Ayodhya Verdict Disputed Land Split Into 3 Parts

[kdsingh80]

http://news.rediff.com/news/live-news.html

24: Disputed land split into 3 parts

The Allahabad High Court rules by majority that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts to be distributed among the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party for 'Ram Lalla', say lawyers.

16:22: HC dismisses Waqf Board title suit

Delivering their verdict that all of India has remained glued to, the three-judge special bench of the Allahabad high court, comprising Justice S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma, today declared that the title suit filed by the Sunni Waqf Board has been dismissed. Two of the three judges - Justices Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma - concurred in the judgment, while Justice S U Khan differed with the majority view. The judgment runs into 8000 pages. Further details are awaited. Meanwhile, the status quo will continue on the land for three more months.

More News to follow

[kdsingh80]

http://in.news.yahoo.com/242/20100930/1334/tnl-ayodhya-dispute-land-to-be-divided-i.html

Thu, Sep 30 05:16 PM

The Allahabad HC today in the Ayodhya land title case has rejected the Wakf board's plea and said that the disputed land will be divided in three parts among the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the Ram Lalla.

The court has also ruled that the site will be in status Quo for the next three months.

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court Thursday decided by majority that the site where a makeshift Ram Lalla temple exists is where Hindu god Ram was born, lawyer Ravi Shankar Prasad said.

The Allahabad High court has dismissed teh Wakf board's plea. There is no dispute on the fact of that it was Ram's birthplace. The Ayodhya land willbe divided into three parts

Earlier, the Supreme Court had deferred its ruling on the pronouncement of the Ayodhya verdict by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court.

The verdict on ownership of the religious site was to have come on Sept. 24 from the lower court in Uttar Pradesh, but the top court suspended that imminent verdict last week, responding to arguments that a chance should be given to reconciliation in the 60-year-old case.

The court also issued notice to all the parties to the title suit and asked Attorney General Goolam Vahanvati to be present in the court when the case is heard.

The ruling followed a petition by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi seeking postponement of the high court verdict at least until the end of the Oct 3-14 Commonwealth Games. It sought the court's direction to the parties to explore possibilities of an out of court amicable settlement.

There was a divergence of views in the apex court bench of Justices R.V. Ravindran and H.L. Gokhale. According to the bench, while one member felt that the special leave petition be dismissed, another was of the view that notice be issued and the order stayed.

Under the convention, when one member of the bench favours the issuance of notice though the other member of the bench disagrees, notices are issued. Stating this, Justice Ravindran passed the order staying the pronouncement of the Ayodhya verdict by a week and issue of notice to all parties to the suit.

Lawyers of both sides in the case - Hindu and Muslim litigants - welcomed the Supreme Court decision, saying a verdict in the case could not be put off indefinitely as the chances of a reconciliation after years of litigation were slim.

"Right now there is no possibility. Any reconciliation will happen only after the ... judgement," Zafaryab Jilani, lawyer of the Sunni Central Board of Waqf, the Muslim litigants, said.

Tripathi's petition was turned down by the three-judge special bench of the Allahabad High Court last week. While two judges S.U. Khan and Sudhir Agrawal rejected the application, the third judge, Dharam Veer Sharma, allowed the plea, following which Tripathi chose to move the apex court.

The Allahabad High court will rule on Thursday whether Hindus or Muslims own land around a demolished mosque in Ayodhya, a judgement haunted by memories of 1992 riots that killed some 2,000 people.

Those riots were some of the country's worst religious violence since Partition in 1947 and a verdict on the case may spark more disturbances between India's majority Hindus and minority Muslims.

The verdict will add to the security worries of the government, which already has its hands full dealing with the preparations for the Commonwealth Games that are bedeviled by concerns over filthy accommodation and health and security.

The case over the 16th century Babri mosque in Uttar Pradesh's Ayodhya town is one of the biggest security challenges in India this year, along with a Maoist insurgency and a Kashmiri separatist rebellion, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said.

Hindus and Muslims have quarrelled for more than a century over the history of the Babri mosque.

Hindus claim that the mosque stands on the birthplace of their god-king Rama, and was built after the destruction of a Hindu temple by a Muslim invader in the 16th century.

The dispute flared up in 1992 after a Hindu mob destroyed the mosque and nearly 2,000 were killed in rioting between Hindus and Muslims across the country.

[tonyhp32]

The judgement was political and based on the needs to try and keep both sides happy because the govt didn't want violence to mar the CWG. The precedent for this case the Shahidganj Gurdwara of the 1930s which was brought against the SGPC by the Muslims to take possession of the site where executions of Sikhs had taken place during the mid 1700s. The place was in the possession of Sikhs and functioning as a Gurdwara. The Muslims lost the case in all the courts that they appealed to, all the way upto the Privy council. The verdicts held that as the Sikhs had been in undisputed possession for more than 12 years then they would the the legal title holders under the adverse possession rules. The Sikhs had held the site from the 1760s until 1936 when the dispute took place. Under the Shahidganj precedent the Ayodhya site should have all gone to the Muslims.

[kdsingh80]

The judgement was political and based on the needs to try and keep both sides happy because the govt didn't want violence to mar the CWG.

The verdict is mostly in Favour of Hindu's and not to keep both sides happy

The Sikhs had held the site from the 1760s until 1936 when the dispute took place. Under the Shahidganj precedent the Ayodhya site should have all gone to the Muslims.

Well That was before partition.Hindu's could had easily demolished the mosque in 1947 Partition riots but they lost that chance

[Mithar]

HIndus of UP/Bihar don't have the guts to build the Ram Mandhir even though Ayodhya is located at a Hindu majority area. Can you imagine Sikhs tolerating such a situation if their historical Gurdwara had to be rebuilt in a Sikh majority area of even Muslim remaining quiet if a historical Masjid had to be rebuilt in a majority Muslim area? Hindus are not warriors, they cannot handle the aggressiveness of Muslims (Kashmiri Pandits being an example). Amongst Hindus, only the Maratha nation and even South Indians like the Tamils are gutsy enough to fight back when pushed against the wall, but the Hindus of UP/Bihar (Hindi belt) are not like that.

Amongst Muslim, the Hindus(of North India) have a reputation of being cowards who can be bullied around which is why they have been ruled by Muslims for a thousand years, had their women forcibly AND voluntarily taken at will and Mandhirs demolished by Muslims. Marathas were the odd exception amongst Hindus.

[tonyhp32]

No doubt the Hindu leaders were told about the decision beforehand hence their appeals for calm when it would have been clear that they would never had made the appeals had they had no idea about the verdict and an unfavourable one to the Hindus would have been the end of most of their political careers.

[SURYADEV]

ANother Jerusalem in the making.

[kdsingh80]

If Hindu's attack mosque then they are considered as fanatics,fascists and intolerant.If they don't do anything then they are cowards .May I ask people here what should Hindu's do in Babri case?

[dalsingh101]

I know this will sound funny, but I'm in shock that Rama was born in UP!

Edited October 1, 2010 by dalsingh101

[tonyhp32]

If Hindu's attack mosque then they are considered as fanatics,fascists and intolerant.If they don't do anything then they are cowards .May I ask people here what should Hindu's do in Babri case?

The Mosque was attacked after the Kar Sewaks were informed that the police would not take any action against them. If they thought they might face police lathis and bullets you can bet your life they wouldn't have attacked the Mosque.

[DTF]

Why are Muslims so admant about keeping the mosque? If you see the old pictures, it looked a deserted and neglected building. It has no historical religious significance for the Musims, so why do they cling on to something they know Hindus consider one of their holiest sites?

Look at the example of the Guru-Ki Maseet. Sikhs were effectively running it as a Gurdwara, but then happily returned tot he Muslims to use.

Why can't Muslims do the same? It just baffles me. Along with other known places where mosques replaced mandirs, I think Musims need to rethink their stance.

[tonyhp32]

It's always been the Muslim mentality to show the supposedly supremacy of their religion over all other hence the not giving and inch but taking a mile!

Muslims have always built mosques over the ruins of Mandirs, Temples and Churches. They built the Al Aqsa mosque and invented the story of Mohammed riding a horse to the seven heavens from there to solidify their claim. They demolished the Visigothic church in Cordoba and built the grand mosque there which was then converted into a cathedral again when the Spanish kicked out the Muslims. The muslim immigrants in Spain now want the site back! The same is the case of the Hagia Sophia which was once the grandest building in Europe but was converted into a Mosque by the Turks. This is the reason that there is so much hostility to the Muslims building a mosque at ground zero in New York.

[jaikaara]

This judgement is a soft slap on the face of hindus. They still have to share the land with muslims. My logic fails to realize what historical importance or religous importance does Ayodhya hold for muslims?

What rishtedaari(relationship) do they share with Babur a ruthless barbarian invader ?

What also happened was that the centre had warned the BJP ruled states and i belive hindu rulers too that any protest wouldnt be tolerated.Fearing bloodshed they might have remained silent. But i belive they might wait for the right opportunity, post 92-93 babri riots scenario I have seen rise in extremism amongst hindus, gujarat 2002 reaction is the best example. I have friends there, had spoken to them during that time. Their statements confirmed my assumptions, the mobs numbered 20,000 !!! what they said was , although 100 hindus were killed by the police, they couldnt do much. The public anger was as such nothing could be done.The pressure had to be let out.

Now what can happen is, if the muslims construct a mosque at the land allotted to them, clashes can be predicted. In all these years there was no namaaz offered now muslims from outside will travel to ayodhya, fundamentalism and terrorism is going to creep in along.More bloodshed in the years to come cannot be denied.

[Mithar]

This judgement is a soft slap on the face of hindus. They still have to share the land with muslims. My logic fails to realize what historical importance or religous importance does Ayodhya hold for muslims?

What rishtedaari(relationship) do they share with Babur a ruthless barbarian invader ?

What also happened was that the centre had warned the BJP ruled states and i belive hindu rulers too that any protest wouldnt be tolerated.Fearing bloodshed they might have remained silent. But i belive they might wait for the right opportunity, post 92-93 babri riots scenario I have seen rise in extremism amongst hindus, gujarat 2002 reaction is the best example. I have friends there, had spoken to them during that time. Their statements confirmed my assumptions, the mobs numbered 20,000 !!! what they said was , although 100 hindus were killed by the police, they couldnt do much. The public anger was as such nothing could be done.The pressure had to be let out.

Now what can happen is, if the muslims construct a mosque at the land allotted to them, clashes can be predicted. In all these years there was no namaaz offered now muslims from outside will travel to ayodhya, fundamentalism and terrorism is going to creep in along.More bloodshed in the years to come cannot be denied.

Hindus(BJP,Sangh pariwar) are all happy over the judgment, what is interesting is why didn't the Marathas or Hindu Jats who ruled in the neighborhood make the Ram Mandir when they had an army to do so? why didn't the Hindus in 1947 make the Ram Mandhir when they had a clear chance to do so? the answer is that opportunist politicians like Advani used this issue as a rallying cry to unite the Hindus during the 80s and early 90s.

As for what happened in Gujarat. the police did the same thing that they did in 84, they just stood there and let the massacre happen. After the bloodshed had happened and all the fingers were pointing towards the police they just made the same excuse, that "the mob was overwhelming, we were unable to handle them", this is called pure BS.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Mithar

[jaikaara]

the bjp ro the sangh parwaar cannot represent common hindus, had they been so, they would have ruled over hindustan for 50 years instead of congress. the hindu vote is divided. i been speaking to hindus from yesterday , they are feeling betrayed.