and vowed to build "Ram Temple" on two-thirds of the disputed land awarded by an extremely unwise and politically motivated decision of the Allahabad Court.

Here's the Breaking News report:

Breaking News! Veteran BJP Leader LK Advani, who spearheaded the Ram Mandir (Ram Temple) movement in the 1990s, welcomed the Allahabad High Court's verdict on Ayodhya land. Advani hailed the High Court for acknowledging the disputed site as Lord Ram (Ram Lalla)'s birth place.....Meanwhile, Gujarat CM Narendra Modi has welcomed the Ayodhya Verdict and said that decks have been cleared for the construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya.

With mass murderers like Modi welcoming the Allahabad court verdict, it brings nothing but shame to India's judiciary and its much-hyped secular democracy.

Let's hope and pray that this latest verdict does not lead to more innocent blood being shed because of an unwise and unjust court ruling favoring the Hindu provocateurs and perpetrators of the crime of demolishing Babri mosque in 1992 and subsequent massacres of Muslim minority. Let's also hope that the Indian Supreme Court eventually reverses the Allahabad court verdict on appeal.

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

What can we poor Indian do. In our country everyone (including PM) have to follow what court says. It would have been better if we had justice system as Pakistan has, where PM, President and Army chief do whatever they want no matter what supreme court judge says.

 

[KS]

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.

I could not explain better than post # 39.

Religious beliefs did not come in the way of the verdict

And by the way all those ,making hoopla abt Religion coming in the way of Law...Does the name Shah Bano ring any bell..? you hypocrites.

Jai Jinendra.
Well technically we might be same but in views I differ a lot from my parents also. My parents are pro hindu but I am anti hindu whenever there is any type of room to do so. But I am not a person who will bash but will consider their point and will answer accordingly.

Lol you dont seem to be that kind of a blind hater like some ppl. You dont even seem to be a hater.

 

[Meengla]

This judgement brings a quote from Arundhati Roy: "How deep you are going to dig?". What she was trying to say that, may be, just may be, hundreds of years ago Mughal emperor Babar had built a mosque above some Hindu temple. But, according to Roy, that temple itself may have been built upon something else.

Her message was for tolerance. To tolerate what we humans collectively had done over thousands of years ago. But not to tolerate a resurgence of such attitude now.

That is an idealistic position. Kudos to Ms. Roy for that. I hope she wins some kind of Nobel Prize.

Coming back to the topic: I think this is a good decision by the Indian court. Even if it was essentially an injustice against the Muslims but getting the whole land back to the Muslims would have caused severe consequences for Indian Muslims. They would be alone to bear the pain. If Pakistan cannot take back a mere 300,000 of Bihari Pakistanis into Pakistan then Pakistan cannot/would not do anything for tens of millions of Indian Muslims. So we Pakistanis better shut up and let Indian Muslims find their place in India.
And they WILL find their place because they are humans, living amongst other humans.

 

[RiazHaq]

This judgement brings a quote from Arundhati Roy: "How deep you are going to dig?". What she was trying to say that, may be, just may be, hundreds of years ago Mughal emperor Babar had built a mosque above some Hindu temple. But, according to Roy, that temple itself may have been built upon something else.

Here's a quote from Dr. John Dayal of All India Christian Council:

"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

 

[S.U.R.B.]

Looks more like a political settlement to me than a judgment.Or something like buying time for CWG.Trying to appease both Hindus and Muslims(Both of them right and both of them wrong at the same time....).Question is if the decision stays the way it is,it will become a precedent for future court decisions.And who know which mosque gets the next number.And this thing can get out of the hands of Indian minorities.

Anyways there is still an option to challenge the court's verdict in supreme court.

 

[arihant]

Here's a quote from Dr. John Dayal of All India Christian Council:

"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

I should answer you one by one if you want to know ? Even though you may not give any damn to neutral view still others may.

First of according to Indian Act 1993 which laid down to protect all religious places since 1947. Because act came after claim was laid in 1949, the act could not imposed on this dispute. The rule that act can't be applied to current cases was passed by British very long. Lot of acts got changed but the acts were not relevant to this dispute since all the view should be prior to 1947 acts.

Since act has came now, VHP or RSS can't claim on other religious plcaes. Moreover they were claiming only three places ayodhya, kashi and mathura.

Since we are walking with Ayodhya verdict as of now, I will also let you know that Muslim Mosque is still there on legally Hindu Land. Legally Land is still own by Hindu Mahasabha but they itself has announced that they will not be break the mosque unless court say so. Since they didn't ask the court on this at before 1993, it can't break down by any act now. Moreover, VHP has given hint that they will not claim any land further after Ayodhya Dispute resolution.

The wordings of Dr. John Dayal are not backed by the proofs. Moreover he forget that Buddhist came after Jainism and Hinduism and since Hinduism itself treats God Budda as of one the great leader (and may be god), there seems to be no chance of such destruction. Since there is no proof it can be backed no such thing happened.

I think Ayodhya claim is on the basis scared place rather more of temple. Even SU Khan recognized the Muslim point that temple was not destroyed but surely it was built on scared place with the help of temple pillars where in old condition at the same scared place.

And about tolerance, the left 4999 mosques is enough.

 

[RiazHaq]

Here's an OpEd by Romila Thapar, a distinguished historian of Early India:

The verdict is a political judgment and reflects a decision which could as well have been taken by the state years ago. Its focus is on the possession of land and the building a new temple to replace the destroyed mosque. The problem was entangled in contemporary politics involving religious identities but also claimed to be based on historical evidence. This latter aspect has been invoked but subsequently set aside in the judgment.

The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or semi-divine person was born and where a new temple is to be built to commemorate the birth. This is in response to an appeal by Hindu faith and belief. Given the absence of evidence in support of the claim, such a verdict is not what one expects from a court of law. Hindus deeply revere Rama as a deity but can this support a legal decision on claims to a birth-place, possession of land and the deliberate destruction of a major historical monument to assist in acquiring the land?

The verdict claims that there was a temple of the 12th Century AD at the site which was destroyed to build the mosque — hence the legitimacy of building a new temple.

The excavations of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and its readings have been fully accepted even though these have been strongly disputed by other archaeologists and historians. Since this is a matter of professional expertise on which there was a sharp difference of opinion the categorical acceptance of the one point of view, and that too in a simplistic manner, does little to build confidence in the verdict. One judge stated that he did not delve into the historical aspect since he was not a historian but went to say that history and archaeology were not absolutely essential to decide these suits! Yet what are at issue are the historicity of the claims and the historical structures of the past one millennium.

A mosque built almost 500 years ago and which was part of our cultural heritage was destroyed wilfully by a mob urged on by a political leadership. There is no mention in the summary of the verdict that this act of wanton destruction, and a crime against our heritage, should be condemned. The new temple will have its sanctum — the presumed birthplace of Rama — in the area of the debris of the mosque. Whereas the destruction of the supposed temple is condemned and becomes the justification for building a new temple, the destruction of the mosque is not, perhaps by placing it conveniently outside the purview of the case.
Has created a precedent

The verdict has created a precedent in the court of law that land can be claimed by declaring it to be the birthplace of a divine or semi-divine being worshipped by a group that defines itself as a community. There will now be many such janmasthans wherever appropriate property can be found or a required dispute manufactured.What happened in history, happened. It cannot be changed. But we can learn to understand what happened in its fuller context and strive to look at it on the basis of reliable evidence. We cannot change the past to justify the politics of the present. The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace history with religious faith. True reconciliation can only come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not just on faith and belief, but on evidence.


The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : The verdict on Ayodhya: a historian's perspective

 

[RamGorur]

This is beyond ridiculous. Everybody is a legal expert now.

The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or semi-divine person was born and where a new temple is to be built to commemorate the birth.

Fail. It was only Justice Sharma who made this observation, that too his personal one, not contained in the operating part of the verdict.

There is nothing in the verdict that establishes 'a particular spot' to be the spot 'where a divine or semi-divine person was born', except for acknowledgment that it is Hindu faith that believes it to be the birth place of 'divine or semi-divine person'.

The verdict claims that there was a temple of the 12th Century AD at the site which was destroyed to build the mosque — hence the legitimacy of building a new temple.

Double fail. The basis for legitimizing the building of new temple is adverse possession and not any destruction of temple in medieval times.

One judge stated that he did not delve into the historical aspect since he was not a historian but went to say that history and archaeology were not absolutely essential to decide these suits! Yet what are at issue are the historicity of the claims and the historical structures of the past one millennium.

Triple fail. The issue is of title to property and demarcation. History relevant to this is more than enough. Once adverse possession was established, the history beyond this was irrelevant.

A mosque built almost 500 years ago and which was part of our cultural heritage was destroyed wilfully by a mob urged on by a political leadership. There is no mention in the summary of the verdict that this act of wanton destruction, and a crime against our heritage, should be condemned. The new temple will have its sanctum — the presumed birthplace of Rama — in the area of the debris of the mosque. Whereas the destruction of the supposed temple is condemned and becomes the justification for building a new temple, the destruction of the mosque is not, perhaps by placing it conveniently outside the purview of the case.

Quadruple fail. The criminal case was beyond the scope of this civil suit.

Has created a precedent

The verdict has created a precedent in the court of law that land can be claimed by declaring it to be the birthplace of a divine or semi-divine being worshipped by a group that defines itself as a community. There will now be many such janmasthans wherever appropriate property can be found or a required dispute manufactured.What happened in history, happened.

Pentuple fail. The basis of the award was, once again, adverse possession and not the claim that it was a birth place of a holy person. This question was a separate issue and practically became a side note to the question of title to property once adverse possession was established. Besides, Justice Sharma's personal opinion, being minority opinion, will also not create any legal precedence.

 

[pmukherjee]

Here's an OpEd by Romila Thapar, a distinguished historian of Early India:

The verdict is a political judgment and reflects a decision which could as well have been taken by the state years ago. Its focus is on the possession of land and the building a new temple to replace the destroyed mosque. The problem was entangled in contemporary politics involving religious identities but also claimed to be based on historical evidence. This latter aspect has been invoked but subsequently set aside in the judgment.

The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or semi-divine person was born and where a new temple is to be built to commemorate the birth. This is in response to an appeal by Hindu faith and belief. Given the absence of evidence in support of the claim, such a verdict is not what one expects from a court of law. Hindus deeply revere Rama as a deity but can this support a legal decision on claims to a birth-place, possession of land and the deliberate destruction of a major historical monument to assist in acquiring the land?

The verdict claims that there was a temple of the 12th Century AD at the site which was destroyed to build the mosque — hence the legitimacy of building a new temple.

The excavations of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and its readings have been fully accepted even though these have been strongly disputed by other archaeologists and historians. Since this is a matter of professional expertise on which there was a sharp difference of opinion the categorical acceptance of the one point of view, and that too in a simplistic manner, does little to build confidence in the verdict. One judge stated that he did not delve into the historical aspect since he was not a historian but went to say that history and archaeology were not absolutely essential to decide these suits! Yet what are at issue are the historicity of the claims and the historical structures of the past one millennium.

A mosque built almost 500 years ago and which was part of our cultural heritage was destroyed wilfully by a mob urged on by a political leadership. There is no mention in the summary of the verdict that this act of wanton destruction, and a crime against our heritage, should be condemned. The new temple will have its sanctum — the presumed birthplace of Rama — in the area of the debris of the mosque. Whereas the destruction of the supposed temple is condemned and becomes the justification for building a new temple, the destruction of the mosque is not, perhaps by placing it conveniently outside the purview of the case.
Has created a precedent

The verdict has created a precedent in the court of law that land can be claimed by declaring it to be the birthplace of a divine or semi-divine being worshipped by a group that defines itself as a community. There will now be many such janmasthans wherever appropriate property can be found or a required dispute manufactured.What happened in history, happened. It cannot be changed. But we can learn to understand what happened in its fuller context and strive to look at it on the basis of reliable evidence. We cannot change the past to justify the politics of the present. The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace history with religious faith. True reconciliation can only come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not just on faith and belief, but on evidence.


The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : The verdict on Ayodhya: a historian's perspective

The credentials of Ms Thapar as an eminent historian are widely accepted. However, I was not aware that she was also an exponent on the Indian Evidence Act. One does not expect a historian to comment on the judicial merits of a judgement given by judges who have spent most of their lives studying and practicing law.

But then, Ms Thapar is fortunate to be living in a democracy and so she can comment like an expert on all matters under the sun. Whether or not she is qualified or knowledgeable enough to make such comments, is of little consequence.