From: Xavier William <varekatx@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: [india-unity] About Ayodhya verdict!
To: india-unity@yahoogroups.com, indiathinkersnet@yahoogroups.com, KeralaDD@yahoogroups.co.uk, Mahajanapada@yahoogroups.com
One must admit that the judgment is most unprofessional. But it has also helped in diffusing an explosive situation. Everyone had expected violence on the streets whatever the verdict. But in a superb anti-climax everything is tame on the streets. So if ends can justify the means then the verdict is an excellent one.
Dear friends,
I thought there was a constitutional provision that whatever was the status of a place of worship at the time of independence, it will continue the same way. I believed this was done by the founding fathers recognizing that conflicts like that in Ayadhya may raise its head around the country. I tried to look for such a provision in the Indian constitution (http://india.gov.in/govt/constitutions_of_india.php, and http://aptel.gov.in/pdf/constitutionof%20india%20acts.pdf) but I could find the said article.
Now I am having doubts if there is indeed an aforementioned kind of article in Indian Constitution. Could a constitutional expert enlighten me in this regard?
In case my hunch is right, the whole exercise of the Allahabad High Court was futile. Citing constitutional provision, it should have simply tried to restore the status of Babri Masjid to whatever it was at the time of Independence!
Even if my hunch is not right, they could have surmised that historical facts and fictions were difficult to resolve conclusively. As such, the status at a certain date (the date of Independence or the date prior to any violent demolition) must be restored. Hooliganism and violence must not be rewarded! The Hindutwa forces (that claimed existence of a Rama Mandir at Babri Masjid) should have moved the court in stead of taking matters in their own hands. Since this group did resort of violence, the question of truth with regard to Rama Mandir at Babri Masjid site becomes moot, and the results of illegal violence must be negated. That is the stand that I would have taken if I had been one of the justices!-)))
Having rewarded two third of the spot to the hooligans, I am afraid, the court has chosen to encourage more of such demolitions by hooligans. To me it is clear that from the higher courts as currently constitute [dominated by members from just one segment of the society (you know which one) – I would not be surprised to learn that a majority of the judges are non-card carrying (or some carrying the cards covertly) RSS members. A-dharm(i) a-Veer be-Sharm(a) certainly appears to be one of them,] we cannot expect justice!!
Having said that we cannot expect justice from the higher courts as currently constituted, what should we do? Take to the streets and indulge in violence? Certainly not! That is the kind of thing that the so called Hindutwa forces want to do, initiated by them or by coaxing others start it. I qualified Hindutwa forces with "so called" in recognition to the fact that they neither care for Hindus nor for Hindu religion. Their prime motive is to keep the communal pot boiling for the sake of political gains. In view of their political motivation, they would not allow any kind of verdict to lead to peace. If they had won 100% of the disputed land, they would have called for the same fate for lakhs of Masjids in Kashi and other places. Even 67% of the disputed land is not bad from that angle as they would want application of the same to other places wherever they raise the "controversy". The media dominated by the same kind of people that dominate the higher judiciary are apt to dub all facts questioned by the Sanghis as "controversial".
Well, what to do to reform our judiciary, media, political, bureaucratic institutions and military and police can be discussed elsewhere. The million dollar question is what to do in the case at hand. I believe the Wakf and allied organizations should indeed appeal to the Supreme Court. But in their appeal they should add a "request". The request should be that irrespective of their judgment in the current Babri Masjid case, they should issue a ruling that in the future if any individual or group wants to question status quo of a place of worship, they better come to the court. Taking the law in their own hands would land the hooligans into jails for a really long period of time. In case of deaths resulting from the said hooliganism, particularly the leaders of the hooligans should expect maximum punishment (death or life imprisonment).
The Supreme Court (when the case goes to them) must pass such a judgment that would imply severe punishment for hooliganism in the future! In fact, even the past hooliganism at Ayodhya should be handled the same way.
Aside from the above mentioned request the Wakf should make it clear that they would peacefully abide by the decisions of the highest court, and would hope that the court would enforce peaceful co-existence from the other side as well by not allowing their taking law in their own hands.
