Post a Comment
Share your thoughts
You are not logged in, please log in or register
Must See
Daily Mail
Digression
Order by
1/D-76
Sep 29, 2010
08:48 PM
"...Ram is as much a national icon as a Hindu deity, and therefore it is appropriate for the Muslim parties to the dispute to cede their claim because they ought to defer to a nationalist imperative, the building of the mandir."

Mukul Kesavan makes some excellent points to warn us of the dangers of majoritarian dictatorship. Akin to the claim that Ram Mandir is a national project rather than a Hindu project is the objection raised by Rajnath Singh to the inclusion of Azaan, qawalis and representations of other Indian cultures during the CWG opening ceremony presentations while saying that singing of some mantras from the Vedas was okay because Vedas "do not represent any religion"! Verbal gymnastics has become a favorite exercise of the saffron crowd.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
2/D-80
Sep 29, 2010
09:27 PM
Faruki

Ayodya is not Saffronites demand only.If this mute point is understood then we can gauge the extent of problem before us.

Muslims claim is on basis of existence of the Babri Mosque.Hindus say Mosque was built demolishing a Temple as per Medieval Islamic practice .

Legally Muslims have strong case .But the differences between the races are still unbridgeable.By saying only saffrons are asking for Ram Mandir is hopelessly wrong.

Ultimately Hindus and Muslims have to settle the issue not Courts.But Seculars will not allow that to happen .Vote ka Sawaal hein !
a k ghai
mumbai, India
3/D-82
Sep 29, 2010
09:34 PM
"Ayodya is not Saffronites demand only.If this mute point is understood then we can gauge the extent of problem before us. "

In this context, the Ayodhya is similar to ground zero mosque problem. It reflected in the poll where most of the people oppose the ground zero mosque and at the same time agree the developer's right to build it. They all are not tea party members.
Maha
NJ, United States
4/D-96
Sep 29, 2010
11:32 PM
dear ghai and maha
wish there is a refereundum and see who prefers ram temple.the people who rule in various states from mayawathi,karunanidh...orens,lalus,mulayams all r for muslim appeasement and will clap with hands and legs if the judgement is in favour of muslims. the only suspects will be bjp and shivsena.their oldest ally akali dal will also welcome the judgement favouring muslims.except 2 parties all others will have no objection for mosque rebuilding and we keep hearing the lies of all india wanting a ram temple. r this politicians not dependant on hindu votes r or elected only by muslim votes. inspite of their muslim appeasemnt if they r the majority doesnt it mean that majority of hindus too support their line.
wish the gopinath mundes,bangaru laxmans,santosh gangwars,bandaru dattatreyas slap another blow on the rss like they did in caste census by asking them to respect the court verdict and move on.
for the info of sanghis modi has given tickets to muslims in ahemdabad municipal polls and had started showing his obc stripes of muslim appeasement(giving adequate representation is appeasement in the eyes of sangh) and all india approoval.the anger against this move is felt in the hindutva sites.when bjp was calling all india bandh on the emotional amarnath yatra,modi showed his middle finger and said no bandh in gujarat and has been the first bjp chief minister to come with appeal to stay calm which he had nevr done in his previous years as chief minister.
there r quiet a bit of obc/sc/st mps of bjp.kindly get them on media for their opinion on ram temple and their ignorance will give out the truth that decades of hindutva brainwashing too can never make a dalit lover of hindutva and its pet ramjhanambhoomi,uniform civil code, art 370
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
5/D-97
Sep 29, 2010
11:40 PM
A lighter side, a kalmadi joke in this context

"Compromise proposal for Ayodhya: Let the Hindus construct a temple, but the project must be led by Kalmadi."

You can replace hindus and temple with muslim and mosque. Either way, sounds like a good compromise :-)
Maha
NJ, United States
6/D-99
Sep 29, 2010
11:43 PM
mukul kesavan is the sainath of politics.the two great men of media .hats of to you
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
7/D-8
Sep 30, 2010
03:52 AM
Ghai,

>> Ayodya is not Saffronites demand only.

What I had called saffronite was the verbal gymnastics of people like Rajnath Singh who raised objection to the inclusion of Azaan, qawalis and representations of other Indian cultures during the CWG opening ceremony presentations while saying that singing of some mantras from the Vedas was okay because Vedas "do not represent any religion"!
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
8/D-9
Sep 30, 2010
04:05 AM
--"Ayodya is not Saffronites demand only."

This issue affects Saffronites more than anyone else. They created it and their validation is claimed and sought by it. The Saffronites cannot offer the country anything else except Talibanism.
Cata Maran
Soccer City, South Africa
9/D-16
Sep 30, 2010
06:48 AM
The court has to abide by the constitution and rule of law. If they abide by it, it is legally a mosque regardless whether it was destroyed by Babar or some other Moughal king. Whatever happened had happened. The Muslims of today's India are not responsible. Hindus may have sentiments based on faith. But at the end of the day, the constitution should be respected by the judiciary and people. If Hindus had legal title, I am all for it. I hope this is awarded to Muslims and Hindus accept this dignified way and show the world that India is a real secular, tolerant democracy. Don't fall for rhetoric. If people want to show their approval/disapproval, they should say that in an election not on innocent Muslims or innocent Hindus on the street.

I also take this opportunity in proposing a change in our laws to enable the people to vote on issues of Governance.
VIvek
Hyderabad, India
10/D-21
Sep 30, 2010
07:47 AM
I think judgement that goes against Hindus would help mobilise Hindus. Care should be taken that no one indulges in violence.

These are issues that needs to be argued based on facts. It is a FACT that Muslims whenever and wherever they are in a majority or in positions of power destroy other places of worship and build mosques on top of them.

http://en.wikipedia....rg/wiki/Hagia_Sophia

It is most likely that a temple was there that got demolished and a mosque was built on top of it. But the better thing to do is to let the mosque standing but spread the story of 'victory mosques' to every Hindu. Anyone who visits Banaras would know that Aurangazeb demolished the temple there and built a mosque.

Regardless of the "spin" by "secular buffoons" of India people can figure out the facts. We just need to point them to the relevant verses from Quran/Hadiths and other islamic literature.
Selvan
Boston, United States
11/D-24
Sep 30, 2010
09:47 AM
Ok so i watched the whole telecast and in my opinion Mehta brought the house down with his pseudo-anti-cynicism !! I had no idea he was such a cynic. I have new found respect for him !!
Cata Maran
Soccer City, South Africa
12/D-31
Sep 30, 2010
11:17 AM
good one vivek u surprised me
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
13/D-34
Sep 30, 2010
11:36 AM
he..he..Selvan,

>> We just need to point them to the relevant verses.

The Allahabad court did not find it necessary or sensible to do so. If the case goes to SC, you should convey your brilliant ideas to the sangh's lawyers.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
14/D-35
Sep 30, 2010
11:42 AM
dearselvan
how will a negative verdict mobilise/motivate hindus. will bjp win in west bengal/tamilnadu going to polls r telengana demand will be dropped to first fight for ram mandir.will nitish kumar join the sangh in having a parliamentary overruling of the title suit.
somnath happened in 1950 when the presence of dalits/obcs were meagre and negligible. more their number more the distance from hindutva/cow slaughter/uniform civil code/ramjhanambhoomi
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
15/D-37
Sep 30, 2010
11:52 AM
"that decades of hindutva brainwashing too can never make a dalit lover of hindutva and its pet ramjhanambhoomi,'

Munu

As usual is blind to facts and history.He does not realise that Kalyan Singh Lodha presided the final destruction of Babri.
a k ghai
mumbai, India
16/D-39
Sep 30, 2010
12:08 PM
dear ghai
kalyan never had any problem in asking forgiveness and become brother of maulana mulayam.he has no emotional attachment and can use it for electoral gains whichever suits him and his family.he thought that he will be the natural successor of atal and advani and when not given importance quit. kindly see the history of chagal bhujbal who after spending several decades with thackeray in hindutva labs quits when overlooked with an manohar joshi who will stay when removed from cm.yediyurappa was all set to bid adieu to sangh but ananthkumars stay inspite of being denied due to the emotional attachment with sangh/hindutva.uma bharathi splits the party knowing fully well that it will harm the sangh interests but personal egos come above hindutva and on realising their limited potential start leaning back
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
17/D-40
Sep 30, 2010
12:14 PM
Everyone knows the legend of lord Ram. Why are we fighting for a spot where he was born? Is only that spot sacred? Is not the entire land where he was born sacred?

Ram's story is about love, courage, respect and uprightness. Ram janmabhoomi cannot be a few square metres in Ayodhya - this entire country is his janmabhoomi. If we as people love Ram so much, then lets attempt to live our lives on those principles of love, courage, respect and uprightness.

We cannot change history where invading barbarians destroyed our temples and tried to change our faith. That pain will live with every generation of hindus. But in all of history, this is the first time, we as a nation are united by a common constituion. We don't have jealous kings betraying each other where the invaders took advantage. So, in a way, it is our victory.

Lets look at this judgement not as a judgement of faith, but as a common title dispute. There are hundreds of Ram temples built in every city/village since independence - lets rejoice that we are in a position where no one can destroy them going forward - and that the legend of Ram is safe and thriving for all ages to come.

Jai shri ram.
Rajesh Chary
Mumbai, India
18/D-41
Sep 30, 2010
12:23 PM
VIvek
Hyderabad, India

Then why SC asked for ASI excavation if they really wanted to give it to Muslims for whom sacred place is not this mosque court would have given it long back.

For Muslims is Mecca so they go there every year by tax payers money in the name of Haj subsidy.

Secular ideology is not applicable in practical terms it is purely theoretical like what it is written in Book Of Law.

Only Hindus are asked to follow secularism but not others.

Why?
Jay
Hyderabad, India
19/D-44
Sep 30, 2010
12:43 PM
Congress says all those which came after the constitution formation is history and need not to give much importance (Manish Tiwari on NDTV We The People")so is this ram temple, so even Mahatma Gandhi lived and died before the formation of constitution so why we remember him every year.

Even the title of Mahatma was is given to him before independence then why still we need to say mahatma?

Today I can challenge any one on this forum carry out out a opinion poll that what still do country believe in secularism? Answer we will get is NO.

IN Gandhi's own state carry out opinion poll Do Gandhi need to given status of Mahatma among Gujarati's we will get surprising reply from Gujarati that NO.

So people who still believe in secularism must stop preaching this fake ideology as we are fed up with this daily switch On TV we hear Secular from every one.

See our countries star cricket Irfan Pathan and Yusuf Pathan after every match winning on award ceremony they started using word of their God (As all Pakistani cricketers do). I never saw this doing in beginning of their career. Even Azaruddin never did such thing while he was one of best captain of our team.
Jay
Hyderabad, India
20/D-46
Sep 30, 2010
01:03 PM
Whoever wins, let us make this an occasion to reaffirm and elevate the idea of India.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
21/D-51
Sep 30, 2010
02:12 PM
The issue of Ram temple is not merely religious one. The fact remains that hundreds of Hindu temples were destroyed by Muslim invaders and probably Babri Masjid had been build over one of such destroyed temple. Whether the said temple, if it ever existed, was the birth place of Ram is beside the point. If Hindus beleive it to be birth place of Ram, then it is a matter of faith and it should be respected. While Muslims talk so loudly that the rule of law should prevail, they conveniently forget that their mobilisation forced the then Rajiv Gandhi government to overrule the judgement pronounced by the Supreme Court in Shah Bano case. Had Muslims honoured the verdict of the Supreme Court, duly constituted under our constitution, probably the nation would have been spared of this entire issue of Ram Janmabhoomi dispute and would have attained our present day economic growht at least a decade earlier. Just as Muslims regard the Prophate as the messanger of the God, majority of Hindus have now come to believe that Ram was born in Ayodhya at the place where Babri Masjid existed. The courts will definetely rule as per the provisions of the law but they are not in a position to determine the matters of faith. Whichever party is a winner in the Ayodhya case, the country will be a winner only if both the parties reach out to an amicable settlement in deference to the sentiments of each other.
GIRISH TARWANI
Baroda, India
22/D-52
Sep 30, 2010
02:52 PM
"Compromise proposal for Ayodhya " Maha

Lovely proposal.
a k ghai
mumbai, India
23/D-53
Sep 30, 2010
03:05 PM
So, according to Mukul Kesavan, secularism is more important than truth!! What if the title dispute goes in favor of Hindus based on facts and archeological studies and not due to pressure? Just because the Babri structure was demolished, it does not automatically become Muslim property.

Then he goes on to argue about the non-existent secularism when the constitution was formed and provide a theory that it was intended. If it was intended, then why include it later and make it a comedy all over. And when he argues so long about majority-ism, where the f**k was he when Shah Bano happened and Pandits were cleansed ? For lefties like him, brutal minoritism is fine, but if the majority fights for a cause for once, it becomes a Israeli state. People like him will even argue to the Jews to forget the holocaust and move on.

"the assimilative clauses in the Constitution such as the Directive Principles, which instruct the Indian State to move towards a uniform civil code. In this view, secularism means subordinating religious injunctions to republican laws whenever they come into conflict"

Here comes the hypocrites... When it suits minorities, religious injunctions become superior than the constitution. But if the same comes to Majority, constitution is superior word by word. Have to appreciate the confidence of such loonies to write such crap though.

"Israel claims to be both a secular State and a Jewish one, a country where freedom of religion is a basic right and yet Judaism is the favoured and constitutive religion."

If anything, it is the exact reverse in India. The state will take control of Majority's temples and loot them, will maintain them poorly, will tax the majority for their pilgrimages and festivals, give subsidies to minorities for their religious activities, does not interfere in minority educational institutions but impose conditions on majority institutions, turns a blind eye to forced conversions etc etc.. the list goes on..

"and this is the case in Gujarat, where the pogrom has consolidated an electoral Hindu majority and segregated a subordinate Muslim minority"

So, if minorities keeps forming cunning alliances and vote en bloc, that is their rights. If majority gets frustrated with minoritism and decides to vote together for once, it becomes segregation. Great!!
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
24/D-57
Sep 30, 2010
04:12 PM
dear rajesh
what kesavan says reg constitution and ambedkar is the need for interference of the state in religion(hinduism as majority of suffereing dalits/sudras beloong to them)and hence leaving the word secularism(which means separation of religion and state and state having no role in religion or viceversa).ambedkar was a strong supporter of hindu reforms bill and it was opposed by all stalwarts starting from president rajendra prasad.
i have given the reason for the inclusion of prevention of cow slaughter/uniform code etc in directive principles was due to the commanding majority enjoyed by the upper castes in the constituent assembly. ambedkar had to fight for evry right he wanted for dalits and was forced to compromise.the tribal member in the constituent assembly munda a former indian hockey captain forcibly argued on how cow/buffalo was part of their menu and culture but was ignored.the naga insurgency movement is older than independence and their representatives in 1939 to the viceroy had declared their state of being both pig and cow eaters and hence can never be a part of cong/muslim league.
majoirty of hindus r nonveg.r we able to offer our daily food to the gods. its the minority which dominates the entire hindu space and projects its language/culture/diet/history as that of hindu history.the majority r fighting for reservation and its not the muslims/christians who oppose it vehemently but the fellow hindus who wants to utilise their number when it comes to religion and keep them in the same position as it was during ram rule(brahmin guru takes the kshatriya prince to kill sudras trying to learn vedas).
imagine a constituent assembly now with karunanidhi/nitish/a...ndan/patnaik/shivraj chauhan/gehlot/modi/.../modi/mayawathi(real leaders from the grassroots unlike the imposed one from a elite class)and u will know how far we have travelled since 1950 and communalism.there is no love for hindutva among the dalits/obcs and almost all political parties led by them across the country are antisangh.why is it so
they r the majority
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
25/D-58
Sep 30, 2010
05:14 PM
how sad i feel on being vindicated convincingly when a muslim judge is pro sunni wakf board and two upper caste hindu judges becoming devotees and not giving a legal verdict
remember the verdict of the neutral british judge.hope the case drags for some time in supreme court till there r adequate dalit/obc judges to get a legal impartial judgement
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
26/D-59
Sep 30, 2010
05:43 PM
"the reason for the inclusion of prevention of cow slaughter/uniform code etc in directive principles was due to the commanding majority enjoyed by the upper castes in the constituent assembly".

Oh yes, when it becomes uncomfortable, Constitution becomes upper caste conspiracy. When it is not, it is the result of the Ambedkar. If Hindu reforms bill was allowed, why the so called seculars did not reform Islamic code ? Why is even in 2010, a Muslim can marry many women and get away with Triple talaqs ?

" majoirty of hindus r nonveg. r we able to offer our daily food to the gods ?"

I am from backward class and a Non-veg. We offer Non-veg to the local gods whose names resembles your first name. I haven't come across any place where the offering of such food is prevented for such Gods. If you want to offer Beef in a Vishnu temple, obviously you will be kicked out.

BTW, Vegetarianism is not such a bad thing after all. With the claims now that Gloabl warming increases with more people eating meat, i dont think advocating vegetarianism needs to be taken from a religion point of view.

"during ram rule brahmin guru takes the kshatriya prince to kill sudras trying to learn vedas"

You are a vehement follower of the dravidian fundamentalists like Karunanidhi, arent you ?

"how sad i feel on being vindicated convincingly when a muslim judge is pro sunni wakf board and two upper caste hindu judges becoming devotees and not giving a legal verdict"

So, if the verdict became otherwise, the same judges would have become icons irrespective of their caste, right ? First they will ask you to respect court verdict, now if they dont like it, the judges will be tarnished because of their caste..
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
27/D-61
Sep 30, 2010
06:16 PM
"To accept that arrangement would be to concede that majoritarian grievance backed by massive, illegal violence is above the laws of the republic."

True .So Mukul there should be no objection in accepting the Court decisions .

Or rona dhona chalu ?
a k ghai
mumbai, India
28/D-62
Sep 30, 2010
06:17 PM
"how sad i feel on being vindicated convincingly when a muslim judge is pro sunni wakf board and two upper caste hindu judges becoming devotees and not giving a legal verdict "

Munnu

Rona dhona chalu !
a k ghai
mumbai, India
29/D-64
Sep 30, 2010
06:25 PM
if the verdict became otherwise, the same judges would have become icons irrespective of their caste, right ? First they will ask you to respect court verdict, now if they dont like it, the judges will be tarnished because of their caste..
Rajesh
dear rajesh its unfortunately true.remember the judgement of the neutral british judge on the same dispute.i was working in forest research institute in dehradun the largest in the country and started by british in 1904 after removing 700 villages from their place under force.today if the descendants of those villagers come and destroy the research institute will the court stand by its side.it declines the suit of the wakf board on the basis of appeal that it was time barred but comes to the rescue of parties wronged 500 yrs ago
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
30/D-66
Sep 30, 2010
06:33 PM
Dear Ganapathy,

No one made you a representative of all Dalits/OBCs. I'm a OBC and a non-veg just like Rajesh and I don't think I agree with you. Just like some people are brainwashed by Hindutvadis , and some by Muslims you are brainwashed by the mythical "Dravidians". :-)

I think it would have been better if they've just stopped with mentioning a temple was demolished by Muslims and have said two wrongs don't make it right and maintained the status quo.

Even a kid would not believe (except the "secular buffoons" ofcourse) if the judges said the masjid was not built after destroying a temple by Muslims.
Selvan
Boston, United States
31/D-67
Sep 30, 2010
06:36 PM
"if the descendants of those villagers come and destroy the research institute will the court stand by its side"

If the descendants have the proof that it is their land, they can approach the court and get it settled. No issues. If the court also finds the proof to be correct, they can ask the institute to move or compensate.
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
32/D-68
Sep 30, 2010
06:37 PM
dear ghai
whether its jessicalal /priyadarshini mattoo case or this one there is no wrong in ronaaa as there is an supreme court and hopefully it takes some time before it give s judgement when there r adequate dalit/obc judges to get a legal impartial judgement
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
33/D-70
Sep 30, 2010
06:49 PM
"adequate dalit/obc judges to get a legal impartial judgement"

this says it all.. next thing you will ask is to prevent upper castes from becoming judges because they will not give legal judgement..
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
34/D-72
Sep 30, 2010
07:19 PM
It is a disappointing decision. The judges were basically accommodating the politicians' wishes. As some people were arguing against Mukul Kesavan saying that he meant Hindus have to sacrifice for Secularism but others need not. I am not sure if Mukul said that. Regardless of Secularism or not, if the title is held by Muslims even if there was temple underneath, the court should go by the legal title. For example, the owner of the temple might have converted to Islam and turned it into a mosque; He might have sold it to Muslims for personal gain during time of difficulties; there are several such possibilities and we can't just assume that Babar destroyed a temple forcibly and built a mosque; even the ASI evidence was not fool-proof or conclusive enough to decide that there was a temple. A lot of people arguing for temple should realize that if the judiciary stops playing into the hands of popular mood and political aspirations of these parties, they will gain credibility. The judiciary had a chance to prove that under the constitution, they have to go by the law even if it does not fit in well with popular or political aspirations of people. That would have enhanced the trust in judiciary. In my view, they failed to do that with this verdict. There are no short cuts/compromises to build a democratic society. If the judiciary bends to a dynasty or political party or popular mood, nothing good comes out of it.

I want all of you to read this news:

http://andhralekha.c...20gets%20Life%20Term

While ayesha meera’s mother is unhappy with the verdict complaining on the corrupt Police officials, Political pressure and their false evidences trying to save some of the major politicians (Koneru Ranga Rao) and their family members involved in the case. Mariamma, mother of Suri Babu fell unconscious in the court premises listening the verdict.

A young college girl Ayesha meera was raped and murdered by allegedly Congress MLA Koneru Ranga Rao's son/friends partying nearby (there is a lot of evidence that they did it). The Police and ministers implicated some handicapped man who can't even stand on his own in the rape/murder. The judge concurred. Every one knows this is all BS. If this was BJP Govt., the whole national press would have been there because the girl involved was a Muslim girl. But since it is CON party, no one will cover it. Teesta Setlvad or ARoy will not shout. NDTV and CNN/IBN will will all keep quiet. Is this what we want in India? When will our police/judiciary stand up for the rule of law and tell BJP or VHP or CON party or GANDU dynasty or COMMIES or Islamists or Bal Thackrey that every one is same under the law.
VIvek
Hyderabad, India
35/D-73
Sep 30, 2010
07:24 PM
dear selvan
i do agree that there r dalits/obcs who r against reservation /antimuslim etc but see the leaders/writers/retd judges/bureacrats/artistes from this group and the cat will be out of the bag.why all dalit parties irrespective of state r pseudosecular/antihindu.why the rajas(dmk and cpi)/mulayams/nitish...sh/lalu/karunanidhis r pseudosecular.name some obcs/sc/sts of repute and top postings in the sangh.
refute my statement that caste and religion decided how the judges gave the judgement and i will be really happy to know that it didnt had any role
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
36/D-74
Sep 30, 2010
07:39 PM
"For example, the owner of the temple might have converted to Islam and turned it into a mosque; He might have sold it to Muslims for personal gain during time of difficulties; there are several such possibilities and we can't just assume that Babar destroyed a temple forcibly and built a mosque; even the ASI evidence was not fool-proof or conclusive enough to decide that there was a temple"

Owner of the temple ? sold it to muslims ? Vivek, please read history and the judgement clearly.

Regarding legal title, the dispute is there from early 19th century and not invented by BJP/RSS. Your claim that ASI proof is not conclusive is vague. The parties concerned should not have gone to the court then. On what basis do the court decide the judgmental for a historical case ? Based on some marxist historians' claims ?
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
37/D-75
Sep 30, 2010
07:40 PM
Dear Ganapathy,

I have no idea about RSS / VHP / any such org. If they don't have or don't plan to have Dalits / OBCs in leadership positions they are going to be doomed for sure simply for mathematical reasons.

I never said caste and religion never played a role in either the judges' statements, neither your and my comments as well as the rest who comment here. Every one of us think we are neutral but the reality is that all of us are biased in one way or the other.
Selvan
Boston, United States
38/D-76
Sep 30, 2010
07:43 PM
Ganapati,

"refute my statement that caste and religion decided how the judges gave the judgement "

Why anyone would care about refuting your hateful trash statement ?

"and i will be really happy to know that it didnt had any role"
With the sick castiest mentality you have, I feel you will be happy if cast plays a role in making decision. It will help you to propagate your sick agenda.
Maha
NJ, United States
39/D-77
Sep 30, 2010
07:47 PM
"no wrong in ronaaa as there is an supreme court"

Munnu

There are two original contestants in this case .One is Muslim and other is Hindu Tiwari in this case .Only they can go to SC .Cases of rest of the appellants have been thrown out as time barred.One of them is Sunni Board representative Zafar Zilani.The time barred ones can only appeal to SC for grant of their right to contest & should be admissible.

Only two original contestants can go for appeal in this case.Both are mum .

But you and your ilk can Chaloo Rona dhona and breast beatings.

The SC itself indicated a few days back go and settle amicably outside the Court .That is where the problem will be resolved finally.

Fringe elements like you on both the sides have already harmed the country enough. A few of them are proxies from across the borders.But not you.

LET THE PEOPLE OF INDIA RESOLVE AMICABLY IRRESPECTIVE OF WHOM THE JUDGMENT HAS FAVORED.
a k ghai
mumbai, India
40/D-83
Sep 30, 2010
08:19 PM
dear rajesh
the british forcibly evacuated 700 villages in 1904(just 100 years back)and made the forest research institute and indian military academy in dehradun.thousands of thoda tribal inhabitants where killed and destroyed while making the madras regtl centre in ooty.almost alll brit cantonments where made by force after killing/evicting the locals.
the issue is the vilent capture of the babri/places and courts standing by it.the supreme court instructs the elected chief minister to protect a mosque and after giving assurance he fails to protect it.the judges say that it deserves to be demolished and the illegal display of idols as legal. where r the legal documents in favour.quoting this judgement all tribals should claim back the hills by first violently capturing it(oh it sounds like naxalism)and the courts will understand that it was their place originally and nontribals had no business to be in those hills.
dear ghai
wait till a few days to see the supreme court reaction on whether it stays the judgement and who all r allowed to appeal and hope u will get a chance to be happy after supreme court judgement too and it will not be like the reservation issue
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
41/D-84
Sep 30, 2010
08:34 PM
"
the british forcibly evacuated 700 villages in 1904(just 100 years back)and made the forest research institute and indian military academy in dehradun"

Munnu

Another brain wave.I have lived and roamed a lot in those areas in Dehradun.The total area can't accommodate even 20 villages.But our Munu is Munu.

What FRI and IMA have to do with Ayodhya ?
a k ghai
mumbai, India
42/D-92
Sep 30, 2010
09:39 PM
A Hindu Muslim clash in 1853 leaves 75 dead in Ayodhya


http://news.rediff.c...e-from-1528-2010.htm
a k ghai
mumbai, India
43/D-93
Sep 30, 2010
09:41 PM
"where r the legal documents in favour ?"

Go and read the judgement. One judge's statement is 21 sections of 250 pages each with scanned evidence copies.

"the judges say that it deserves to be demolished"

FYI, the judgement is only to know who owns the land. No one says that it deserved to be demolished. The demolition is another case that is still pending in courts. Whoever is responsible will be revealed in that.

"all tribals should claim back the hills by first violently capturing it(oh it sounds like naxalism)"

As I said, there is a separate case going on for violence. First they should come for talks with the proof and if the issue is not settled, go to court. Havent we seen many court judgements in this country asking the Govt to compensate the victims for the property they took over ?
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
44/D-98
Sep 30, 2010
10:03 PM
dear ghai
there was gorkha regt centre in ganghoda and the entire cant extends for several kms and FRI n IMA or part of it.u vacate/EVICT the villages and decide where to have the FRI/railway staff college(it was than given to IMA).
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
45/D-113
Sep 30, 2010
11:40 PM
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
46/D-114
Sep 30, 2010
11:42 PM
"you can predict what the secularist position on any issue will be once you know what the militant Islamist position is. From justifying terrorism to misrepresenting the Ayodhya evidence, the two are rarely very different"
http://koenraadelst....ooks/finale/ch3.html
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
47/D-115
Sep 30, 2010
11:45 PM
This is verdict is a joke. It soothes Hindu sentiments and not much else. The tyranny of the majority is fully sanctioned by the courts.
Cata Maran
Soccer City, South Africa
48/D-13
Oct 01, 2010
12:59 AM
I was little disappointed in the judgment because I thought that only Muslims prayed there. When I read the judgment, I realized I am wrong. Mukul Kesavan is dead wrong too. I think the judges were more knowledgeable than me and Mukul Kesavan.

I did not realize before that Hindus and Muslims were praying at the mosque even before and during British time. The Muslims were praying inside the inner court and Hindus were praying in the outer court of the structure. If so, all the parties had the rights to the title. Based on that fact alone, this judgment is based on sound legal grounds. I am sure fanatics, bigots on both sides will want to create a mess over this.

CATA MARAN - You are a bigot. You may sound like a secular but you are a bigot and hateful person peddling minority bigotry a la Arundhati Roy, Burkha Dutt, Saba Naqvi and Teesta Setlvad.

Eventually you should stop your hate of Hindus.
VIvek
Hyderabad, India
49/D-21
Oct 01, 2010
01:51 AM
>> thought that only Muslims prayed there

Frankly, how does it matter? Who prayed where/when/why/how etc? Is God limited by such things? To fight over these things is actually an insult to God. It is like equating God to a lifeless piece of property and fighting over it.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
50/D-26
Oct 01, 2010
02:15 AM
KUMAR

It is a property rights issue. Since both are jointly were using this for long time even before and during British. Both groups have been using this place and both acquire property rights. If two families are using a common roadway to their houses for long time, both get the rights over the corridor.
VIvek
Hyderabad, India
51/D-35
Oct 01, 2010
03:17 AM
>> If two families are using a common roadway to their houses for long time, both get the rights over the corridor.

Thats the problem. TO begin with, we are all supposed to be one family and not two/multiple families?
Kumar
Bangalore, India
52/D-82
Oct 01, 2010
11:25 AM
I congratulate each and every Poster on this Board for wise and sagacious comments.

One full generation has been wasted in this needless exercise and confrontations .I am now 70 yrs old .My whole life span has been consumed in seeing one communal spat after another.When I started feeling around the world on my legs and with my eyes the Partition hit us.Thereafter Wars and Hunger.When I was 50 yrs old Babri happened.Terrorism arrived.During all these years Communal Riots never left us.

So what Hindus and Muslims have gained after so much mutual damaging ? Even what Muslims in Pakistan have gained following Jinnah ?

From Justice Khan's judgement :

" ANOTHER FALL AND WE MAY NOT BE RISE AGAIN : JUSTICE KHAN

Admiring "our resilience" post demolition, Justice Khan warns: "We must realise that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly." Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992, he says. "We may be crushed."

Justice Khan also quotes Iqbal:

"Watan ki fikar kar nadan musibat aane wali hai,

Teri barbadiyon ke mashware hain aasmanon mein.!

Na samjhoge to mit jaoge e Hindustanwalon,

Tumahari dastan tak bhi na hogi dastanon mein !!

(Worry for the country, or you will be wiped out)".


He further observes that Muslims enjoy a unique position in India. "They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power. They are not in majority but they are also not a negligible minority."

Justice Khan points out that this is different from other countries, where Muslims are either in a huge majority — making them indifferent to the problems in question — or a negligible minority, which makes them redundant.

"Indian Muslims have also inherited a legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand."

http://in.news.yahoo...-not-rise-aga_1.html
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Order by
Order by
Order by
Short Takes
recent tags
BJP
Gaza
Hamas
Israel
Israel-Palestine
Jews
Media
Muslims
Our Netas
Palestine
Politics
Sania Mirza
Social Networking Sites
Telangana
Tennis
TRS
TV
Twitter
USA
 
bloggers
A. Sanzgiri
Boria Majumdar
Buzz
Dr Mohammad Taqi
Freya Dasgupta
G. Rajaraman
K.V. Bapa Rao
Maheshwer Peri
Namrata Joshi
News Ed
Omar Ali
Our Readers Write Back
Poster
Prarthna Gahilote
Shefalee Vasudev
Sundeep Dougal
Sunil Menon
ARCHIVES
Go
SMTWTFS
12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031
recent comments
Cricket World Cup 2011


ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY

OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: