Babri Mosque bench judge goes public with dissent note

[fallstuff]

^^^ read my last post.

Your post has more holes than swiss cheese.

Taking wiki excerpts at face value from the page at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_of_Ayodhya

Controversy of the archaeological findings
The ASI findings are hotly disputed.[10]

In fact, two Muslim graves were also recovered in the excavation as reported in Outlook weekly. While the ASI videographed and photographed the graves on April 22, it did not perform a detailed analysis of them. The skeletons found at the site were not sent for carbon-dating, neither were the graves measured.[11]. Anirudha Srivastava a former ASI archaeologist said that in some trenches, some graves, terracotta and lime mortar and surkhi were also discovered which indicated Muslim habitation and it was also surmised that there existed some mosque on the site and that Babri was built on the site of another mosque

Following allegations that the Hari-Vishnu inscription corresponded to an inscription dedicated to Vishnu that was supposedly missing in the Lucknow State Museum since the 1980s, the museum director Jitendra Kumar stated that the inscription had never been missing from the museum, although it wasn't on display and he showed the inscription of his museum at a press conference for all to see. It was different in shape, colour and text contents from the Vishnu-Hari inscription.

Pillar bases were first discovered by the ASI's former director-general BB Lall in 1975. His report gave an enormous boost to the Ram Temple cause. It was however criticised by archaeologist D. Mandal. In the excavation of 2003, fifty of "pillar bases" were once again unearthed. Although they appear to be aligned, D. Mandal's conclusion by archaeological theory stated that: "pillar bases" belonged to different periods, that is, all of them had never existed together at any point of time; they were not really in alignment with one another; they were not even pillar bases, but junctions of walls, bases of the load-bearing columns at the intersections of walls

From BBC
BBC NEWS | South Asia | 'No sign' of Ayodhya temple

Independent archaeologists have been employed to try to determine whether the site at Ayodhya in northern Uttar Pradesh state belongs to Hindus or Muslims.

Archaeologists have spent the past three months tunnelling and digging and scraping away at earth beneath the site of a former mosque at Ayodhya.

In an interim report, the Archaeological Survey of India says it has not found any evidence of ruins of a Hindu temple.

The site in the northern Indian town has been at the centre of an angry dispute between Hindus and Muslims for decades.

Wiki again,

Court defers the use of ASI report
The Special full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, hearing the Ayodhya title suits on February 3 ruled that the report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which carried out excavations to find out whether a temple had ever existed at the place where once the Babri Masjid stood, would be seen only in the light of further evidence in the case. The three-member bench further remarked “no doubt, the objections taken against the report have to be considered before the ASI report is acted upon but that situation will arise only when the court decides the matter finally.”

The court remarked that it would not be advisable nor expedient to make any comments at this stage regarding the correctness or accuracy of the report, or the tenability or otherwise of the objections. Whether the report is biased or suffers from discrepancies or infirmities, or is unacceptable, for various reasons stated in objections have to be considered along with the rest of the evidence that has been brought on record, the Bench added and said that in its considered view this is not the proper stage to pronounce on these points.

These harsh, unkind and unpleasant comment aimed at the ASI, a very reputed institution and the excavating team of experts who after toil of months unearthed ruins of archeological materials that clearly indicated presence of a Hindu temple prior to Babri mosque. The finding must be taken as its face value without implying political-religious motive to the excavating team. Let the high court decide to what extent findings would help it come to a just, legal and human conclusion.

 

[navida]

Let's compare the situation at hand with a highly hypothetical, but very apt situation.

Say Hindus (India) attacks Mecca tomorrow & takes it by force. Then Hindus demolish the holiest mosque for muslims round the world. They build a Ram temple there, rule there for 200 years; a rule of pillage, intolerance, destruction of original culture. And they leave after 200 years.

Then angry muslims destroy the Ram mandir & the Mecca court has to decide what should be built there. Very simplistic by your approach, isn't it? Build a Ram mandir in Mecca & get done with it. Thats what was there for 200 years. Do you support my stance? Catching my drift?

As Mecca is for you, Ayodhya is for Hindus. But heck, I keep forgetting it is always the oppressed muslims, their grievances... why care for others?

You are going to be bombed for this hypothesis.

 

[fallstuff]

Your own court doesn't buy ASI report. Hindustan Times treated it with suspicion. The destroyed site was seriously compromised with fanatic Hindu mobs roaming all over it. Anybody can see why these bodies acted like that.

 

[Repentant]

After a good amount of reading, let me put this in perspective to both the sides here...

a temple was standing at a site which was torn down and a mosque built. The mosque was torn down to get back the temple. Some sense prevailed and the tempers were controlled before anything was built at the ravaged site. All we have now is an empty land. Now we have to decide what has to be built there. A mosque? or a temple?

the Muslims argue that since the mosque was already built there, and the said mosque was destroyed unlawfully, the people behind this should be punished and the mosque rebuilt.

The Hindus argue that since the temple was what initially was there and since the mosque was built by force, the temple should be built there. However, one thing we both agree here is probably that the mosque was torn down unlawfully.

What is 'unlawful'? Was only the destruction of the mosque unlawful? Was the destruction of the temple not unlawful because it happened hundreds of years ago or it was not unlawful because of some tyrant ruler who made laws as per his own whims?

So first agreement would be to punish the people tearing down the mosque - These people who pulled the mosque have been responsible for the killings of thousands of people in communal riots that occured almost every year since 1993 especially during election years.

I totally agree with that.

What I don't agree with is the suggestion by many of my fellow Indians that something other than temple or mosque should be built at the disputed site.

Why? Will this solve the problem? Don't you think you are running away from the problem rather than confronting it and grappling with it?

Even if you build some IIT/hospital or something will the enmity between the two communities which this dispute has created end? No it won't!

Muslims will always continue to say that the hindus destroyed their mosque and never let them rebuild it.

Hindus will always continue to say that the Muslims destroyed their temple and never let them rebuild it.

The enmity between the two communities will keep simmering until it bursts out into some other form at some other place. Running away from the problem won't solve it. It never did, it never will!

The problem is there and it has to be solved and that too in a way which preserves the amity and cordial relations between the two communities.

This cannot be done by a court of law. It has to be done through dialogue between the two communities. Although I do believe that in the current social structure, Indian society is very incapable of handling complex disputes like this that's why I propose that we should just lock down the site for say another 50-100 years and wait till the time our hindus/muslims become mature enough to learn to compromise with the other party. In the meantime, dialogue must continue and a common ground should be tried to be achieved. Also, govt. cannot remain a silent spectator in all of this. Govt. has to play the role of a neutral facilitator between the two communities.

 

[blooboy]

You failed to understand my post. It was a response to a post that that ridiculed muslim reaction to a "cartoon."

Two Sikh bodyguards killed Indira Gandhi. Hindus flatly blamed Sikhs and did a wholesale slaughter of the Sikhs. Not a sigle soul has been tried much less convicted. Same is Gujrat and Nellie massacre. The last two happened in the last decade. Once agian justice was not served in both cases. I do think you deny those acts were horrenndous else you would demand justice for the dead. Thousands of your fellow country men, women, and children were slaughtered , what is your response , you lecture and ridicule Muslims.


I don't see a problem in the ban of cow slaughter in secular India. However, that is imposing a religious value on the "secular" Indian population. If Govt decide to unban cow slaughter, How would the general Hindu polulation will react to that ?

Pork and ham are not banned in Bangladesh.

Cow slaughter is banned because 1) Cow is just not another ordinary animal to hindus. They consider it sacred. You simply cannot kill an animal that is considered to be sacred to 80% of the population. 2) Secularism does not mean bestowing all rights to appease muslims and ignoring hindu sentiments. 3) If muslims really want to eat big-meat, Bufallo meat is quite easily available and hindus have no objection to that. 4) During Id celebrations, muslims tend to slaughter cows in front of their hindu neighbours thereby creating uneasy scenes.
So banning cow-slaughter is simply common sense. I am a christian and I easy on eating cow-meat. BUT I care for my hindu brother's sentiments so I avoid it. This is SECULARISM. Caring for your each-others sentiments.

 

[toppys]

The slaughter of Muslims and Sikhs affect your concious ? You know in India cow slaughter is banned, why don't they unban that ? Beef will not be served in CWG , why is that ?

THe only reason they should ban it is the cruel way they transport these animals. Also any country beyond iran do not need animal diet as we have enough varities of grains fruits and pulses easily available unlike US and western countries and gulf where they have a social need to have non veg to sustain food for all. It is all bad habits we got from religion and western powers.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Cow slaughter is banned because 1) Cow is just not another ordinary animal to hindus. They consider it sacred. You simply cannot kill an animal that is considered to be sacred to 80% of the population. 2) Secularism does not mean bestowing all rights to appease muslims and ignoring hindu sentiments. 3) If muslims really want to eat big-meat, Bufallo meat is quite easily available and hindus have no objection to that. 4) During Id celebrations, muslims tend to slaughter cows in front of their hindu neighbours thereby creating uneasy scenes.
So banning cow-slaughter is simply common sense. I am a christian and I easy on eating cow-meat. BUT I care for my hindu brother's sentiments so I avoid it. This is SECULARISM. Caring for your each-others sentiments.

This so called sentiment is baseless and against other peoples freedom. India is a secular country. Cow is not holy for others.
what if pigs were holy for christians and chickens were holy for muslims and goat's were holy for sikh's and goats were holy for budhists (hypothetically)if so practically all meat should have been banned.. lol.

 

[fallstuff]

Cow slaughter is banned because 1) Cow is just not another ordinary animal to hindus. They consider it sacred. You simply cannot kill an animal that is considered to be sacred to 80% of the population.

Agreed. There is no muslim law states that a cow must be slaughtered. A goat or a bull will do just fine.Not a problem if this ban appeases to Hindu majority, commonly known as the tyranny of majority.

2) Secularism does not mean bestowing all rights to appease muslims and ignoring hindu sentiments.

Disagreed. You gotta take out that cow related stuff off your rules book. Your brethern in this forum run with secularism all day long. Once you get something like what the French folks (France goes after all religion) have, then you get your secular India, certainly not before that.

3) If muslims really want to eat big-meat, Bufallo meat is quite easily available and hindus have no objection to that.

Not sure what you mean, maybe you wanted to say red meat ? Big meat is like 16 or 24 oz NewYork Steak. Thats big meat homie !! Thank God I don't have to settle for buffalo which you so kindly approve.

4) During Id celebrations, muslims tend to slaughter cows in front of their hindu neighbours thereby creating uneasy scenes.

Those wretced muslim make a huge mess. You can actually make a case for slaughter houses and for zoning laws banning such acts. How dare they do it on your front yard !
Once again if appeasing the majority save lives, I am cool with that too.

So banning cow-slaughter is simply common sense. I am a christian and I easy on eating cow-meat. BUT I care for my hindu brother's sentiments so I avoid it. This is SECULARISM. Caring for your each-others sentiments

You sir certainly one of Indias finest. You certainnly do not want to upset your big brother. What does your Hindu brother does for you to reciprocate ?

 

[fallstuff]

THe only reason they should ban it is the cruel way they transport these animals. Also any country beyond iran do not need animal diet as we have enough varities of grains fruits and pulses easily available unlike US and western countries and gulf where they have a social need to have non veg to sustain food for all. It is all bad habits we got from religion and western powers.

I agree cattle are packed like sardines in trucks, I saw that in Dhaka.
I rarely eat beef, my diet is mostly fish and veggies.

What religion teaches bad habit like eating meat ?

 

[silent hill]

The reason Pakistanis are involved in this discussion is because the Babri Masjid incident had a profound impact on Pakistan too. Muslim fundamentalists from Pakistan wrongfully attacked Hindu temples in Pakistan and destroyed many this way.

This incident just solidified Jinnahs argument on why Partition was necessary, imagine a united India where this incident might have occured.

The verdict of this trial should be one that is satisfactory to the victims.

We do not want to be affected negatively again by this incident, India can prove it's secular and democratic credentials with the correct verdict.

is this your speculation or you have any proofs??

 

[Ganguly]

There shouldn’t be a ban on beef or pork in name of religion. Let the individuals take decisions whether they want it or not. No one is forcing anyone to have beef or pork. But if you want, you can have it. Government should be neutral.

 

[KS]

The reason Pakistanis are involved in this discussion is because the Babri Masjid incident had a profound impact on Pakistan too. Muslim fundamentalists from Pakistan wrongfully attacked Hindu temples in Pakistan and destroyed many this way.

This incident just solidified Jinnahs argument on why Partition was necessary, imagine a united India where this incident might have occured.

The verdict of this trial should be one that is satisfactory to the victims.

We do not want to be affected negatively again by this incident, India can prove it's secular and democratic credentials with the correct verdict.

Agree with the post except the bolded part.The judiciary cannot be biased in a way to give judgement in favour of someone.

Let them analyse the arguments from both sides and give a judgement based on the IPC and the tenets of the constitution.

But given the overwhelming Public sentiment on both sides and the ASI evidence of the presence of a temple as early as 10th century on that site the best the ruling will not be in favour of only one party - there will be something for both sides and you can be assured of that.

Maybe something like a Temple facing east (as is the tradition) and a mosque facing West back to back.

And also India doesnt need to prove "secular" credentials to anyone except to us - Indians. And "secularism" doesnt mean "minorityism".

What needs to be built there is a World class university!!! maybe call it Babri University?

Sorry no names after foreign invaders . Maybe something like Asoka or Chandragupta after rulers of Ancient,United India.

 

[AR]

You are going to be bombed for this hypothesis.

no he said true...

 

[Bang Galore]

I guess a lot of people on this forum are going to be disappointed with the court verdict. What is in front of the court is a property dispute, all other matters are irrelevant.I cannot fathom people asking for punishment for the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992 when this suit predates that. Punishment or not is to be dealt with in a criminal trial, this is simply a civil suit.

I see two videos and one picture, none of those show anything consistent with a Temple. I would also like to know who did the archelogical research and the people in that research body. How biased these people are should be under consideration also.

Your own court doesn't buy ASI report. Hindustan Times treated it with suspicion. The destroyed site was seriously compromised with fanatic Hindu mobs roaming all over it. Anybody can see why these bodies acted like that.

Regardless of the objections raised, the ASI is regarded as the only institute on which the court can rely for objective & neutral evidence.How much the court relies on their findings will be known when the judgment comes out.Since they were the ones who did the excavation, any statements from historians/archeologists who were not present can hardly be taken as objective.

 

[navida]

Agreed. There is no muslim law states that a cow must be slaughtered. A goat or a bull will do just fine.Not a problem if this ban appeases to Hindu majority, commonly known as the tyranny of majority.

OH My! How terrible... What a tyranny! We are torturing and having a tyrannical rule on muslims by banning cow slaughter..

So you can follow islam only by eating beef? The biggest torture the Hindus have done to their muslim country men is not allowing them to slaughter cows? Do you even have a clue how utterly stupid you sound?

First of all give us a source to your claim that cow slaughter is banned in India. Don't just imagine something on argue on that.

But seriously, banning beef slaughter is the most valid point you got against Indian secularism? Pathetic!