High Court verdict or Panchayat pronouncement?

The reliance of the Allahabad high court on the “faith and belief of Hindus”—that Lord Rama was born in the “area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure”—in trifurcating the Ayodhya title suit, has come in for sharp criticism across the English media.


The Hindu‘s deputy editor, Siddharth Varadarajan:

“The legal and political system in India stood silent witness to the crime of trespass, vandalism and expropriation [of the Babri masjid]. Eighteen years later, the country has compounded that sin by legitimising the “faith” and “belief” of those who took the law into their own hands.

“The “faith and belief” that the court speaks about today acquired salience only after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bharatiya Janata Party launched a political campaign in the 1980s to “liberate” the “janmasthan.”

“Collectives in India have faith in all sorts of things but “faith” cannot become the arbiter of what is right and wrong in law. Nor can the righting of supposed historical wrongs become the basis for dispensing justice today.”

Former Delhi High Court judge Justice R.S. Sodhi in The Telegraph:

“I think this judgment is useless. It is a statuesque judgment. The court has gone into issues of belief, which it should not have. It has actually decided nothing.”

Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan in The Telegraph:

“It is an absurd judgment. No legal right can be declared on the basis of people’s faith. They (the three judges) have decided on all kinds of irrelevant and emotional issues. There is no legal basis to the ruling that the disputed land should be divided into three parts.”

Jamia Milia Professor, Mukul Kesavan, in The Telegraph:
“The court also seemed to endorse the argument from faith in a way that is certain to be controversial. Both decisions, as they stand, might set precedents that could have worrying consequences for pluralism and the freedom of religious belief and practice, especially for disputes between a religious minority and a religious majority.”

Historian Irfan Habib in The Times of India:

“The compromise judgment has come at the cost of history and facts. It is improper (for the court) to accept the Archaelogical Survey of India (ASI) report on the historical fact. Weight has been given to belief. One should be careful in historical facts.”

The columnist Amulya Ganguli in DNA:

“The claim was based purely on a myth. Lord Ram is not a historical figure. He is a deity in the eyes of only a section of Hindus. All Hindus do not regard him with reverence. In south India, for instance, Ravan, another mythical figure who is Ram’s adversary, is more popular. In Bengal, Michael Madhusudan Dutt‘s Meghnad Badh Kavya is a literary classic extolling one of Ravan’s sons at Ram’s expense.

“Whether a plot of land can be legally awarded to a community on the basis of mere religious belief. The answer will also have to include the fact that claims on behalf of Hindus are being advanced by fundamentalists, not liberals. In fact, the latter regard the movement, which was carried on with two others asserting similar rights on two mosques in Varanasi and Mathura, as a distortion of Hinduism.”

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan in The Hindu:

“If this panchayati solution is to be endured, the degree of Muslim entitlement should have been left intact so that the site belonged to them. The destruction of the masjid was akin to the demolition of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan in Afghanistan, and people would say that India’s secular justice was majoritarian in nature without lending dignity to India’s minority.”

Constitutional expert and senior Supreme Court advocate P.P. Rao in The New Indian Express:

“It is more like a panchayat justice dividing the disputed property among the three contenders. And it is not clear how after dismissing the suit of the Sunni wakf board, one-third of the property is given to Muslims.”

Former Supreme Court chief justice A.H. Ahmadi in The Indian Express:

“There is no running away from the centrality of answering who has the title. I am not sure on what basis the Sunni waqf suit has been time-barred. But if the title is not theirs, how can one-third be a masjid now, and if the title is theirs, how can two-thirds be divided? There certainly can be a compromise but that should have happened after the verdict. The verdict should not appear like a decision of a panchayat foisted forcibly on all parties.”

Cartoon: courtesy R. Prasad/ Mail Today

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

57 Responses to “High Court verdict or Panchayat pronouncement?”

  1. Not A Witty Nick Says:

    All these comments by the eminent jurists and history hacks proves one thing, their only source of information about the verdict was through the popular electronic media!

  2. yaksha Says:

    why does the article select comments that are only against Hindus?
    Everybody seems to be happy with the judgment, media dhorige yenu Uri?
    why are u trying to instigate? vyapaara agthilla anthana?

  3. Dinkar Says:

    Ancient indians didn’t record the history the way westerners did. Miracles and myth are attributed to both Ram and Jesus. but Jesus is real while Ram is myth! Had the judgement been otherwise, all these secularists would have asked us to move on, how India is a great democracy, faith in judiciary, rule of law, secular india, etc. BUT never discussed the details of the judgement.

  4. Pramod Says:

    All those who have written about the judgments in newspapers are a**h*les. They donot know their History. Their knowledge of history is what the british have ejected from their pores.

    Ultimately they should understand that ” THOSE WHO DONOT KNOW THEIR HISTORY WILL BECOME HISTORY”

  5. Raghavendra Says:

    If you care to publish I can give you list of sound bites given by ’eminent’ columists who have welcomed the decision given.

    Yesterday night I enjoyed looking at the disappointed faces of Burkha and Sagarika. I was thinking how belirgent they could have been if the verdict were to be in favour of their favourites!!!

  6. Vinay Says:

    “In south India, for instance, Ravan, another mythical figure who is Ram’s adversary, is more popular”

    This sentence by the author of the piece in DNA, shows that the journalist who wrote this is a big retard. Nothing he says should be taken seriously.

  7. shivanand Says:

    These gentlemen who ever commented of the judgement have any better solution ?

    I feel court tried to solve the case amicably without hurting the sentiments of any involved parties, with out causing any communal tension at national level !!

    Does anyone commend court on this ?

  8. Somebody Says:

    In other words, vested interests will not sleep until there are big communal riots. They will do whatever they can, they will write whatever they think or imagine to incite the people to indulge in clashes and thus earn their daily bread by way of publishing, appearing on TVs, dividing the people and see that the issue is kept alive permanently burning.

  9. verybleedingheart Says:

    According to Amulya Ganguly: “In south India, for instance, Ravan, another mythical figure who is Ram’s adversary, is more popular.” Very, very intellectual comment indeed! Only Sri Ganguly has to clarfiy which “south India” he is talking about. Perhaps, a mythical south India, secular and liberal.

  10. Vishwa Says:

    I can understand griviences of these eminent people.. the falsehood that was built for 25 years has been demolished by this verdict, as the court has accepted all the findings of the ASI, now nobody can come up with the buddhist monastry, forest, abandoned land stories…..

  11. K B Says:

    What else can you expect from pseudo secularists? They seems to be more disappointed from this verdict than Muslims. What a BS from Siddharth Varadarajan, this title suit hearing started much before Babri demolition, should they change the verdict because babri masjid is demolished?

  12. Hogli Bidi Says:

    Gone are the days when one “buddhivanta” in a panchayati kaTTE would give out expert opinions.
    In this age where one has access to sufficient information, these eminent people are just making fools out of themselves.

  13. praveen kumar Says:

    Secular media – Bastards

  14. Rajesh R Says:

    Judgement is a slap on the face of the English media, which very much expected that the judgement will be against Hindus and they can whip up passions by showing the Hindu dissatisfaction… shame on the media they are just showing the opinions of few people who are self proclaimed secularists….

  15. Bhanu Prasad Says:

    Love the pointless and clueless arguments of left loonies. They are gutted in the pen and also under their bald head. Neither any matter above the scalp nor anything below it.

  16. Andy Says:

    Why i am not surprised at the highlighting of one-sided views ?

  17. shankar prasad Says:

    It is sad you have put up one side of the argument only. I only feel looking at the way this Blog is going, I suggest someone take the initiative and start a REAL SECULAR blog…

    Churmuri sucks

  18. prakash Says:

    True, Indians never recorded history as the westerners and Muslims did. But it is really amazing to see how highly educated modern Indians take pride in negating their history. All these so called secularists, socialists, nehruvians, progressive and broad-minded intellectuals aspire to get endorsement of these adjectives and have no shame in negating histoy. Why do they not acknowledge that not only Ram Janmbhoomi Mandir but hundreds of thousands of places of worship belonging to Hindus, Jains and Buddhists were desecrated and on thousands of such places mosques were erected just to impose the victory of the conqueror on the defeated. If the court acknowledges the same, they find faults with the judiciary and cry “Democracy Khatre Mien Hai” equating trymph of Islam with Democracy. And they will not rest until the rest of India is once more divided on religious lines. Kashmir and the Eastern India’s border districts adjoining Bangla Desh and lately Kerala are live testimony to it.

  19. Complex Says:

    Amulya Ganguly : “All Hindus do not regard him with reverence. In south India, for instance, Ravan, another mythical figure who is Ram’s adversary, is more popular. ”

    These armchair leftist JNU not-good-at-math English-literature Jamia-Millia historians make me really angry. I have been living in Karnataka all my life. The above statement is seriously not at all true. I suppose Karnataka is in South India. Am I missing something here?

    P.S: It is true that this is a Panchayati Raj judgement. The entire land should have gone to one party. But, there is peace for the moment. But, who knows what this will lead to in the future?

  20. Mysore Peshva Says:

    Hehehe, I am amused to see pseudo-secularists in throes of desperate verbal writhing… Especially supreme ignoramus Amulya Ganguli.

    The judges may have been inept in deciding legal questions — they have ignored evidence of fact or history, and indeed have acted like a benevolent panchayat.

    But many of the self-important pseudo-secular columnists are a joke — they are blind to the overwhelming historical evidence that Islam and its radical adherents have been an enemy of pluralism and of religious diversity. Foolish columnists!

  21. K Balakumar Says:

    Though it may have been a title suit, the whole matter pertains to faith (on both sides). The paradox here is, the Court cannot get into matters of faith, but it cannot even begin to address this issue at hand without factoring in faith at some level. In that sense, the Court was caught in a cleft stick.

    The experts, to whose writings you have provided links, betray dangerous naivete and also strangely don’t seem to believe that there can be various strands to historical narratives. And even if we were to consider Mughals to be normal rulers of the country (at one point) and not see them as marauding invaders, the fact of the matter was many temples were tramped down during their period.

    At one level, the whole debate of whether we need a mosque or mandir, is useless as it has no connection with what the people really need. But since the whole matter had been forced on to the frontburner, the court willynilly got into the grey areas of faith and history. And when we begin to retrace history, it also becomes impossible (and also not right) to stop the clock at 1528. There was an India much before that, too.

  22. Narayan Chabbi Says:

    The Allhabad High Court verdict is a sham.Its like old men in the village who distribute property to children.Much more is expected from a judicial forum.Beleifs of majority cannot me endorsed in law.

    Wait and watch what the Supreme Court will do.

  23. Ram Lalla Says:

    The verdict is a Brahmin-Bania conspiracy to deny Muslims their due.

  24. DailyBread Says:

    It looks like secular modernists are not intrested in reconciliation & closure of this issue.

  25. Vallavan Says:

    -All three judges agree that the disputed site has been held sacred as the birthplace of Rama since time immemorial. They differ on the matter of where within the site that place is.
    -All three agree that the murtis of Ram should not be moved out of site
    -All three have concluded that there was an earlier temple at the site, one judge says it was demolished to build a mosque, the other two say it wasn’t

    This is at sharp variance from the views, actually delusions, of India’s parasitic, chattering, intellectually bankrupt classes – the ones with UK/US degrees, the pastel shade clothed, stubble sporting, suave English accented men and women – whom the English speaking West (or Down Under) assume represent India. Ignored in all this are other facts,

    -This was title suit to settle a dispute that is cited in British records as early as 1819 and even earlier in the land records of the 1700s. Another note if I may, India contrary to what people have been taught has voluminous records of the past. There are land records that go all the way back to the 3 century BCE, only they are all not in the same form, some are on inscriptions on stone, others on copper plates, yet others on palm leaves, and so on. So the much maligned “Hindu majoritarians/nationalists/extremists [insert invective here] did not concoct this dispute in 1989, it has a very long history over 300 years. What probably happened was when Mughal power began to wane after Aurangazeb and his satraps began to weaken, local Hindu groups might have managed to move in to the site at Ayodhya, and finally around the early 1800s picked up the resources to launch an action to recover the site. That is why we have Akharas and sants involved in this dispute, the ancient keepers of these mandirs. Some sort of compromise may have existed between the Hindus and the Muslims – who for the most part racked by British jackboots were trying to climb out of their hard circumstances.

    -In a first, this is the only site to have been excavated by the Archeological Survey of India to determine evidence of earlier temples and it demolition. The excavations was a professionally conducted project and documented in very great and excruciating detail and helped conclude that there was a temple at this site. Even if you disagree it was demolished to build a mosque, it would be churlishly ignorant to disagree that a temple once stood there. All those who are squawking, including every ignoramus quoted here – SidV, AGanguly, IHabib, Mukul Kesavan, are ignorant of the archeological evidence and have no credentials to pass judgment on it.

    -The former Babri Masjid has been known as Masjid-e-Janmasthan or Masjid of Birthplace (of Rama) for centuries. Several Muslim bodies including the disputants accept the sanctity of Rama and the need to have some Hindu presence a the site. It is the extremist Muslim organizations and their “intellectual” mentors who pooh pooh these claims and are now playing mischief. And who are these worthies – MIM thug and MP Owaisi, who tried to lynch Taslima Nasreen and yet was deputed by the Lok Sabha for a study tour at Yale University?

    -The chatterati have found that the government of the day does not want to meddle with the judgment by passing haughty ordinances and such like, hence the attempt to influence the Supreme Court of India by the numberless dog whistle phrases. Extremely disingenuous. While the masses want to put this behind, and the disputants might even agree to implement the verdict and reach a more acceptable compromise, the chatterati are spoiling for a fight and seem to want nothing less than a humiliation of Hindu sentiment. I hope they are defeated.

    It is true beyond doubt Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura mosques were built upon demolished temples. However it is almost lunacy to go digging up the past. One dispute is more than enough and we must summarily declare a moratorium for the next 1000 years on disputes of this sort. Let us instead accept what happened in the past and put it behind us for ever more.

    Swapan Dasgupta as usual cuts out the ignorance here,


    At its simplistic best, the most significant feature of the much-awaited Allahabad High Court verdict is that it has overturned the only other judgment of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute: a Faizabad district court verdict of 1886. At that time, confronted by litigation that arose from Hindu-Muslim tension over the issue, the district judge, F.E.A. Chamier, ruled in March 1886: “It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that occurred 356 years ago, it is too late to remedy the grievance.”

  26. Mukund Hambarde Says:

    The verdict is really balanced logical and rational. Some say that mythology has taken over the rational. They have totally neglected the archeological finding by ASI. It has been proved beyond doubt that there was a Hindoo Temple on the place where Babri Dhancha was errected perforce. Is this mythology?

  27. Hanumantha Says:

    Ram Lulla,

    I heard one of the judges has a Muslim sounding name. Need to check whether he is actually a Muslim or Ahmadi or worse a Munafiq (jihad against him if it is the case). It could as well have been Brahmin-Bania-Ahmadi conspiracy. Trying hard to figure out how to accommodate Jews or Mossad in here.

  28. Ankit Says:

    People at large have welcomed this judgement because it gives legal recognition to some facts that everyone knows– that Hindus consider Ayodhya the birthplace of Ram, that the place where the Babri Masjid existed had a temple, that the masjid was constructed on ruins of the temple and that Hindus have been worshipping on the site for time immemorial. People also like this judgement because it does not decide the issue in absolute terms but gives both sides something, and therefore is a conciliatory judgement.

    I am loving the fact that frothing at the mouth seculars find themselves out of touch with aspirations of the new India. The fact is that these people are fundamentalists, it is just that they have monopolized the discourse at the top.

  29. mankuTimma Says:

    Man how dangerous and stupid even the media at national level can be.

    Seriously who made these people journalists?? “All Hindus do not regard him(Ram) with reverence. In south India, for instance, Ravan, another mythical figure who is Ram’s adversary, is more popular.” says that DNA person. LOL! The funniest thing i have heard..

    And now who the hell is this Irfan Habib?? Would he have said it is inappropriate to consider ASI findings had they established that there was no temple before??.. Absolute moron.

    One more horrible article was in the first page of hindu,with the title “A significant step, says BJP,RSS urges Muslims to give up their share of the area” Now here this person,Neena Vyas, is interpreting that when RSS chief Mohan Bhagawat talked about the need to see verdict “not as a victory for one group or defeat for another, but an opportunity to forget ill-will and hard feelings that were the result of past conflicts.” and that Muslims can actually help in the construction of the temple, it actually means that he is asking for the 1/3rd share given to Muslims. Whoa!! Scary..the path these people are trying to push country..Very scary.

  30. nanu nane Says:

    Ravana more popular than Rama in South India???
    Enu Kage harstare saar jana

  31. Suresh Says:

    Do you want a verdict that is 100% legally correct but does not solve this dispute OR
    The Sep 30 2010 verdict which if taken positively could lead to a new era of understanding and peace?

    The very nature of this dispute itself is such that matters of faith cannot be excluded from it, in any court.

    With news channels working 24×365 they need some or the other issue to chatter. Whether it is a boy fallen in a borewel pit or a cow born with 6 legs,
    or a thief handled mob justice, a newborn baby found in a gutter…
    they dissect and discuss each news item to the maximum…
    The release of new movies every week has become eligible for ‘Breaking News’
    They need something to keep airing 24×365…

    LokSabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi considers it a threat when the Hindu parties call upon Muslim community to join them towards building a new India!

    A Professor of Jamia Milia who spoke on NDTV24x7 had objection to using the phrase ‘bhavya mandir’.

    I saw a Sadhu from Ayodhya who spoke on TV, RSS chief Bhagwat everybody saying that it is nobody’s victory and none should rejoice.
    These people have showed lot of maturity and sensitivity not to hurt the sentiments of Muslims.

  32. Curry Hurry Says:

    |It is true beyond doubt Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura mosques were built upon |demolished temples. However it is almost lunacy to go digging up the past. One |dispute is more than enough and we must summarily declare a moratorium for |the next 1000 years on disputes of this sort. Let us instead accept what |happened in the past and put it behind us for ever more.

    but why does Arjun Singh have to rewrite text books to remove references to what the invaders did to the locals ? Why whitewash ? Present the facts as is and move on forward. Living in Denial is the problem. And those guys asking for a toilet, mall etc to be built there, should first try stopping the monumental naming after the first family for a start.

  33. Madhava Says:

    If it is a Panchayati Problem it deserves a Panchayati solution. Come to think of it, except the factor of faith, it is a Panchayati Problem.

    Most reactions also show that majority of Indians do not like going forward. Litigatious and suffering.

  34. Doddi Buddi Says:

    Nice one Ankit!

    Yella Kalbaddimakklu! They are conveniently forgetting the fact that things like the Muslim Personal Law is of course based on Muslim faith. One can cite quite a few instances such as the Haj Subsidy–also based on faith. Aren’t they all based on faith?

    Waiting for our own Vedanta Viveka Choodamani Mysore Peshva to wade in…

  35. verybleedingheart Says:

    I am not sure if A. Ganguly is such an ingnoramus as to claim Ravana is more popular than Rama in south.

    Quotes such as, “All Hindus do not regard him with reverence. In south India, for instance, Ravan, another mythical figure who is Ram’s adversary, is more popular” are perhaps meant more for the phoren brethern. These types of utterences will be requoted and propagated, and then brought back with greater “academic authority” to find place in JNU discussions, papers, theses etc. In the bargain quite a few awards, titles, fellowships and travel grants would have been nicely earned.

  36. Prabhu Says:

    I suppose among all Indians only these people have the problem towards the judgement. Every community except for few, have welcomed the judgement, and let us resolve this issue here only.
    Whover is talking against the judgement should be tried under contempt of court and should be punished severely. These people forcibly bringing in divide amongst the communities.
    This judgement is a slap on all pseudo-secularists who use to ask the date of Birth of lord Rama and the existence of RamLalla at that place.

    As is said by shankar prasad Churumuri sucks. Please stop publishing all these bull shit and have some faith on India and Indian courts and constitution.

  37. Kitapati Says:

    Ravana more popular than rama in south india. My head is reeling under the influence of A ganguly’s intellectual masterpiece.
    Even our unfriendly neighbouhood tamilnadu we have rameshwaram and the hindu hating periyar ramaswami.

  38. Complex Says:

    Maybe Ms(Or Mr) Amulya Ganguly came to the laughable conclusion seeing that Mr. Mani Ratnam named his film “Raavan” instead of Ram.

  39. babuds Says:

    Even if this case goes to Supreme court, which I think it will, the judges there can not deny the archeological findings of the ASI, that the demolished masjid was built on the ruins of a temple. Say if the Supreme court were to grant sole possession of this land to the concerned Muslim organization for rebuilding of the mosque, will it not be against sharia to offer prayers there, where a non-islamic religious structure originally stood? Then of what use is a masjid where one can not offer prayers?

  40. ponnaps Says:

    all knee-jerk reactions…. once the 10K pages are digested the tunes will change… but will churumuri report it?

  41. Narayana Says:

    Rather than answering individuals I collect all these queries in related groups and answer them. I answer Ahmadi’s question first because it is very essential for understanding my responses to other questions.

    1. Ahmadi says the judgment ran away from centrality of answering who has the title. Mr Ahmadi with due respect to whatever donkey’s years you spent in Indian courts.. I had brought back your attention to a saying attributed to an English judge “if we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall not get anywhere”. That is the maxim on which jurisprudence is based. So if centrality to this law suit was deciding the title even then judges can go away from the centrality if they feel is justice is not being served. Unlike what you professed in Bhopal judgment justice is not writing traffic tickets.
    If you still disagree travel back in time to 1841 and witness the court room in United States v. Libellants and Claimants of the Schooner Amistad case. This case is considered as one of the best judgments in recorded history. US owes its progress to this judgment. This was made into a Hollywood Blockbuster “Amistad” by Steven Spielberg. The case was for deciding who owned the ship and the slaves on board of Amistad. There were many claimants.. but judge instead of deciding who owned the slaves declared slavery illegal and set slaves free!!!. Ahmadi your style of “traffic ticket” judgment would never have made “Amistad” possible. So stop refraining to your “Bhopal” style solutions.

    Having refuted you on your “Centrality” hypothesis let me further expose your ignorance. The judgement is 8000 pages in length. When you decided Bhopal without even hearing you explained that you went through the petition running into tens of thousands pages in matter of minutes so obviously reading the Ayodhya judgment at rjbm.nic.in should be a cake walk for you!!. Read the papers court did not have title as centraility!!! There were 4 cases each has varying number of issues running into up to 28 separate issues in one case. Court has decided on each of those issues as it was required to title was not centrality. I do not know how you got that idea!!!

    After Ahmadi, let me bring in others whose objection is based on use of faith in judgment.
    To all those learned selves.. Please re read the judgment if you do not have time at least consolidated judgment from source at court’s website

    Faith appears in that consolidated judgment at following five places.(page 66,91,119, 124, 234 and 245) most of these usages have nothing to imply that faith was used to decide the suit or issues. Some of the usage is like this “This obviously shook the faith of the parties affected”

    Well faith was used to answer only following issue number 22 at page 124.
    And do you want to know what was the issue.. here is verbatim.

    Whether the premises in question or any part
    thereof is by tradition, belief and faith the birth place of
    Lord Rama as alleged in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the
    plaint? If so, its effect?

    If the question was asked to court to imply for use of faith how can court answer. Can they call for birth certificate? Court has done a remarkable job by answering that faith says that Ayodhya is the birth place though not necessarily this very building. Is this not a very wise judgment? In fact it was not that court ordered central structure to Hindus based on this faith but because of ASI reports and also the fact that time immemorial Hindus have prayed at that site. Even though court found that Sunni board had no locus standi on innumerable counts it was still given 1/3rd land to put foundation to democratic ethos to evolve in this country. What more Indians want to close this case and move on.. Why are chachawadis hell bent on rising stink and dividing people.
    Chachawad has no left, no right, no secularism, no principles.. all that they do is divide people to create free agents for their votebank. Barkha Dutt et al are doing their bidding in anticipation of chachasri , chachbhushan and chacharatna awards.

  42. Deepu Says:

    Did not expect this from Churmuri, totally one sided article. I can send you links to 100 articles contrary to this if you care to publish.

    Why should we believe these self proclaimed experts and not believe the courts? I am sure court would have heard all these history lessons you are talking about before arriving at a judgement. It is not like court heard only one side of the argument and came up with a biased judgement.

    Faith is the very basis of this conflict and no decision can be arrived at without answering the question of faith. If this has to be treated like any other civil dispute for a two acre plot we did not need so many lives sacrificed over it and more than a decade to decide the case.

    Its not as straight forward as Babar inherited this property and later transferred and registered this piece of land to Wakf board.

    Wake up people, the days of blindly believing self proclaimed secularists/experts/historians like these are long gone.

  43. Complex Says:

    Good arguments. Barkha dutt is shocked by this verdict.

    I could sense tears in her eyes.

  44. Mysore Peshva Says:

    Well said, Narayana.

    A separate American case that comes to my mind is the trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735. Zenger, a printer in New York, was arrested and prosecuted for criticizing the corrupt governor, William Cosby. Zenger’s criticism was true, but the common law regulating seditious libel used a maxim, “greater the truth, greater the punishment.” So it was a given that he would be convicted. But Zenger’s attorney, the well heeled Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia, eloquently argued for the jury to vote according to conscience and not law. So persuasive was Hamilton’s argument that the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. For the first time, truth was recognized as a defense in a libel case. Also, for the first time, what we today know as “jury nullification” or a jury voting not by law but by conscience, occurred.

    Regardless of the historical importance of such verdicts (or judicial pronouncements) they are perceived as judicial activism. I am not sure that at this time Indian society needs any more activist judgments than it does rule-of-law judgments.

  45. Vishwa Says:

    One has to remember that the only thing based on faith is the acceptance by the court that the area where the make shift temple is placed is the Janmasthan of Rama. Everything else has been based on the Archoelogical findings.
    Now coming to this issue of the make shift temple being the actual janmasthan. One has to accept that the best source for Ramayana is Valmiki’s original work. But the unfortunate thing from the perspective of the court was that, Valimiki was a poet whose intention was to tell story of Rama and not a geologist or a survey engg who will mention the co-ordinates of the place.
    So now ther eis no tangible poof that Rama was born there. Not enough proof is not a admissible adverse proof at court. So the parties who think Rama was not born there had to prove that he was born elsewhere. Which is also not possible. Hence the only go for the court was to accept the general belief that temple that stood prior to the Masjid was built to commemorate Rama’s Janmasthan, which it has acknowledged.

    But I feel pity for the JNU historians, they got addicted to history so much that they forgot logic, science and other stuff hence lost balance of mind…

  46. Ram Lalla Says:

    What is this “bhavya” mandir the Hindus are talking about? Hindus need to take a hard look at the existing ones. They are one big heap of filth.

    Most things that Hindus consider sacred make you throw up. The bathing ghats across countless towns on the Ganga are revolting. The street leading up to the Jagannath temple in Puri is disgusting, and so is the temple, especially the place where they cook the prasada. Why is that the sanctum sanctorums of Hindu temples are dark and dingy with slippery floors, and walls caked with oil and soot? And we thought Hindus consider cleanliness as being next to godliness! If some of these temples are birthplaces of some of the gods, we can’t help wonder why they were born in such squalor.

    Before embarking on building new “bhavya” mandirs, Advani and co. should first start a ratha yatra armed with brooms, phenyl and detergent to clean up the muck aggregated from “time immemorial” in the thousands of temples across India. That would be a good prayaschitta for all the sins the sangh parivar has committed in the name of Hindutva.

  47. Yella Ok Says:

    “They are one big heap of filth”

    Cant but help agree on this one. The cleanest temple i have visited was in singapore!!!

  48. Raviraj Says:

    If faith is the sole factor that decides the judiciary about something, then tomorrow 50% hindi speaking north indians will say “we have faith that hindi is our national language and it must be accepted by every non hindi speaker of this country”.

  49. Bengalooru Haida Says:


    Let’s cut to the chase. I own some property (2.5 acres) in Karnataka. Now I am concerned. Do I own this land or Lord? Can I be forced out of my land if Lord comes calling and files a suit?

  50. Narayana Says:

    @Yella Ok,

    then I think that temple was outside “little india”.!!!

  51. Narayana Says:

    @Bengalooru Haida,

    “Chachawadi”s took away your right to property in 42nd amendment to constitution. Forget about us mortals .. even Lord can not own land perpetually in India.

    Again if you “own” the land with proper title and no “do numbari” deeds which would invalidate the title (like that happened in Ayodhya) you can go to court asking for compensation when your land is taken for greater good. But what that greater good constitutes is interpreted by topi wearing gods of Delhi and not your or my Lords.

  52. karihaida Says:

    @Bengalooru Haida,
    well yes, if that lord has about 750 million believers that believe that your land belongs to the lord.

  53. Bengalooru Haida Says:


    That’s a good one! It’s clear now. If Chachawadis don’t get me, Lord will. Both seem to be after my property. I can understand the greed of chachawadis but why my Lord too has to imitate them or is it the other way round? It’s a cosmic conspiracy may be or dance of Devacracy.


    That’s a good one again! I got it. It’s the game of numbers. I just hope Lord figures out I am part of his 750 million believers and spares me. He would know but will the mob know that I am his chela? He is a good man but I am not sure about his followers(including me).

  54. Doddi Buddi Says:

    Bangalore Bhoy!

    Wrong! Men in white coats will get you eventually for being a paranoid:)

  55. JVachani Says:

    One of the few articles that talks of the findings of the ASI as well as the Hindu Law treatment of a deity as a juristic person. Wonder how many of the so-called experts and commentators have bothered to read the 8000 odd pages of the judgement!


  56. sumakani Says:

    One thing we have not realised is that none of the parties could able to give any evidence regarding a clear title deed on the land. Everyone was going by circumstantial evidences. So the court has taken a good decision in the given circumstances. But this way of humiliating comments on court like Panchayat verdict has come from all these intellectauls only. In case the decision has gone against hindus they would not have said anything against court instead of that they would have hailed it. But if the vedrict was such that entire land is given to Hindus then there would have been more funny funny observations and English media would have enjoyed it so that there would have been some unrest and there will be some issue for Barkha or Sagarika to discuss after news @ 9

  57. Bengalooru Haida Says:


    (Smile) good one and this time I mean it:) Note the ‘white’ colour. Topis were white and so was the khadi. Sri Sri Sri Sri (lost the count there) wears white and so are many folks who claim direct toll-free line to God in heaven. So when you say men in white, I am not sure whom I should fear more.

    To other learned men on this esteemed forum,

    If and when we bring in Ramarajya in our blessed land via implementing Uniform Civil Code, will our deities continue to have this position as a juristic person or is it possible only under Hindu code of Law? Will they continue to be represented by their sakha/friend or will they be summoned by Court of Law to be physically present during hearings?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: