‘Verdict makes me feel like a 2nd-class citizen’

[Fighter488]

‘Verdict makes me feel like a 2nd-class citizen’​

Shobhan Saxena | TNN



New Delhi: The Ayodhya title suit was not just a dispute over a patch of land, it was being seen by many, particularly the minorities, as a test of India’s commitment to secularism. So, did India pass the test successfully on Thursday? Though there are no shrill reactions to the verdict from the country’s biggest minority group, there are many voices of disappointment.

Historian Irfan Habib feels the ‘‘compromise judgment’’ had come at the cost of history and facts. ‘‘It is improper (for the court) to accept the ASI report on the historical fact. Weight has been given to belief. One should be careful in historical facts,’’ says Habib.

Though members of Muslim intelligentsia put up a brave face on TV channels, talking in politically-correct terms, in private, many accept that they see the verdict as ‘‘anti-Muslim’’. ‘‘The Muslims of India have been told very clearly that they have to live in this country on the terms set by the majority community. From now on we have to live in constant fear,’’ says a former vice-chancellor of a central university. Others are equally critical of the verdict. Shabnam Hashmi, wellknown social activist who heads Sahmat, says the verdict made her feel like a ‘‘secondclass citizen’’. ‘‘We will not stop the struggle against irrationality and hatred but we can no longer promise to hand over a secular, democratic nation to you,’’ says Hashmi, in her ‘‘message to the next generation’’.

The Muslims are disappointed but they have not given up hope. And the verdict has not shaken their in the idea of India. ‘‘My sentiment about this judgment is in this couplet from Faiz: Ye dil na umeed to nahi nakaam hi to hai, lambi hai gum ki sham magar sham hi to hai (The heart is despondent but not without hope, long is sorrows evening but its an evening after all),’’ says Syeda Hameed, a member of the Planning Commission.

Such poetic words notwithstanding, there are fears in the community that the right-wing Hindu fanatics may now start raising old issues of ‘‘liberation of Kashi and Mathura’’. ‘‘Today the Lucknow court put its stamp of approval on the destruction of Babri Masjid. Can anybody guarantee us that such incidents will not happen in the future? I guess not,’’ says the former VC.

There is no palpable fear and tension on the streets and everybody is talking about ‘‘reconcilaition’’ and ‘‘moving on’’. This, according to some, is a sign of hope. ‘‘Despite the feeling of disappointment, this is an opportunity on both sides to use the interregnum before the time for appeals to talk,’’ says Najeeb Jung, an academic from Jamia Milia Islamia. The Mulsims may be seeking a closure of the issue, but it’s hard to deny that verdict has left them sad and disappointed.


ToI dated 1st Oct 2010, P. No. 17.

 

[Fighter488]

ASI report far from foolproof? ​

Inscription Found In Debris May Have Been Planted: Irfan Habib


Akshaya Mukul | TNN



New Delhi: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad HC may have gone by the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) report submitted to it in April 2003 to rule that the disputed site is the birthplace of Ram but noted historians had drilled holes in the report when it first came out.

Though the ASI report refrained from giving a clear verdict on the existence of a temple, use of words like “interesting” and “significant” in crucial places and the body of evidence that it gave pointed to the existence of a temple.

The crucial evidence that came in the ASI report was the suggestion of a chamber near Ram Chabutra and 11 pillar bases. ASI also talked of “five levels of structure”, each comprising a “flat surface of lime-surkhi mortar”. Another important evidence was the contentious Anayachandra inscription that VHP claimed was found from the debris of the demolition after December 6, 1992. VHP said the inscription clearly says Ram was born at the disputed site and even submitted the translation to the high court.

Eminent historian Irfan Habib, in a detailed critique of the ASI report, had pointed out that it did not mention that lime-surkhi could not have been part of an earlier Hindu temple because such mortar came with the Muslims. What ASI found “interesting” is “that protruding out of the fifth” level there was a “squarish” block of “calcrete”. Beneath this, the excavators described a mysterious chamber without mentioning what marked its base or walls. From this, Habib said, ASI jumped to the conclusion that it was “some place of importance”.

Habib also found it strange that ASI, while describing the foundation wall, suggested there was an earlier brick wall, with decorations, but did not specify the decoration. This, Habib said, would provoke rumours of a temple wall. On ASI’s suggestion that “pillar bases” are “significant”, Habib said it was like seconding noted archaeologist B B Lal’s theory.

More interesting was the case of Anayachandra inscription. Its translation submitted by VHP in the HC said the disputed site was the birthplace of Ram. But K V Ramesh, former director (epigraphy), ASI, translated the inscription simply as: “Noble was that very family (of the donor) which was the birthplace (janmabhoomi) of honour.”

The official said the translation would lend credence to the theory that the inscription was planted. But from where was it acquired? He would not hazard a guess but Habib had pointed out that it could be Inscription No. XLIV housed in Lucknow museum which has gone missing. Historian T P Verma had told the Lucknow bench that he tried to locate the inscription in Lucknow museum but was unable to do so. The said inscription — first mentioned in 1889 by A Fuhrer in ‘Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur’ and later by Hans Bakker in 1986 in ‘Ayodhya’ — had close resemblance to the one flaunted by VHP. Both are of sandstone and broken in two parts, the slit starting near the middle of the top, then running rather diagonally to the bottom right. Both have twenty lines. Even in terms of content, there are similarities.


ToI date 1st Oct 2010, P. No. 17

 

[Game is loading]

Ayodhya has no relation with Muslims!
Just because Babur built a mosque there,they can't claim their right on it!

ASI has already confirmed that there was a temple earlier.

Some people with anti-Indian minds have just found an opportunity to bash India and create a divide among its people.

Everyone should be patient and accomodative.

I have no hatred towards muslims!
I know what Qoran teaches and its very pure and rational.
Even my Girlfriend is a muslim.

 

[Fighter488]

Pointing to facts and gross negligience or in-aptness of judiciary is not a blame game. Verdict based on a "Faith and Belief" system is not how modern judicial system run over. Faith was not the deciding criteria even in mediavel times, how it become so now?

Habib sahab was pointing to the fact and he is right!

Fighter

 

[Fighter488]

FAITH OVER FACTS?

‘Not the job of HC bench to adjudicate where Ram was born’​

Srijana Mitra Das | TNN



New Delhi: Historians and political scientists appear divided on the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya dispute. While determining that the Ram idols will stay where they are, the court has based its judgment on the prevailing Hindu belief that the religious figure of Ram was born at the disputed site, providing sufficient ground for a temple to be erected there.

By processing a legal suit filed and fought in the name of Hindu god Ram Lalla, the court seems to have opened itself up to a variety of academic responses. Political scientist Zoya Hasan feels while the courts judgment should be respected, there are issues with it. ‘‘Whether or not Ram was born at that particular spot is not a ruling that can be based on clear evidence,’’ says Hasan. ‘‘There cannot be any constitutional reasoning here. By ruling on that issue, the court could legitimize the majoritarian position on the matter.’’

She wondered what would now be the fate of the Babri demolition case? ‘‘It is still too early to say how this will develop but certainly, an ideal situation is cal figure having clear legal status. ‘‘There is provision for what is termed a Devottar property. The Jagannath temple in Puri is one such property where all the land of the site is owned in the name of Lord Jagannath. Any legal disputes are fought and settled in his name.’’

Historian Dilip Simeon one where both parties feel satisfied with justice given.’’

Historian and politician Chandan Mitra comments, ‘‘It is not just faith the court has gone by here. It was buttressed by the ASI report on the site which had several bits of information on the possibility of Ram having been born at that particular place.’’

He added that there is precedence for a mythologicourt should not have entertained a petition in the name of a Hindu god. By doing so, they have rendered something as sacred as religion into an absurdity. It was not their job to adjudicate where Ram was born. Historically, this is extremely difficult to prove and the ASI report on the matter is full of controversies.’’

In addition, many other places in Ayodhya itself claim disagrees.

S i m e o n states, ‘‘The to have been the birthplace of Ram, says Simeon. ‘‘The court should have focused on the actual crime here, which is the demolition of an archeological structure against which there is a specific Constitutional Article passed in the 1940s. The Babri Mosque was demolished and lives taken by people using the name of a god for politics. How can the court overlook that and adjudicate on a matter which actually defied the law itself?’’

Simeon adds, ‘‘The real site to worry about is not a legendary birthplace in this case but a pile of rubble which was once an archeological structure. It is a bit rich for anyone to now say we should forget the past and move forward on the basis of myths from thousands of years ago, when a real crime from 1992 is staring us in the face.’’


ToI feed dated 10 Oct 2010

 

[KS]

Pointing to facts and gross negligience or in-aptness of judiciary is not a blame game. Verdict based on a "Faith and Belief" system is not how modern judicial system run over. Faith was not the deciding criteria even in mediavel times, how it become so now?

Habib sahab was pointing to the fact and he is right!

Fighter

Yes this judgement was sligghtly based on faith - but that was the correct thing to do.

No sane thinking judge would question that existence of Lord Ram and equally not allot land for Muslims who has been there for 400 years.

An excellent judgement indeed...And for those Muslims who think that they should have got the full land ,Im sorry to say - Dont be Greedy.

It is the magnanimous nature of the Indian Judicial system that they have got 1/3 of the land on one of the most sacred and holiest places of Hinduism.


And for all those Muslim intellectuals ,historians complaining how the courts could decide on Ram , they should have complained that before the judgement,not after that.

even the Sunni Waqf board which was doing a grandstanding that they will voluntarily surrender the land if the courts ruled that it was Ram Janmaboomi have not done a round about and said that they will appeal in the SC.

So ppl , Get on with it.

 

[Ishan]

Irfan Habib is 3rd Class Person Feeling 2nd Class

 

[LaBong]

Irfan Habib is 3rd Class Person Feeling 2nd Class

Ironically, Muslims radicals think the same about him.

 

[Fighter488]

Yes this judgement was sligghtly based on faith - but that was the correct thing to do.

No sane thinking judge would question that existence of Lord Ram and equally not allot land for Muslims who has been there for 400 years.

An excellent judgement indeed...And for those Muslims who think that they should have got the full land ,Im sorry to say - Dont be Greedy.

It is the magnanimous nature of the Indian Judicial system that they have got 1/3 of the land on one of the most sacred and holiest places of Hinduism.

Get on with it.

Your frustation sums it up all Siri!

But then DEMOCRATIC and SECULAR INDIA myth get busted this way. Are you ready to abandon it while you stay and defend your idea of INDIANESS on forums like PDF?

Get a life man!

Fighter

 

[Fighter488]

Yes this judgement was sligghtly based on faith - but that was the correct thing to do.

And for all those Muslim intellectuals ,historians complaining how the courts could decide on Ram , they should have complained that before the judgement,not after that.

even the Sunni Waqf board which was doing a grandstanding that they will voluntarily surrender the land if the courts ruled that it was Ram Janmaboomi have not done a round about and said that they will appeal in the SC.

So ppl , Get on with it.

Are you in your senses? Before the judgment? You are saying as the bench of Allahbad high court was carrying a card of thier FAITH and BELEIF, every time the heard the case in court?

Muslims have an understanding that the case would be decided based on facts and legal points. They do not had an idea that HINDU FAITH AND SENTIMENTS would decide the case!

Fighter

 

[Skeptic]

No Reason for feeling like second class citizen. The decision can and will be challanged in the supreme court. Yes it is a panchayati decision but I can not think of any alternate way which can lead to resolution.

 

[Game is loading]

Your frustation sums it up all Siri!

But then DEMOCRATIC and SECULAR INDIA myth get busted this way. Are you ready to abandon it while you stay and defend your idea of INDIANESS on forums like PDF?

Get a life man!

Fighter

Hey ,ok you are a muslim,but think that you are an Indian first!

Everything is going on peacefully,please don't get aggressive,i would have had happiness of the same degree if the entire land was alloted to Muslims and not divided amongst 3.
Because we are Indians first and Hindu and Muslim afterwards.

You should not get heated up,that quickly.

 

[Fighter488]

Hey ,ok you are a muslim,but think that you are an Indian first!

Everything is going on peacefully,please don't get aggressive,i would have had happiness of the same degree if the entire land was alloted to Muslims and not divided amongst 3.
Because we are Indians first and Hindu and Muslim afterwards.

You should not get heated up,that quickly.

Ahhh ... OK...
I am an INDIAN first but then the this same judgement ASKS and ADHERE you to belive that you are a HINDU first?

Double standards smells here?

Come to rationality and argue that way!

Fighter

 

[true_indian]

Your frustation sums it up all Siri!

But then DEMOCRATIC and SECULAR INDIA myth get busted this way. Are you ready to abandon it while you stay and defend your idea of INDIANESS on forums like PDF?

Get a life man!

Fighter

I think there is no other way for now to avoid controversies in India. Its not the final judgement but something to stall riots for now. Any party can go to the supreme court disputing the judgement. Would you think the majority Hindus would be happy if entire land would have been given to Muslims? India, no matter what you think is not a mature secular democracy. We all have our pitfalls where we get played by politicians who play with our emotions to cause stir among communities. In my opinion I think this judgement is more of a diplomatic one than a judicial one. When this goes to supreme court, it might take another 30 years, by which time India may be more mature to accept a judicial decision although I doubt it would be entirely in favor of muslims. Just my 2 cents.

 

[kallu_be]

Typical Muslim mentality, they are hard to get pleased. @Fighter488, Most of the Hindus don't like Indian version of secularism, but you should be thankful to the majority community that India is still secular to minorities.