Court verdict on Ayodhya

[jayakris]

I guess we don't need to be afraid of discussing this. Comments on the court verdict?

I am glad that this was not a verdict that immediately caused religious riots or anything. But I am absolutely dismayed 24 hours later, seeing such a concerted effort by so many people to incite the Muslims. Starting from Chidambaram. So many news articles who seem hellbent to prove to Muslims that they lost out, while the immediate reaction from the Muslims yesterday was actually one of relief even thought not elation, that they can move on with their lives. But no, the newspapers and Congress politicians seem hellbent on creating a "we have been wronged by Hindu India" feeling among the muslims.

I read the first 100 odd responses from people to the first news item in Indian Express online. I have hardly seen an issue on which Indians unanimously voiced happiness (well, except LP's winning the first individual Olympics medal in 44 years ). I checked the first 20 or 25 responses from muslim names, and not one was expressing anything but relief that the issue is passed and perhaps a temple and mosque can be built right there and we can move on.

But I am a bit sad at how the politicians have got into the act today and the opinios have changed a bit.

Congress just cannot afford to have Muslims who are happy in India. Because then they cannot do things to "make them happy" and get their votes!

Jay

[Sandeep]

Silly verdict, for me it more looked like a panchayat setup than a judgement from the high court. Clearly it was a criminal offence to demolish the Babri Masjid structure and instead of punishing them court has given a stupid verdict. Court should have taken a tough stand, it looked more like a fixed verdict than the one which is based on enough research! Poor effort India

[jayakris]

Huh? The suit was about who owned the property, and not to convict those who destroyed it. Some of the petitioners filed it 30 years before the mosque was destroyed by the Hindus.

The primary research item was a court-ordered and court-observed ASI excavation, which yielded an elaborate report that showed a large temple was in that property before the mosque (all three judges agreed on that, because there is no way that could be disputed). The excavation was done with complete transparency, and the judges specifically commented on the counter-evidence raised by some, of pre-mosque animal bones in the site etc too. The only thing on which the judges set an unexpected precedence on, was a judgment on whether the temple was indeed where Rama was born - well, if Ram was always written to have born in Ayodhya in all old books in India, no other place in India has claims to be the original Ayodhya, and no other spot in Ayodhya is shown by any evidence as Rama's birth spot, the judges (including the Muslim judge) understood that Hindus' belief had to be considered and that they did have a right to have a temple there.

That is the verdict given to the people who filed the case in 1960. Had the courts been able to give a judgement in the 60s on the matter, based on a proper ASI excavation then itself, and some land been given for a temple there, the mosque wouldn't have been destroyed later. The current judgment didn't say that a Mosque shouldn't be there or that it shouldn't have been there. And I believe that if justice was served on time in this case, and the politicians had stayed away, the mosque would certainly be there and a temple would have come up nearby. The quick idols installed overnight in 1949 would certainly not have followed Hindu procedures well and moving them to a nearby temple with proper "aavaahanam" etc could be done. The muslims had offered to help build the temple way back in the 60s itself, before they were forced to harden the stand by politicians.

None of that is any excuse for the mosque destruction two decades back but the cast for that act was made much before due to a complete lack of respect for anything that Hindus believe is of some value too. But pre-1990, we were all taught, brazenly, in India, that everything that the Hindus have in their books are "myths" and any idea counter to that would not be entertained. The muslims had nothing to do with that at all, but they are who sadly paid for it in the end with a mosque they lost. They never wanted the Hindus not to have a temple if that was indeed Ram's birthpace - and they do know that it would correct a historic wrong if a temple was indeed razed to build the mosque. That is why the Indian muslims were unusually receptive of the verdict at first. They really only wanted their mosque to be rebuilt (well, except some fanatic leaders used by the politicians). It is the urge for pseudo-secularists, communists to make sure that nothing believed by the Hindus and written in their books is based on any historic fact and their urge not to believe even actual research findings indicating it, that has made this problem what it was - and this is what the politicians gloriously used.

You are falling into the same trap that these pseudo-secularists and communists constantly set, because Hinduism originated from times where hardly much historical evidence would exist UNLESS YOU DIG WELL AND SEE HOW MUCH COUNTER EVIDENCE THERE IS. I say that because you mentioned that NO research was used for the judgement. Ae you kidding me? The ASI report was extensive. Sure, it did not say it was Ram's temple. Meaning, it did not find a board underground saying "Year 18,235 BC - Here is where Lord Rama was born. Please don't throw cigarettes here" in English. But reasonable people who read the report, including a Muslim judge, will find hardly any reason against a public belief that was there in the areas from a long time back (pre 1949 and from some research evidence over many centuries) that this was Ram's birth place. That is all the judges did, though one of them wrote a few unnecessary lines about the "divine" in bad English - that seems to have really hit a raw nerve in the pseudo-secularists. They should read the kind of things judges write in other secular countries on such matters.

The Muslim judge did not say that a temple was necessarily destroyed to build the mosque, and was not sure if the current location is exactly where Ram was born. I would probably feel the same way. But Judge Khan too found enough reasons that a temple deserved to be there and did not find reasons to say that it was NOT Ram's birthplace. My judgement would be pretty much what judge Khan's was. I would ask to give land to build a temple and mosque. No sane judge can ask for the current makeshift temple to be removed, as the idols are installed. How can they ask for a third historical wrong to correct two wrong by two parties - historical acts of building a mosque on a temple site and then destroying the mosque and placing idols? At least Muslims have lesser of an allegience to the exact worship spot (in this case), but the Hindus do have some very specific beliefs about a spot where idols are installed with certain procedures to fix the divine force around it. So, moving those idols would indeed be a third historical wrong. The judges stayed away from that and the Muslims were not badly offended initially either once they found the mosque can be built again near the old spot.

Everybody should go to Paalayam in Thirvananthapuram to see how close a temple and mosque (and a church) can exist. Let us build a temple and a mosque right there side by side, and stop calling the judges "silly".

Jay

[prasen9]

I too agree with the idea that a temple and mosque should both be allowed to be built. Make an effort to restore the area/foundation of the erstwhile temple and declare it to be an archaeologically protected area. Ditto for the erstwhile mosque. In the rest of the area, divide it up between the temple-builders and the area of the mosque to the mosque-builders. If they exactly overlap, then divide it into half. What's wrong there? That Advani, etc., should have been put behind bars is what I agree too, but, this case was not dealing with criminal culpability of the rioters and riot-inciters. That is a separate case --- it should have been pursued vehemently, but, it if it was not, that is a travesty of justice. However, that has no direct bearing on this case in my mind.

[Sandeep]

Sorry for not conveying my thoughts well, what I meant by punishment was not to convict the people who demolished the mosque (as the case doesn't deal with it) but to tell everyone (who demolished) firmly that they got away in 1992 but they can't get away now and that a mosque has to be restored in that place. Anyways, based on the judgement can I infer the following points?

1) Can every mosque be demolished if it was constructed over a temple's land?
2) How far into the history should we go back? Suppose we discover something else in future that dates back even before Lord Rama's existence, can the temple be demolished?

Also, I am left with the following questions (especially after the judgement)

1) If Hindu's have a right over the land, why is 1/3rd land given to construct a mosque?
2) Ok, for a moment let us believe what Jay said about Rama's birth place and temple are true, then how come the temple of Ayodhya was not mentioned as a holy temple in any of our books written before Babur's invasion? Though Ayodhya was mentioned as a holy city, there is no written evidence about a great temple existing at the site.

Unless these qquestions are clarified, I would call the judgement silly because for me it sounded like the one just to appease public rather than handing over real justice.

[jayakris]

sandeep, those questions are all easy to answer. I think you are little confused because you are not looking athe details like you usually do.

1) Can every mosque be demolished if it was constructed over a temple's land?

No. No court has given such a verdict, and no court in India will ever say that any religious place can be destroyed. That the mosque was destroyed really did not have much relevance to the case, which started from before any destruction. You are confusing things in your mind. In other words, if the mosque was still standing right now and there was no masjid destruction, STILL the verdict will be the same, and the court would have sanctioned building a temple near there - though I believe that the pseudo-secularists would have managed not to bring the case to the point where true scientific study could be done. To some extent, sadly, that is what VHP accomplished. That is also a failure of our country's systems.

If you can show that any current mosque was built after destroying a temple and file a lawsuit asking that the land be given for a temple, the courts would do the same - ask that the mosque be not touched and land be given at the closest possible spot for a new temple. There may be other such cases in Indian courts right now, by the way.

If any Hindus tries to destroy any mosques, to prevent that and arrest anybody who calls for that would be the home ministry's and state police's responsibility. It was a congress ministry that failed to prevent the problem (but rather encouraged it) in 1992.

2) How far into the history should we go back? Suppose we discover something else in future that dates back even before Lord Rama's existence, can the temple be demolished?

As far back as you need to, if archeological and other evidence justify it. In fact there are Buddhist shrines that were built over destroyed Hindu shrines and vice versa all over India (especially in Ayodhya). I am sure there are mosques destroyed somewhere and a temple built there (or rebuilt if it was destroyed for the mosque). In any of those cases, if you want to go back, you should go back. If you have evidence, then you will have some right to get any property there (other than under private ownership) for reconstruction of a temple/monastery/church/mosque. Indeed, you should have that right.

You do not have a right to destroy any place of religious worship just because any hisorical evidence points to there being relevance to another religion. If that is violated with the government being unable to handle law-and-order, the perpetrators should be immediately caught and put in jail, charged, and the courts should rule quickly enough. No archelogical or other research is needed. Plain photogrpahs of acts and recorded speeches should do (loosely speaking) - and no historical reasons will suffice as justification. That this was not done after the Babri Masjid. That is the givernments' and the courts' fault in that court case. This current case is on the property rights and on what places of worship should exist there from now on.

Also, I am left with the following questions (especially after the judgement)

1) If Hindu's have a right over the land, why is 1/3rd land given to construct a mosque?

Because the mosque was there, and it should be rebuilt. No reason to destroy the mosque and not to rebuild it there! The problem would only be if the courts said that there shouldn't be a temple there, after all the clear archeological evidence.

2) Ok, for a moment let us believe what Jay said about Rama's birth place and temple are true, then how come the temple of Ayodhya was not mentioned as a holy temple in any of our books written before Babur's invasion? Though Ayodhya was mentioned as a holy city, there is no written evidence about a great temple existing at the site.

How many temples are anyway mentioned in holy books. The bhagavat geeta does not talk abotu holy temples. Mahabharata itself talks nothing much about temples or worship. I don't think the various versions of ramayanams talk about temples. The vedas do not talk about specific temples. But the books do mention many many place names, and Ayodhya is mentioned in as far back as the Atharva veda. Anyway, it does seem like Ayodhya ram temple had already been out of commission (probably frm the Buddhist times) for quite a while during the Babur time. There is evidence of people believing that to be the birth place but I think the temple was not there. Tulaseedas who wrote RamacharitaMaanas right there at Ayodhya has not mentioned the temple, because it was alreayd a mosque!

Sandeep: That is just a really lame argument put forth by the pseudo-secularists; nothing else.

Jay

[prasen9]

The general Muslim response has been measured. They did not take Mulayam's and others' bait. http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.aspx? ... 70c3d02d42