As far as going to the streets by the secularist force, that would be playing into the hands of the communalists. Actually the communalists are itching to cause troubles in the streets no matter what the verdict is. Total defeat would prompt them to declare the judiciary to be unfair and that they cannot expect justice from such a court. Mixed or total victory is going to egg them to raise same kind of questions with regard to other Masjids. But at least they cannot accuse the minority communities of uncompromising intolerance towards mixed verdict, rigidity in their attitude, and so forth; and would not give them the excuse for their hooliganism to counter street demonstrations by the intolerant minorities.
In short, our motto should be promotion of non-violent resolution of conflicts. In case of any conflict we must seek a third party – either an arbitrator or an adjudicator – to resolve the conflict. We must propose and promote abolition of the jungle raaj wherein "might is right". How can we promote such an idea? By being the change we want to see in the rest of the world! By acting the way we would like to see all others act! Our own action has to be guided by the principle of "resolving all conflicts via arbitration or adjudication." Rectification of the judicial institutions is a different matter that has to be resolved via rectification of political institutions. Political institutions can be rectified by rectification of election processes. So, I hope you will try to study different electoral systems and their inherent strengths and weaknesses, and then go on a campaign to rectify the electoral system!
Regards,
Satinath
===========
[nri-sahi] No violence - no incendiary statements should be made by anyone
Thursday, September 30, 2010 5:27 PM
From: "Wasim Khan" <wkhan@optonline.net>
Here is good discussion at NDTV including Justice Sacchar and Javed Akhtar:
I support that a new initiative should be taken by the concerned parties as a historic opportunity.
Government of India should support and facilitate a bridging position between two parties.
The worst case scenario should be appealing to Supreme Court not going to the streets!
I will support a statement from CBBI to use this judgment as golden opportunity for a new beginning:
A grand monument to all major religions practiced in India should be built by the Indian Government which should be pride of the nation and all people should have their space to worship in their traditions:
Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Jews… may be adding other world religions!
Let us raise some money for the Monument to God: Ishwar, Allah tero nam!
My humble $101 to any legitimate fund created for this monument.
Please come forward with any amount you would like to donate…
Let us move forward!
Wasim Khan, MD, MPH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Warning: The content of this email message (including its printed and spoken form) is protected by the privacy and confidentiality laws and is meant only for the addressee/s. If you are the unintended recipient, please immediately delete this email message and inform the sender. Thank you!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No violence - no incendiary statements should be made by anyone (RE: [cbbi] urgent on Ayodhya
Thursday, September 30, 2010 5:19 PM
From: "Wasim Khan" <wkhan@optonline.net>
To: building-better-india@yahoogroups.com
Here is good discussion at NDTV including Justice Sacchar and Javed Akhtar:
I support that a new initiative should be taken by the concerned parties as a historic opportunity.
Government of India should support and facilitate a bridging position between two parties.
The worst case scenario should be appealing to Supreme Court not going to the streets!
I will support a statement from CBBI to use this judgment  as golden opportunity for a new beginning:
A grand monument to all major religions practiced in India should be built by the Indian Government which should be pride of the nation and all people should have their space to worship in their traditions:
Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Jews… may be adding other world religions!
Let us raise some money for the Monument to God: Ishwar, Allah tero nam!
My humble $101 to any legitimate fund created for this monument.
Please come forward with any amount you would like to donate…
Let us move forward!
Wasim Khan, MD, MPH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Warning: The content of this email message (including its printed and spoken form) is protected by the privacy and confidentiality laws and is meant only for the addressee/s. If you are the unintended recipient, please immediately delete this email message and inform the sender. Thank you!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: building-better-india@yahoogroups.com [mailto: building-better-india@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of M.Attaulla Khan
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 4:07 PM
To: building-better-india@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cbbi] urgent on Ayodhya
Alex,
I recall Mr.Misra making similar emotional statements in the past, which I think are irresponsible to the core.
Thanks,
Attaulla Khan
From: Alex V. Koshy <alex_koshy2002@yahoo.com>
To: building-better-india@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 3:56:19 PM
Subject: Re: [cbbi] urgent on Ayodhya
Who wrote the last sentence of the text of Mr. Misra , the Convener -Anti communal front of UP Congress Committee? Is it that of Misra's or somebody else who conveyed the message from India . "We take a vow to finish it both in the streets and in the courts."
This sentence is really the non-violent way and provocative or instigative. So no peace loving person can accept it. Any action on the street will disrrupt public life and aggravate the situation.
LET US REFRAIN FROM ALL TYPES OF PROVOCATIVE WRITINGS OR WRONGLY INTERPRETED JUDGEMENT. WE WANT PEACE, HARMONY AND CO-EXISTENCE OF ALL FAITHS IN OUR MOTHERLAND. LET US NOT GO AFTER MATERIALISTIC GAINS FOR ACHIEVING SPIRITUAL HAMONY ON THIS EARTH THROUGH MUTUAL RESPECT AND UNDERSTANDING.
Alex V. Koshy
--- On Thu, 9/30/10, saeed patel <saeed325@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: saeed patel <saeed325@hotmail.com>
Subject: [cbbi] urgent on Ayodhya
To: "Better India " < building-better-india@yahoogroups.com >
Date: Thursday, September 30, 2010, 1:46 PM
Re: [india-unity] urgent on Ayodhya
Thursday, 30 September, 2010 8:27 PM
From: "ggjey1" <ggjey1@gmail.com>
To: india-unity@yahoogroups.com
Since Muslims got 1/3 of the disputed land, it looks like a fair judgment. Hindu groups are gloating over one or two sentences.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Xavier William <varekatx@gmail.com> wrote:
I had till date believed that the judiciary was free of ethnic considerations. But now I wounder whether it is really so.
There were three judges in the Ayodhya case - one a Hindu, another a Muslim and the third a Jain (I think Agarwal is Jain name)
All three have turned out verdicts in tune with their faiths. This is not justice. What is more the verdicts are based on hearsay than on solid evidence though it must be admitted that the court did not have much of such solid evidence to work with.
In the absence of evidence to sort out the legal ownership of the land, the court has come out with a verdict that the land is disputed and so all three parties to the litigation have equal rights. It is a most unprofessional judgment. But the positive side is that it opens vistas for dialogue and reconciliation though the vista has already been there all along without this judgment coming in to the picture.
From the reports that come in the wake of the judgment it seems the parties are in no mood for a reconciliation and will in all probability go in for appeals.
May be when the appeals are heard and verdicts issued a new generation of Indians will be in charge of the politics and may be Ayodhya and such issues will be things of the past
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:15 PM, saeed patel <saeed325@hotmail.com> wrote:
Re: [india-unity] urgent on Ayodhya
Thursday, 30 September, 2010 3:20 PM
From: "Najid Hussain" <najidhussain@yahoo.com>
To: india-unity@yahoogroups.com
>> The real war with Hindu communal forces—who have been involved in several bomb blast cases as well—has only begun. We take a vow to finish it both in the streets and in the courts. <<
It is shocking and sad that Mr. Misra, a convener of Anti Communal Front, should make such communally explosive and irresponsible comments.
I have seen the gist of Judgment given by all three justices. Justice Khan's is very much a matter-of-factly, devoid of communal emotionalism, and quite scientific. In article 10, he observes: both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
That is the bottom-line and the ultimate truth. The language of the other two justices - their apparent value judgments, and going 'far and beyond the centrality of the issue' - do not matter. Also what does not matter is the 'criminality' in covertly installing the Ram Lalla idol in Babri masjid in 1949.
It's time for the Indian Muslims to accept the verdict and move on. This issue has already exacted a very heavy price from both communities.
Najid
Najid Hussain
(302) 834-5426
===============
Fwd: [cbbi] urgent on Ayodhya
Thursday, 30 September, 2010 2:29 PM
From: "su204@aol.com" <su204@aol.com>
To: jifsha@yahoo.com, aasra81@gmail.com, kannan.kannansrinivasan@gmail.com, satichou@gmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: saeed patel <saeed325@hotmail.com>
To: Better India <building-better-india@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 1:46 pm
Subject: [cbbi] urgent on Ayodhya
Ayodhya Verdict and the Tragedy of Indian SecularismBy Amaresh Misra
The much awaited High Court Judgment on the Ayodhya dispute is out. While the verdict is multilayered, the RSS and other Hindu fundamentalist organizations are claiming it `as a victory of the Mandir movement' and their politics of hate, intolerance and communal division. They are also saying that the judgment has vindicated their stand that a temple was demolished and a mosque constructed at the disputed site.
A section of media and ignorant intellectuals as well as confused secularists are falling prey to the communal propaganda. In fact, far from upholding a communal view of history and politics, the verdict has upheld some aspects of India's composite tradition. Two out three judges of the High Court bench have pronounced a three-way partition of the disputed site with 1/3rd going to Muslim litigants. Justice SU Khan has noted that it was unique `namaaz and puja were offered at the same place side by side for decades before 1949'.
All over Awadh and Faizabad in fact, offering namaaz and puja at the same place side by side has been an old tradition of Ganga-Yamuni tehzeeb and saajhi virasat (composite legacy). The three-way partition of the disputed site can also be interpreted as the re-invention of an old secular-humanist tradition.
Justice SU Khan has also held that `the Babari mosque was built on ruins of an ancient temple-like structure'—nowhere has the honorable judge mentioned the word `demolition'. Justice Aggarwal and Justice Sharma have mentioned `demolition' of a temple. But sections of the media and RSS are presenting a 2-1 verdict on the issue `whether a temple was demolished and mosque constructed at the disputed spot' as a `unanimous' verdict!
This is a blatant lie and fraud committed by communal forces. The matter will go to Supreme Court so the honest thing would have been to highlight that on the issue `whether a temple was demolished and mosque constructed at the disputed spot', the verdict is a split one.
Three judges have presented three viewpoints, which differ in many respects. This is in keeping with the complex nature of the case, which involves issues of history and politics, faith and facts. To say, as communal forces are saying, that the verdict is a victory of `Hindus' or RSS/Hindu Mahasabha type of forces is a malicious and contemptuous reading of the judgment. In any other country, RSS leaders and media personals would have been hauled to the court for contempt.
In fact, the only point on which all three judges agree is that idols of Lord Ram, Sita and Bharat were placed by a human agency inside what till 1949 was a functioning mosque. Hindu communal forces have been claiming that the idols `appeared miraculously' and no criminal act was committed in 1949. All three judges imply that idols did not appear by miracle, but were placed inside a functioning mosque. This proves that a criminal act was committed by Hindu communal forces in 1949.
Why are even secular elements not highlighting this aspect of the judgment? Even Muslim intellectuals appear confused—why? Earlier secular forces have been found wanting in standing up for the implementation of the Sacchar Committee report and clubbing of cases of Azamgarh boys in several bomb blast cases occurring in and around the Batala House encounter in September 2008.
The anti-communal front of the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee is pledged to highlight the criminal role of communal forces in the Ayodhya matter. The court has upheld that idols were `placed'—this also implies that the demolition of the mosque in December 1992 was a criminal act. The real war with Hindu communal forces—who have been involved in several bomb blast cases as well—has only begun. We take a vow to finish it both in the streets and in the courts.
Regards,Amaresh Misra
Convener, Anti Communal Front,
Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
RECENT ACTIVITY:
****************************************************************************
"I should like to be able to love my country and still love justice. I don't want any greatness for it, particularly a greatness born of blood and falsehood. I want to keep it alive by keeping justice alive."
--Albert Camus (1960)
****************************************************************************
[cbbi] Gist of judgement from the three judges
Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:52 AM
From: "Khalid Azam" <khalidazam@yahoo.com>
To: "Khalid Azam" <khalidazam@yahoo.com>
Gist of judgment: Justice S U Khan
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/gist-of-judgment-justice-s-u-khan/132062-3.html?from=tn
Gist of judgment: Justice Sudhir Agarwal
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/gist-of-judgment-justice-sudhir-agarwal/132064-3.html?from=tn
Gist of judgment: Justice Dharam Veer Sharma
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/gist-of-judgment-justice-dharam-veer-sharma/132065-3.html?from=tn
__._,_.___
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment