What's new

India’s PM to attend temple groundbreaking at disputed site

Last year on August 5 Modi removed Article 370 and now this 5th Modi is RESTORING RAM TEMPLE WHICH DEMOLISHED BY FILTHY terrorist INVADER.:yahoo::yahoo:

A Buddhist organisation lays claim to Ayodhya, says Buddhist sensibilities should not be hurt while constructing a Ram temple
VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN
Published : July 20, 2020 20:20 ISTT+ T-

Even as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) governments in Uttar Pradesh and at the Centre are finalising plans to begin construction of a “grand” Ram Mandir in Ayodhya in the first or second week of August, a group of Buddhist organisations led by the Bihar-based Azad Bauddh Dhamma Sena (ABDS) has announced a nationwide agitation to oppose their plans.

Talking to Frontline, ABDS chief priest Bhanteya Buddha Sharan Kesariya said that the moves of the State and Central governments were not acceptable to ABDS as they were tantamount to disrespecting the holy history of Lord Buddha and the history of Buddhist traditions. “We will not allow this violation to happen. The ABDS will organise protests in Ayodhya and in other parts of the country before the planned construction work is launched. In fact, we have already begun the agitation through representations to the authorities, including the Governor, and through dharnas and sit-in fasting programmes in the temple town.”


The priest added that the Buddhist community has always held that Ayodhya was the ancient Buddhist city of Saket, which was established by Kaushal Naresh Raja Prasenjit in memory of the sage Lomash Rishi. “Throughout the period when the Ayodhya land dispute case was going on over several decades in different courts of the country, leaders of our community had sought to implead itself in the case, but did not succeed on account of various factors, including the indifference of the judicial authorities. However, evidence that has come up following the Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case on November 9, 2019, have compelled us to revive our claim. The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP)-led Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Trust has been doing some preparatory work for the construction of the temple in the area since the verdict. During the course of this preparatory work, several Buddhist artefacts have been unearthed, once again asserting the validity of our claims. The Buddhist artefacts have been repeatedly unearthed as late as the second week of May 2020. We see these discoveries as a divine sign that we should assert our rights through peaceful agitations.” He added that the agitations would ultimately roll out on an international level with the help of Buddhist organisations in China, Japan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and several European countries.

The ABDS has made it clear that it does not have any objection to the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya. The organisation insists that valid Buddhist sensibilities should not be hurt.

The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Trust is of the view that the ABDS has only a nuisance value. Nagendra Singh, an Ayodhya-based activist of the VHP told Frontline: “To start with, there is no space for legal proceedings after the November 2019 verdict. Indeed, theoretically, one can argue that there have been precedents where fresh evidence was accepted by the judiciary to reopen a case. But to reach that stage, an organisation would have to develop a mass agitation lasting a long period. But the ABDS does not seem to have the wherewithal to sustain a long agitation, or enough resources to build up pressure on the State or Union government. Either this agitation would die out on its own or the public would put an end to it.”

This perception seems to have the acceptance of a sizeable segment of the population in Ayodhya. Still, people are curious how the ABDS’ plans would pan out and how much of an irritation the small Buddhist organisation can cause to the VHP, the State and Union governments and to the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), the ideological fountain-head of the Sangh Parivar.
 
.
It's like Adolf Hitler inaugurating Auschwitz concentration camp. The parallels are there. India might just get a taste of what Germany did in late 1945.

Well done, Indians!

nazi-leader-adolf-hitler-gives-the-nazi-salute-while-inaugurating-a-picture-id78955197
hitlerbook.jpg
 
.
there’s nothing courageous of this deed or respectful in temple .... oppressing your now weaker citizens in furthering your macho is quite pathetic .

Than why you respect Mecca?
We Hindu believe this is a birth place of Ram and this is a fact that Mughal fanatic destroyed Hindu temples in India.

Okay do you really want to warship your god which was build after bought down others?
gyanvapi-mosque.jpg

Cant you see how this mosque built after destroying Hindu temple. Even one side wall used in this structure is enough for proof.
 
.
A Buddhist organisation lays claim to Ayodhya, says Buddhist sensibilities should not be hurt while constructing a Ram temple
VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN
Published : July 20, 2020 20:20 ISTT+ T-

Even as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) governments in Uttar Pradesh and at the Centre are finalising plans to begin construction of a “grand” Ram Mandir in Ayodhya in the first or second week of August, a group of Buddhist organisations led by the Bihar-based Azad Bauddh Dhamma Sena (ABDS) has announced a nationwide agitation to oppose their plans.

Talking to Frontline, ABDS chief priest Bhanteya Buddha Sharan Kesariya said that the moves of the State and Central governments were not acceptable to ABDS as they were tantamount to disrespecting the holy history of Lord Buddha and the history of Buddhist traditions. “We will not allow this violation to happen. The ABDS will organise protests in Ayodhya and in other parts of the country before the planned construction work is launched. In fact, we have already begun the agitation through representations to the authorities, including the Governor, and through dharnas and sit-in fasting programmes in the temple town.”


The priest added that the Buddhist community has always held that Ayodhya was the ancient Buddhist city of Saket, which was established by Kaushal Naresh Raja Prasenjit in memory of the sage Lomash Rishi. “Throughout the period when the Ayodhya land dispute case was going on over several decades in different courts of the country, leaders of our community had sought to implead itself in the case, but did not succeed on account of various factors, including the indifference of the judicial authorities. However, evidence that has come up following the Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case on November 9, 2019, have compelled us to revive our claim. The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP)-led Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Trust has been doing some preparatory work for the construction of the temple in the area since the verdict. During the course of this preparatory work, several Buddhist artefacts have been unearthed, once again asserting the validity of our claims. The Buddhist artefacts have been repeatedly unearthed as late as the second week of May 2020. We see these discoveries as a divine sign that we should assert our rights through peaceful agitations.” He added that the agitations would ultimately roll out on an international level with the help of Buddhist organisations in China, Japan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and several European countries.

The ABDS has made it clear that it does not have any objection to the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya. The organisation insists that valid Buddhist sensibilities should not be hurt.

The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Trust is of the view that the ABDS has only a nuisance value. Nagendra Singh, an Ayodhya-based activist of the VHP told Frontline: “To start with, there is no space for legal proceedings after the November 2019 verdict. Indeed, theoretically, one can argue that there have been precedents where fresh evidence was accepted by the judiciary to reopen a case. But to reach that stage, an organisation would have to develop a mass agitation lasting a long period. But the ABDS does not seem to have the wherewithal to sustain a long agitation, or enough resources to build up pressure on the State or Union government. Either this agitation would die out on its own or the public would put an end to it.”

This perception seems to have the acceptance of a sizeable segment of the population in Ayodhya. Still, people are curious how the ABDS’ plans would pan out and how much of an irritation the small Buddhist organisation can cause to the VHP, the State and Union governments and to the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), the ideological fountain-head of the Sangh Parivar.

FYI Hindu+Buddha+Jain+Sikh all are Indic Dharmic religions .... Nobody cares about Presstitues paid/fake articles.

Tomorrow they may come with ''Jain/Sikh Organisation claims'' too :rofl:
 
.
Will be a landmark day.

The pandemic has put a spanner in my plans to take a few weeks off and join in the karseva. But I will most definitely go. To lay bricks and with sanctified varasyu taro from our Pak Iranshah.

One great Aryan faith for its sister faith.

Jai Sri Ram.

Jai Hind. Jai Maharashtra.

Cheers, Doc
 
. .
Indian Supreme Court orders destruction of Buddhist artefacts found from digging of shaheed Babri Mosque.

Did the SC Overreact While Dismissing Petitions Seeking Preservation of Ayodhya Artefacts?

Even though solicitor-general Tushar Mehta agreed that such artefacts would be preserved, the bench had problems with the so-called motives of the petitioners.


Pillars for the construction of Ram Temple, Supreme Court and artefacts found during digging at the site. Photos: Reuters, The Wire, Twitter

V. Venkatesan
24/JUL/2020

New Delhi: On Monday, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari, dismissed as frivolous two public interest litigation petitions (PILs) filed by two different NGOs making a similar plea. Together, they sought that under the supervision of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the artefacts and monuments reportedly discovered during the digging and land levelling in preparation for the temple construction at Ayodhya should be conserved.

The temple construction work had begun on May 11, 2020, following the Supreme Court’s judgment last year deciding the title suit of the disputed site at Ayodhya in favour of the Hindus, and directing a temple to be built through a trust. The foundation-stone laying ceremony for the temple, with the participation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is scheduled for early next month. On March 25, a preliminary function took place in Ayodhya with the participation of the Uttar Pradesh chief minister. The bench’s order, coming amidst these events, therefore, requires some analysis.

Bizarre outcome


The bench did not stop with its dismissal of the two petitions as frivolous. Instead, without even giving an opportunity to the counsel of the petitioners to explain their prayers, the bench saw nothing wrong in attributing motives to the petitioners.


Interpreting the petitions as disguised attempts to “revive” the Ayodhya dispute, which was legally settled by the Supreme Court’s judgment on November 9 last year, the bench imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh each on the petitioners, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Employees’ Mutual Welfare Fund within one month. One of the petitioners’ counsels, Menaka Guruswamy, pleaded with the bench not to impose the fine in vain.

Although the bench orally threatened the petitioners with an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation against them, the order issued is silent on it.

The bizarre outcome of this case is that after denying an opportunity to the petitioners’ counsel to make their preliminary submissions – in other words in the absence of any arguments on the merits of the matter – the bench has come out with a five-pages order, which is very unusual. Had the petitioners been allowed to make their submissions, perhaps, they would have allayed some of the bench’s apprehensions.

What went wrong

The petitioners include four individuals from the Samyak Vishwa Sangh, an NGO in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra which is dedicated to the study of ancient caves, monuments, antiquities and artefacts throughout India. It is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and the Societies Registration Act. The main petition in Satish Chindhuji Shambharkar and Others v Union of India was filed by these four individuals.

Dr. Ambedkar Bodhi Kunja Foundation, based in Munger, Bihar is another petitioner, which made a similar plea, as it is concerned with the conservation of artefacts which might reveal Buddhist influences during the ancient period.

The petitions of both these organisations had been duly vetted, defects cured, and found in order, by the Supreme Court’s registry.

Yet, according to reports, what infuriated the bench was the petitioners’ claim that the artefacts discovered at the site might belong to an era which was antecedent to the rise of Hinduism. The petitioners’ prayer to ensure the involvement of the ASI in the collection and preservation of artefacts for the sake of posterity further invited the ire of the bench, which concluded – without hearing the petitioners’ counsel – that their intent was to use this fresh litigation route to bring the unanimous verdict of the Ayodhya bench under legal scrutiny all over again.

‘Respect’ for judgments

The bench’s oral comments during the hearing that the petitioners ought to show some respect for the court’s verdicts betrays an erroneous understanding of the court’s processes.

If ‘respect’ for the finality of the Supreme Court’s verdicts is what is expected from the litigants, then there would be no scope for review and curative jurisdictions of the court. On the contrary, if the petitioners had chosen to question a judgment of the court, without invoking its review or curative jurisdictions, the court ought to have examined whether such an exercise had any merits. After all, in the landmark A.R. Antulay case, the Supreme Court’s seven-judge bench accepted his writ petition and recalled its previous judgment as unconstitutional. In this case, however, the petitioners did not aim at a replay of Antulay.

Behind Supreme Court’s over-reaction

In last year’s judgment in the Ayodhya case, the five-judge bench had found a “preponderance of probable evidence” in favour of the Hindus – rather than the Muslims – on the question of who held the title to the disputed site at Ayodhya. With the foundation stone laying ceremony at Ayodhya being scheduled on August 5, the bench read in the petitioners’ prayers a disguised attempt to revive the controversy over the site’s origins.

In Satish Chindhuji Shambharkar v Union of India, the prayer was that the artefacts and antiquities recovered at the site at Ayodhya be examined and protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The Ayodhya site is protected under Section 23 of the Act dealing with compulsory purchase of antiquities, etc, discovered during excavation operations.

The bench acknowledges that under this provision, the archaeological officer has to examine such activities and submit a report to the Centre.


The bench cited the petitioners’ concern that owing to the ongoing digging work, the artefacts and monuments are under grave fear of being damaged and destroyed at the site itself. The order cited one of the petitions as claiming:

“The artefacts are being projected as Shivling and the remains of Hindu culture and religion sans any scientific archaeological research or study. Remnants may have a close link with our pristine culture and literature. Moreover, there is a duty cast upon the State to ‘preserve every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest of national importance from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export in view of Article 49, which necessitates that such artefacts are required to be protected and preserved.”

The order also refers to the petitioners’ allegation that the ASI, which is duty-bound to preserve and protect the monuments and antiquities, is neglecting its duties in utter violation of Article 29(1) of the Constitution.

Ironically, the bench cites these legal and constitutional mandates regarding the preservation of artefacts, as if it agrees with them, even as it does not articulate a rebuttal of why such claims of the petitioners may be irrelevant in this case.

In Satish Chindhuji Shambharkar, the petitioner pointed out that the Twitter handle of the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra, the trust constituted to manage the temple, had on May 20 published photographs of some artefacts and sculptures supposedly found during the debris removal and land levelling underway at Ayodhya. Annexing reports in the media which raised concerns that these may be destroyed, the petitioner drew the court’s attention to the need to alert the Centre and the ASI.
 
. . .
Hindu revival in 1992 and HINDUTVA REVIVAL from 2020 is started.

Jai Hind.Jai Sri Ram. :yahoo::yahoo:

When are you going to revive the ancient Hindu tradition of chucking widows into their husbands' funeral pyres? :woot::woot: Don't tell me it shouldn't be a part of Hindu revivalism...it was a fine MANLY tradition that was banned by the British rulers.
 
. .
A lie .

no remains were found there

all fantasy with not even an iota of truth

mockery of there Ram .

no proof pure bullshit they’ll worship .
 
. . . .

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom