Babri Mosque verdict and it's repurcussions

[Ganguly]

Earlier political parties tried to gain mileage leveraging this issue and created prejudice. Now the political parties understood, in long run this type of cheap publicity won’t help. Development, better quality of life, more stability and income, better health infrastructure, good quality education system will attract people towards them. We are no fools to fight over some Mandir- Masjid issue. We do have other important issues like inflation etc. Whatever the court verdict, nothing will happen. This is India for you.

 

[Trisonics]

You guys do know there is a Muslim Ramayana as well right?

Mappillapattu—a genre of song popular among the Muslims belonging to Kerala and Lakshadweep—has incorporated some episodes from the Ramayana into its songs. These songs, known as Mappila Ramayana, have been handed down from one generation to the next orally.[53] In Mappila Ramayana, the story of the Ramayana has been changed into that of a sultan, and there are no major changes in the names of characters except for that of Rama which is `Laman' in many places. The language and the imagery projected in the Mappilapattu are in accordance with the social fabric of the earlier Muslim community.[53]

 

[jbond197]

Guys cut out the debate about gods, prophets and angels... This thread is about the verdict in India

And you quoted about the existence of Ram. No Hindu needs to prove to anybody about his existence so please keep that in mind before you throw out some BS. Otherwise be prepared to answer some serious questions about existence of lots of things in your religion too.

The case is about the existence of Ram temple which was demolished to built mosque and not about existence of Ram or what not?
The excavation of the site is the only scientific procedure to verify what was there before mosque was built and Courts will look into that and decide. That has nothing to do with existence of Ram. I hope its clear to you and few others now.

 

[karan.1970]

Well the question of "rebuilding" was there, hence, my statement.

From the perspective of the title grant too, I feel in all likelihood the case will be award to the mosque. The Ram temple has never been conclusively proven, the birth place of Raam cannot be proven since the existence of Raam can never be proven. By process of elimination, the mosque wins.

And that has my full support. I mean, who says a temple and a mosque cant be in the same compound. As long as the ownership title is clearly proven (and a mosque being there has not bearing on that), I dont see any reason why this cant be settled, as long as the idiotic politicians dont jump into the fray for petty political gains.

 

[Bang Galore]

Then that's a mental sickness of the Hindus that need to be rectified and is of no concern to justice.

You can't implement anything by force they need to learn that.

Generalisation is alright for you, is it? You would define adherents of an entire religion as mentally sick?A different yardstick for you?

Well the question of "rebuilding" was there, hence, my statement.

From the perspective of the title grant too, I feel in all likelihood the case will be award to the mosque. The Ram temple has never been conclusively proven, the birth place of Raam cannot be proven since the existence of Raam can never be proven. By process of elimination, the mosque wins.

There is no question of any rebuilding being considered since the suit predates the demolition. Whether a temple existed is part of the question under consideration. I have seen & heard of reports suggesting that some archeological evidence exists for a structure resembling a temple but even if it were so, it would be difficult to prove when such a temple existed. The court is not deciding whether or not Ram existed, merely whether a temple existed on the spot or not. Another point to be decided is one of limitation; whether Muslims lose claim on the land because of not filing early enough & there being history of adverse possession of the disputed land with the Hindus. This is a very important factor which would come to play. If either of these decisions goes against the Waqf board, then they would lose the suit.

 

[Bang Galore]

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court will pronounce its judgement on the 60- year-old Ayodhya title suits on September 24, a decision that may trigger a political fallout.

The date for pronouncement of the judgement reserved by a special full bench comprising Justices S.U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D.V Sharma on July 26, was conveyed to the counsels appearing in the four title suits relating to the disputed site at Ayodhya.

The court will be addressing three issues. One, whether there was a temple at the disputed site, prior to 1538. Two, whether the suit filed by the Babri committee in 1961 is barred by limitation. And third, whether Muslims perfected their title through adverse possession.

The first title suit was filed in 1950 by one Gopal Singh Visharad, seeking an injunction for permitting 'pooja' (worship) of Lord Ram at the disputed site.

The second suit was filed by Paramhans Tamchandra Das also in 1950 seeking the same injunction but this was later withdrawn.

The third suit was filed in 1959 by Nirmohi Akhara, seeking direction to hand over the charge of the disputed site from the receiver.

The fourth suit was filed in the 1961 by UP Sunni Central Board of Waqfs for declaration and possession of the site. The fifth suit was moved on July one, 1989 in the name of Bhagwan Shree Ram Lalla Virajman also for declaration and possession.

With one of these suits having been withdrawn, four title suits remained pending in the Faizabad civil court and in 1989, on an application moved by then then Advocate General of UP, these suits were transferred to the High Court.

Both the Centre and the Mayawati Government have been worried over the political fallout and the possibility of communal tensions erupting in the wake of the court verdict.

Deployment of additional paramilitary forces in UP as also in the communally sensitive areas in other parts of the country is being considered.

The Congress core committee had met here last Friday to discuss a contingency plan and had taken stock of various scenarios that may follow the crucial judgement.

In its report to the Court, the Archaeological Survey of India has pointed to the existence of a massive structure just below the disputed site.

Among the excavation yields, the report has mentioned stone and decorated bricks, mutilated sculpture of divine couple, carved architectural members including foliage patterns and circular shrine having pranjala (watershute), all indicating the existence of north Indian temples.

The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century that Babri Masjid was constructed.

But the Sunni Central Waqf Board has been maintaining that the report is "vague and self-contradictory".

Whichever way the verdict goes, it may impact on one segment or the other.

The High Court special bench had concluded hearing of arguments on July 26 in which the two sides have been making rival claims over the ownership of Ayodhya land.

The Ramjanmabhoomi Trust has held that the disputed land was the birthplace of Lord Ram while Muslim organisations contended that it was the site of a 16th century mosque built by the first Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya, about 120 km from Lucknow.

news.outlookindia.com | Ayodhya Title Suit Verdict on September 24

 

[mrwarrior006]

if ram doesnt exist then no god(be it of any religion) exists for me

if hindu religion is based on fiction and mythological figures then every religions is also same for me

@luftwaffe
for u my religion is fake for me ur religion is fake so live on with it :peace:

 

[navida]

if ram doesnt exist then no god(be it of any religion) exists for me

if hindu religion is based on fiction and mythological figures then every religions is also same for me

Fair enough.... too much pain has be inflicted on humanity due to religion.

 

[Bang Galore]

When did the Ayodhya controversy erupt?
According to recorded history, Babri Masjid was built in 1528 by Mir Bank who was Babur's viceroy in that region. There is no historical record stating that the site had a temple that was destroyed to build a mosque. The mosque was known by several names, including Masjid-i Janmasthan, Jami Masjid, Sita Rasoi Masjid and so on. The District Gazetteer of Faizabad documents that the mosque was a place of worship for both religions. Incidents of communal violence over the ownership of the site started from 1853 and the British government tried to resolve it in 1859 by erecting a fence that divided the mosque into an inner and outer court. Hindus were allowed to construct a raised platform (chabutra) in the outer court, while the inner court was to be used only by Muslims.

Did the two-nation theory have an impact on the mosque?
It is well known that the two-nation theory worked as a major divide between both communities in most parts of the country. The mosque did not remain untouched, as the site started witnessing communal riots since early 1910s. A major riot erupted in 1934 when police had to be called in to control the situation.

What was the 1949 controversy about?
In December 1949, the controversy reached new heights when mahants decided to recite the Ramayana in front of the mosque. It was later reported by the devotees who had gathered for that recitation that the image of Lord Ram appeared inside the mosque. But the administration and the Muslim community were not impressed as it was alleged that idols were placed inside by Hindus who entered the mosque by breaking its locks. Because of the controversy, the place was locked up.

Who filed the first title suit?
The first suit was filed in 1950 by Gopal Singh Visharad, a shopkeeper in Ayodhya. The suit was filed in Faizabad civil court, seeking a ruling that would grant permission to perform puja at the site. The second suit was filed by Paramhans Tamchandra Das, again in 1950, and it sought the same injunction. This suit was later withdrawn. In 1959, Nirmohi Akhara filed a title suit, claiming ownership of the site. This prompted the UP Sunni Ce-ntral Board of Waqfs to file the fourth suit in 1961. The fifth suit was filed in 1989. With one of these suits having been withdrawn, four title suits were pending in the Faizabad civil court. In 1989, these suits were transferred to Allahabad HC

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Mosque was there in the post independent india and that is what it matters..people who had different claims over that place should have go to the court to prove their claims..instead they used force and destroyed the mosque..so fist culprits were hindus(not all) who destroyed the mosque..
The existance of ram and ram mandir is yet to be proven..
proof is not a matter in case of religion and belief so for hindus ram is god just like any other religious beliefs..no need of proof..but when it comes to legal matters proof is needed..
till now there is no proof that ram was born and lived in ayodhya..even if we accept that it is true..is it necessary that the temple should built on exactly where mosque situated..i mean ayodhya..is a big place right ?
secondly even if there is proof that a temple was there where the mosque is situated..then it doesnt necessarly mean that temple is destroyed to build the mosque..and even if it is destroyed..it happened in the pre independent era..modern india connot reverse the history...

 

[Marxist]

The report said there was archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural activities from the 10th century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure (Babri Mosque).

Among the excavation yields it mentioned were stone and decorated bricks, mutilated sculpture of divine couple, carved architectural members including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali, doorjamb with semi-circular shrine pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranjala (watershute) in the north and 50 pillar bases in association with a huge structure.

The archaeological evidence and other discoveries from the site were indicative of remains that are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India, the ASI report said.

The ASI report said there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50x30 metres in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure.

In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat foundation below calcrete blocks topped by sandstone blocks were found, the report said.

It said the pillar bases exposed during the present excavation in the northern and southern areas also give an idea of the length of the massive wall of earlier construction with which they are associated and which might have been originally around 60 metres.

The centre of the main chamber of the disputed structure falls just over the central point of the length of the massive wall of the preceding period which could not be excavated due to presence of Ram Lala at the spot in the make-shift structure, the ASI report said.

In a significant observation the report said towards east of this central point, a circular depression with projection on the west, cut into the large sized brick pavement, signifying the place where some important object was placed.

The ASI report, however, said various structures exposed right from the Sunga to Gupta period do not speak either about their nature or functional utility as no evidence has come to approbate them.

The report said during and after the Gupta period up to late and post-Mughal period the regular habitational deposits disappear in the concerned levels and the structural phases are associated with either structural debris or filling material taken out from the adjoining area to level the ground for construction purpose.

As a result of this much of the earlier material in the form of pottery, terracottas and other objects of preceding periods, particularly of Kushan period, are found in the deposits of later periods mixed along with contemporary material, it said.

The area below the disputed site thus remained a place for public use for a long time till the Mughal period when the disputed structure was built which was confined to a limited area and the population settled around it as evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material including pottery, the ASI said in its report.

It went on to state that this observation was further attested by the conspicuous absence of habitational structures such as house-complexes, soakage pits, soakage jars, ring wells, drains, wells, hearths, kilns or furnaces.

The report said the human activity at the site dates back to 13th century BC on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of the site.

The ASI report said the northern black polished ware using people were the first to occupy the disputed site at Ayodhya in the first millennium BC although no structural activities were encountered in the limited area probed.

A round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of this level, it said.

The report said the Sunga period (second-first century BC) comes next in order of the cultural occupation at the site followed by the Kushan period.

The report said during the early medieval period (11-12th century AD) a huge structure of nearly 50 metres north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived as only four of the 50 pillar bases exposed during the excavation belonged to this level with a brick crush floor

On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it, it said.

The architectural members of the earlier short-lived massive structure with stencil-cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure which has a huge pillared hall different from residential structures providing sufficient evidence of construction of public usages which remained under existence for a long time during the period, the report said.

The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century that the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.

 

[bandit]

Then that's a mental sickness of the Hindus that need to be rectified and is of no concern to justice.

You can't implement anything by force they need to learn that.

Pardon me sir, but you seem to have a case of inconsistent mind.
Wasn't the following thread started by yourself too?

For all intents and purposes we're a secular forum - we patronage nor oppose any religion as the official policy of the forum and everyone is equal here regardless of "religion, caste or creed" (Jinnah). However abuse of a religion be it any religion is strictly forbidden. We don't allow anyone to proselytize a religion, we won't allow anyone to mock it either.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/forum-information/69401-attacks-hinduism.html

Forget it

 

[fallstuff]

Who is doing the scientific dating ?

 

[Bang Galore]

Who is doing the scientific dating ?

The Archeological Survey of India.
About Archaeological Survey of India

 

[Bang Galore]

I am not much of any kind of believer but my personal opinion would be for public utilities to be built in the 60 odd acres of the disputed area & its surroundings. Not sure how a temple for Ram would serve any purpose when built on the deaths of so many people in riots and over so much hurt caused. While a temple & a Masjid back to back would be an ideal solution, I fear all it would do is to remind everyone of this dispute. A school & a hospital, probably the best that money can build would better serve the people of Ayodhya than any religious structure ever can. If Muslims & Hindus can get an education together, if they can get access to the best medical facilities together, I am sure both Ram & Allah would have been happier with that than any temple or masjid built in their name.