Posts Tagged ‘Ramjanmabhoomi’

‘Ayodhya verdict belittles exalted Ram’s divinity’

2 October 2010

Like many liberal commentators, the former editor of The Times of India, Dileep Padgaonkar, questions the wisdom of the judges in the Ayodhya case in placing the “faith and belief of Hindus” over facts and evidence. Padgaonkar also makes an additional point about making a divine figure a litigant:

“The verdict of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on the title suits related to the disputed site in Ayodhya makes you wonder whether anything straight can ever emerge from the crooked timber of the majoritarian mind.

“Among the factors that led [the three judges to trifurcate the disputed land], the most intriguing by far is the cachet of legality that they have bestowed on belief and faith…. But by their very nature, faith and belief have no factual basis. They are above reason….

“Once faith and belief are factored into a resolution of a legal tangle, you embark, swiftly and surely, on the slippery slope of majoritarian conceit….

“The biggest infirmity of Thursday’s verdict, therefore, is that the court treated Lord Ram as a ‘juristic person’. In the eyes of the law, a deity or an idol is thus entitled to be placed on a par with flesh-and-blood litigants. The sheer brazenness of this stand, which belittles the exalted stature of Hinduism’s most revered divinity, makes you wince.”

Read the full article: The muddle path

Also read: High Court judgement or Panchayat pronouncement?

CHURUMURI POLL: The end of the Ayodhya dispute?

‘Hindutva-vadis have gorged on Ayodhya since 1947’

Ayodhya headline gets The Times of India in a  jam

CHURUMURI POLL: Who will win Ayodhya title?

17 September 2010

As if its thali wasn’t full enough, Judgment Day in the Ayodhya title dispute has landed in the UPA plate, sending it in a bit of a tizzy. Prime minister Manmohan Singh has issued an “appeal”, with the extraordinary line that “the determination of the issues need not necessarily end with this judgment, unless it is accepted by all parties.”


Swapan Dasgupta in The Telegraph, Calcutta:

“Both the votaries of Hindutva and the beleaguered defenders of the Nehruvian order were united in viewing the demolition as a point of rupture. For the former, the change would herald a Hindu reawakening; for the secularists, it threatened to destroy India’s pluralism and transform the country into a de-facto confessional State.

“Both sides of the confrontation, it would now seem, were guilty of hype. India wasn’t transformed into a Hindu Pakistan and the Constitutional edifice established in 1950 remained strong and intact. To borrow A.J.P. Taylor’s description of the 1848 revolution in Europe, the Babri demolition was a turning point in Indian history when history refused to turn….

“With the benefit of hindsight it would seem that the contemporary misreading arose from the premise that the Ayodhya movement was overwhelmingly an explosion of faith and sublimated Hinduness. The implication was that a new religiosity had penetrated the popular psyche and begun influencing secular life….

“The Ayodhya agitation encapsulated protest, millenarianism and modernity under one roof. It didn’t usher in Hindu National Socialism as its aesthetic detractors were convinced it would (leading to some facile comparisons of inept boy scouts in khaki shorts with Hitler’s stormtroopers). But it drove a stake through the heart of an incapacitated socialism.”

Read the full article: Twenty years too late

One question I’m dying to ask Justice Liberhan

23 November 2009

After 17 years—three more than Lord Rama‘s exile—and 48 six-monthly extensions, the Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan commission’s Rs 7 crore quest into the “truth” behind the demolition of the Babri Masjid is bearing fruition. The Indian Express reports that the entire top leadership of the BJP—not just usual suspects like L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, but also Atal Behari Vajpayee—has been indicted by the commission along with the “cultural organisation”, RSS.

But, reveals the paper, the then prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, who took the UP chief minister Kalyan Singh‘s assurance on face value and presided over the demolition, has more or less got a clean chit. As indeed has Rajiv Gandhi, whose decision to open the locks of the masjid ostensibly to make up with Hindus for his government’s cop-out to Muslim fundamentalists in the Shah Bano episode.

What is the one question you are dying to ask Justice Liberhan? Keep your queries short, civil and quick.