Mulayam disappointed by HC verdict, says faith given priority
Press Trust Of India
Lucknow, October 01, 2010
First Published: 12:58 IST(1/10/2010)
Last Updated: 13:00 IST(1/10/2010)
Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav on Friday said that he was disappointed by the Ayodhya title suits verdict as he felt faith was given "priority" over legal procedures. "I am disappointed as the decision in a judicial verdict was delivered by keeping faith above law and evidences," related stories
Response to Ayodhya verdict dignified, says Chidambaram
Military hideout busted; cache of arms & explosives recovered
Mulayam told reporters in Lucknow reading out a written statement.
The SP leader said Muslims of the country were feeling "cheated and the entire community was in the state of despair".
"This is not a good sign for the country, the Constitution and even for the judiciary," the SP supremo said.
Mulayam said that he was of the view that the aggrieved party will move the Supreme Court where a decision would be given on the basis of evidences and law.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Verdict out, but Ayodhya isn't end of the matter in UP-October 01, 2010
Verdict out, but Ayodhya isn't end of the matter in UP
HT Correspondent
Lucknow, October 01, 2010
Last Updated: 17:22 IST(1/10/2010)
The disputed holy site in Ayodhya, which changed politics in Uttar Pradesh in the 1990s, has become an issue for politicians once again. The Allahabad High Court's verdict on Thursday may lead them to believe that the contentious issue can still earn them votes. Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh related stories
Disputed site in Ayodhya is Ram's birthplace: High Court
Congress waits to study political impact
Battle ends, war goes on for Ayodhya veterans
Ayodhya puts behind fears, no let up in security
Yadav, on Friday, said the court judgment had "cheated" Muslims. "I am disappointed at the judicial verdicts that give precedence to faith over law and evidence. This does not augur good for the country, the Constitution and the judiciary itself," said Mulayam in Lucknow.
"Besides, the Muslims in the country are feeling cheated by the verdict and there is a sense of despair in the entire community," he said. Before he met the media, he had informal talks with minority leaders.
The reason Mulayam is "disappointed" is because he wants to regain Muslims' support to bring back his party to power in a caste-driven state where upper castes are fondly looking back at the Congress, dalits remain aligned with BSP chief Mayawati and he is left with just Yadav votes.
The court verdict has given Mulayam a potential tool to win back minority support, but it's too early to say which side the pendulum would move after the court verdict. Elections are still far off in Uttar Pradesh but Mulayam and Mayawati are testing their political fortunes in neighbouring Bihar.
Mayawati, who on Thursday night asked the Centre to implement the court verdict, did some damage control this morning when she talked about "maintaining status quo" at the disputed site. Dalits, Brahmins and Muslims paved the way for her party's victory in 2007. She can't afford cracks in that.
But Mulayam and Mayawati together cannot turn the clock back without the BJP in picture. The RSS might have displayed restraint, but voices demanding construction of a "magnificent Ram temple" at the sanctum sanctorum of the disputed site have started emanating from the BJP quarters, who feel their stand on the disputed site has been somehow vindicated.
The day the judgment was delivered, Hindu dharmacharyas were holding a meeting organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in Allahabad. In one voice they stated: "The hurdles have been cleared for the construction of Ram temple." One day they may launch a mass campaign on temple building even though they know that the High Court has ordered status quo in the dispute for three months during which the matter could go to the Supreme Court.
With Mulayam's initiation, lame voices to build a "magnificent Ram temple" at the dispute site may turn into a crescendo and could lead to communal polarisation once again in rural UP.
As political parties break their neutrality and take stand the either way, it's the Congress which finds itself in a tight spot. Rita Bahuguna Joshi, state president of the party, has said in a guarded tone: "Politicians should keep out of it (the dispute). Let the contesting parties find a way out. We will keep our focus on the aam admi."
It was the Congress who had suffered most from the mandir/masjid issue. The party's decline in Uttar Pradesh started in 1989, when the Congress government in the state allowed shilanayas outside the disputed after taking a written undertaking from the VHP that it would respect any decision of the courts. The party improved its performance in the state in the last Lok Sabha elections, but masjid/mandir politics may once create roadblocks for it.
Perhaps the coming days would prove if Uttar Pradesh has truly left caste and communal politics to walk on the path of development path. As of now the signals are disturbing.
HT Correspondent
Lucknow, October 01, 2010
Last Updated: 17:22 IST(1/10/2010)
The disputed holy site in Ayodhya, which changed politics in Uttar Pradesh in the 1990s, has become an issue for politicians once again. The Allahabad High Court's verdict on Thursday may lead them to believe that the contentious issue can still earn them votes. Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh related stories
Disputed site in Ayodhya is Ram's birthplace: High Court
Congress waits to study political impact
Battle ends, war goes on for Ayodhya veterans
Ayodhya puts behind fears, no let up in security
Yadav, on Friday, said the court judgment had "cheated" Muslims. "I am disappointed at the judicial verdicts that give precedence to faith over law and evidence. This does not augur good for the country, the Constitution and the judiciary itself," said Mulayam in Lucknow.
"Besides, the Muslims in the country are feeling cheated by the verdict and there is a sense of despair in the entire community," he said. Before he met the media, he had informal talks with minority leaders.
The reason Mulayam is "disappointed" is because he wants to regain Muslims' support to bring back his party to power in a caste-driven state where upper castes are fondly looking back at the Congress, dalits remain aligned with BSP chief Mayawati and he is left with just Yadav votes.
The court verdict has given Mulayam a potential tool to win back minority support, but it's too early to say which side the pendulum would move after the court verdict. Elections are still far off in Uttar Pradesh but Mulayam and Mayawati are testing their political fortunes in neighbouring Bihar.
Mayawati, who on Thursday night asked the Centre to implement the court verdict, did some damage control this morning when she talked about "maintaining status quo" at the disputed site. Dalits, Brahmins and Muslims paved the way for her party's victory in 2007. She can't afford cracks in that.
But Mulayam and Mayawati together cannot turn the clock back without the BJP in picture. The RSS might have displayed restraint, but voices demanding construction of a "magnificent Ram temple" at the sanctum sanctorum of the disputed site have started emanating from the BJP quarters, who feel their stand on the disputed site has been somehow vindicated.
The day the judgment was delivered, Hindu dharmacharyas were holding a meeting organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in Allahabad. In one voice they stated: "The hurdles have been cleared for the construction of Ram temple." One day they may launch a mass campaign on temple building even though they know that the High Court has ordered status quo in the dispute for three months during which the matter could go to the Supreme Court.
With Mulayam's initiation, lame voices to build a "magnificent Ram temple" at the dispute site may turn into a crescendo and could lead to communal polarisation once again in rural UP.
As political parties break their neutrality and take stand the either way, it's the Congress which finds itself in a tight spot. Rita Bahuguna Joshi, state president of the party, has said in a guarded tone: "Politicians should keep out of it (the dispute). Let the contesting parties find a way out. We will keep our focus on the aam admi."
It was the Congress who had suffered most from the mandir/masjid issue. The party's decline in Uttar Pradesh started in 1989, when the Congress government in the state allowed shilanayas outside the disputed after taking a written undertaking from the VHP that it would respect any decision of the courts. The party improved its performance in the state in the last Lok Sabha elections, but masjid/mandir politics may once create roadblocks for it.
Perhaps the coming days would prove if Uttar Pradesh has truly left caste and communal politics to walk on the path of development path. As of now the signals are disturbing.
Disputed structure built against Islamic tenets: Justice Sharma-1/10/10
Disputed structure built against Islamic tenets: Justice Sharma
Legal Correspondent
Justice D.V. Sharma, one of the three judges who delivered the verdict in the Ayodhya title suits on Thursday, disagreed with the decision of the majority, on a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Lucknow, that one-third of the disputed land should be given to Muslims for construction of a mosque.
In a separate judgment, Justice Sharma, who is retiring on Friday, dismissed the Uttar Pradesh Central Sunni Waqf Board's suit claiming title to the disputed site, holding that it was time barred.
Justices S.U. Khan and Sudhir Agarwal, in separate but concurring judgments, declared Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara (another Hindu plaintiff) joint title-holders of the property/premises in dispute (to the extent of 2.77 acres) and wanted one-third of the land given to Muslims for construction of a mosque.
Of the 28 issues framed, Justice Sharma answered a majority in favour of the Hindu-plaintiffs and ruled against the Waqf Board.
On “whether the disputed site is the birthplace of Bhagwan Ram,” the judge held that “the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as [the] birthplace of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for any one to invoke in any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.”
On the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyards, Justice Sharma said: “It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other objects of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birthplace as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.”
On whether the disputed building was a mosque; when it was built and by whom, the judge said, “The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.”
ASI proof
On whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple, he said “the disputed structure was constructed on the site of [the] old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.”
On whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23, 1949, Justice Sharma said: “The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23 of December 1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.”
Keywords: Ayodhya verdict, Ayodhya title suits
Legal Correspondent
Justice D.V. Sharma, one of the three judges who delivered the verdict in the Ayodhya title suits on Thursday, disagreed with the decision of the majority, on a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Lucknow, that one-third of the disputed land should be given to Muslims for construction of a mosque.
In a separate judgment, Justice Sharma, who is retiring on Friday, dismissed the Uttar Pradesh Central Sunni Waqf Board's suit claiming title to the disputed site, holding that it was time barred.
Justices S.U. Khan and Sudhir Agarwal, in separate but concurring judgments, declared Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara (another Hindu plaintiff) joint title-holders of the property/premises in dispute (to the extent of 2.77 acres) and wanted one-third of the land given to Muslims for construction of a mosque.
Of the 28 issues framed, Justice Sharma answered a majority in favour of the Hindu-plaintiffs and ruled against the Waqf Board.
On “whether the disputed site is the birthplace of Bhagwan Ram,” the judge held that “the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as [the] birthplace of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for any one to invoke in any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.”
On the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyards, Justice Sharma said: “It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other objects of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birthplace as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.”
On whether the disputed building was a mosque; when it was built and by whom, the judge said, “The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.”
ASI proof
On whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple, he said “the disputed structure was constructed on the site of [the] old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.”
On whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23, 1949, Justice Sharma said: “The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23 of December 1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.”
Keywords: Ayodhya verdict, Ayodhya title suits
Justice Khan justifies partition of land in Ayodhya-1/10/10
Justice Khan justifies partition of land in Ayodhya
J. Venkatesan
If exclusive ownership is claimed but joint ownership is proved, a suit can be decreed for joint ownership, Justice S.U. Khan held in his separate judgment, broadly agreed to by Justice Sudhir Agarwal in a separate judgment in the Ayodhya title suits case.
Quoting a Bombay High Court ruling, he said a suit for exclusive possession could be turned into a suit for partition and possession of such share as might be determined to belong to the plaintiff if it was found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the whole share but only a part of it.
Justice Khan, quoting an earlier judgment, said that though there was no specific prayer made by the plaintiff seeking partition, this should not come in the way of granting a decree for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiff. Denial of such a relief would only lead to another suit. Multiplicity of proceedings should normally be avoided as the same tends to delay justice.
The judge said that in view of the finding rendered by him, “all the three parties (Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara) are entitled to a declaration of joint title and possession to the extent of one-third each and a preliminary decree to that effect is to be passed.”
He said: “In the matter of actual partition it is only desirable but not necessary to allot that part of property to a party which was in his exclusive use and occupation. Accordingly, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances it is held that in actual partition, the portion where the idol is presently kept in the makeshift temple will be allotted to the Hindus, and the Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted land, including Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi. However, to adjust all the three parties at the time of actual partition, slight variation in the share of any party may be made to be compensated by allotting the adjoining land acquired by the Central government.”
Justice Khan, in his 285-page judgment, said: “My judgment is short, very short. Either I may be admired as an artist who knows where to stop, particularly in such sensitive, delicate matter or I may be castigated for being so casual in such a momentous task. I have not delved too deep in the history and the archaeology. This I have done for four reasons. First, this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits. Second, I was not sure as to whether at the end of the tortuous voyage I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded). Third, having no pretence of knowledge of history I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians. Fourth, the Supreme Court, in Karnataka Board of Waqf Vs. Government of India, has held as far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room for historical facts and claims.”
Justice Khan said:
“As this judgment is not finally deciding the matter and as the most crucial stage is to come after it is decided by the Supreme Court, I remind both the warring factions of the following. The one quality which epitomised the character of Ram is tyag [sacrifice].
“When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters.
“However the Koran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span therefrom Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed.
“Under the sub-heading of demolition, I have admired our resilience. However 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. We may be crushed.
A unique position
“Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility, peace, friendship, tolerance, opportunity to impress others with the Message, opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible, or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not a negligible minority (after Indonesia, India has the highest number of Muslims in the world). In other countries, either the Muslims are in huge majority, which makes them indifferent to the problem in question, or in negligible minority, which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge 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.”
Keywords: Ayodhya verdict, Ayodhya title suits
J. Venkatesan
If exclusive ownership is claimed but joint ownership is proved, a suit can be decreed for joint ownership, Justice S.U. Khan held in his separate judgment, broadly agreed to by Justice Sudhir Agarwal in a separate judgment in the Ayodhya title suits case.
Quoting a Bombay High Court ruling, he said a suit for exclusive possession could be turned into a suit for partition and possession of such share as might be determined to belong to the plaintiff if it was found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the whole share but only a part of it.
Justice Khan, quoting an earlier judgment, said that though there was no specific prayer made by the plaintiff seeking partition, this should not come in the way of granting a decree for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiff. Denial of such a relief would only lead to another suit. Multiplicity of proceedings should normally be avoided as the same tends to delay justice.
The judge said that in view of the finding rendered by him, “all the three parties (Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara) are entitled to a declaration of joint title and possession to the extent of one-third each and a preliminary decree to that effect is to be passed.”
He said: “In the matter of actual partition it is only desirable but not necessary to allot that part of property to a party which was in his exclusive use and occupation. Accordingly, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances it is held that in actual partition, the portion where the idol is presently kept in the makeshift temple will be allotted to the Hindus, and the Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted land, including Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi. However, to adjust all the three parties at the time of actual partition, slight variation in the share of any party may be made to be compensated by allotting the adjoining land acquired by the Central government.”
Justice Khan, in his 285-page judgment, said: “My judgment is short, very short. Either I may be admired as an artist who knows where to stop, particularly in such sensitive, delicate matter or I may be castigated for being so casual in such a momentous task. I have not delved too deep in the history and the archaeology. This I have done for four reasons. First, this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits. Second, I was not sure as to whether at the end of the tortuous voyage I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded). Third, having no pretence of knowledge of history I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians. Fourth, the Supreme Court, in Karnataka Board of Waqf Vs. Government of India, has held as far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room for historical facts and claims.”
Justice Khan said:
“As this judgment is not finally deciding the matter and as the most crucial stage is to come after it is decided by the Supreme Court, I remind both the warring factions of the following. The one quality which epitomised the character of Ram is tyag [sacrifice].
“When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters.
“However the Koran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span therefrom Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed.
“Under the sub-heading of demolition, I have admired our resilience. However 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. We may be crushed.
A unique position
“Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility, peace, friendship, tolerance, opportunity to impress others with the Message, opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible, or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not a negligible minority (after Indonesia, India has the highest number of Muslims in the world). In other countries, either the Muslims are in huge majority, which makes them indifferent to the problem in question, or in negligible minority, which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge 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.”
Keywords: Ayodhya verdict, Ayodhya title suits
Congress should build a mosque: Babri Masjid Action Committee-1/10/10
Congress should build a mosque: Babri Masjid Action Committee
Gargi Parsai
“The Congress should construct a masjid for us, if it is secular, in the land allotted to us by the High Court in its order,” Babri Masjid Action Committee president Hashim Ansari told journalists here on Thursday.
Initially, Mr. Ansari declined to comment on the judgment, but later he “welcomed” the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. “I welcome the decision because it is to our advantage. The parties that used to do politics in the name of the Babri Masjid will not be able to do so now. The Congress, which had a role in the demolition of the mosque, should now construct a masjid if it is secular.”
Mr. Ansari, who stayed here to ensure that there were no untoward incidents, congratulated the Mayawati government “for bringing police out of the barracks on the roads” and maintaining peace.
While Mr. Ansari was not vocal about approaching the Supreme Court on the decision, another petitioner, Haji Mahmood of the Sunni Waqf Board, said they were likely to appeal against the order.
“Right or wrong the court's decision has to be accepted,” he said.
Shopkeeper Haji Mohammad Sajid, however, could not hide his disappointment. “The court should not have based its decision on faith but should have relied only on documents placed before it.”
Keywords: Babri Masjid Action Committee, Ayodhya verdict
Gargi Parsai
“The Congress should construct a masjid for us, if it is secular, in the land allotted to us by the High Court in its order,” Babri Masjid Action Committee president Hashim Ansari told journalists here on Thursday.
Initially, Mr. Ansari declined to comment on the judgment, but later he “welcomed” the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. “I welcome the decision because it is to our advantage. The parties that used to do politics in the name of the Babri Masjid will not be able to do so now. The Congress, which had a role in the demolition of the mosque, should now construct a masjid if it is secular.”
Mr. Ansari, who stayed here to ensure that there were no untoward incidents, congratulated the Mayawati government “for bringing police out of the barracks on the roads” and maintaining peace.
While Mr. Ansari was not vocal about approaching the Supreme Court on the decision, another petitioner, Haji Mahmood of the Sunni Waqf Board, said they were likely to appeal against the order.
“Right or wrong the court's decision has to be accepted,” he said.
Shopkeeper Haji Mohammad Sajid, however, could not hide his disappointment. “The court should not have based its decision on faith but should have relied only on documents placed before it.”
Keywords: Babri Masjid Action Committee, Ayodhya verdict
A day after Ayodhya verdict, fresh calls for settlement-1/10/10
A day after Ayodhya verdict, fresh calls for settlement
PTI
PTI On duty policemen take a break as Ayodhya was peaceful on Friday, a day after the verdict. Related
NEWS
Satisfied with people's response to Ayodhya verdict: Chidambaram
Litigants call for burying Ayodhya dispute
Imam Bukhari unhappy with verdict but calls for peace
Ayodhya judgement vindicted BJP's stand: Venkaiah Naidu
Day passes off peacefully
Fresh calls were made on Friday for another attempt for a negotiated settlement to the Ayodhya issue, as Governments at the Centre as well as political parties hailed the “respectful and dignified” response of people to the court verdict.
The Centre as well as the Congress also made it a point to stress that the Thursday’s Allahabad High Court judgement in no way justified the “criminal act” of demolition of Babri Masjid that took place on December 6, 1992.
With no untoward incident being reported from any part of the country a day after the Allahabad High Court verdict, political parties played the peace card and renewed appeals for maintaining communal harmony.
Congress favoured a negotiated settlement of the Ayodhya issue, while the BJP said this possibility could be explored to settle the issue amicably instead of dragging the sensitive matter further.
“Not only government, but all right thinking people should work for a negotiated settlement. From our side, we will try for a settlement. The issue should be resolved,” said AICC General Secretary Digvijay Singh. If this is not possible, then the court verdict should be honoured, he added.
When asked whether the party was in favour of out-of-court settlement, senior BJP leader Venkaiah Naidu said “If there is a possibility, the issue should be settled amicably instead of dragging it further.”
Mr. Naidu also asserted that the judgement “vindicated the party’s stand that Ayodhya was birthplace of Lord Rama.”
Mr. Chidambaram said the Centre has no role in the issue except to maintain status quo and ensure law and order across the country.
Playing the minorities’ card, Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav said the Muslim community felt “cheated” by the Ayodhya title suit verdict, prompting Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati to warn of strict action against any attempt to vitiate the communal atmosphere.
“I am disappointed at the judicial verdicts that give precedence to faith over law and evidence. This does not augur good for the country, the Constitution and the Judiciary itself,” Mr. Yadav said reading out from a written statement.
Echoing Mr. Yadav, LJP president Ramvilas Paswan said the verdict had brought disappointment among the minority community but they should not take it as a final one.
AIADMK chief Jayalalithaa described the verdict as “admirable” and urged the parties concerned to “fully appreciate the judgement.”
“I feel that the learned judges have delivered an admirable verdict. It is a judgement that opens the door to the path of reconciliation,” she said in a statement.
CPI said there are enough legal avenues for the people who feel aggrieved at the verdict.
It said the verdict based more on faith and religious belief than the basic tenets of history, archaeology, legal logic and historical facts of other streams of scientific knowledge can spark a debate on the jurisdiction of the courts.
The Forward Bloc while appealing for calm said the Ayodhya issue should be settled before the judicial courts and not at the streets.
Keywords: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, Ayodhya title suit
Email the Editor
PTI
PTI On duty policemen take a break as Ayodhya was peaceful on Friday, a day after the verdict. Related
NEWS
Satisfied with people's response to Ayodhya verdict: Chidambaram
Litigants call for burying Ayodhya dispute
Imam Bukhari unhappy with verdict but calls for peace
Ayodhya judgement vindicted BJP's stand: Venkaiah Naidu
Day passes off peacefully
Fresh calls were made on Friday for another attempt for a negotiated settlement to the Ayodhya issue, as Governments at the Centre as well as political parties hailed the “respectful and dignified” response of people to the court verdict.
The Centre as well as the Congress also made it a point to stress that the Thursday’s Allahabad High Court judgement in no way justified the “criminal act” of demolition of Babri Masjid that took place on December 6, 1992.
With no untoward incident being reported from any part of the country a day after the Allahabad High Court verdict, political parties played the peace card and renewed appeals for maintaining communal harmony.
Congress favoured a negotiated settlement of the Ayodhya issue, while the BJP said this possibility could be explored to settle the issue amicably instead of dragging the sensitive matter further.
“Not only government, but all right thinking people should work for a negotiated settlement. From our side, we will try for a settlement. The issue should be resolved,” said AICC General Secretary Digvijay Singh. If this is not possible, then the court verdict should be honoured, he added.
When asked whether the party was in favour of out-of-court settlement, senior BJP leader Venkaiah Naidu said “If there is a possibility, the issue should be settled amicably instead of dragging it further.”
Mr. Naidu also asserted that the judgement “vindicated the party’s stand that Ayodhya was birthplace of Lord Rama.”
Mr. Chidambaram said the Centre has no role in the issue except to maintain status quo and ensure law and order across the country.
Playing the minorities’ card, Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav said the Muslim community felt “cheated” by the Ayodhya title suit verdict, prompting Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati to warn of strict action against any attempt to vitiate the communal atmosphere.
“I am disappointed at the judicial verdicts that give precedence to faith over law and evidence. This does not augur good for the country, the Constitution and the Judiciary itself,” Mr. Yadav said reading out from a written statement.
Echoing Mr. Yadav, LJP president Ramvilas Paswan said the verdict had brought disappointment among the minority community but they should not take it as a final one.
AIADMK chief Jayalalithaa described the verdict as “admirable” and urged the parties concerned to “fully appreciate the judgement.”
“I feel that the learned judges have delivered an admirable verdict. It is a judgement that opens the door to the path of reconciliation,” she said in a statement.
CPI said there are enough legal avenues for the people who feel aggrieved at the verdict.
It said the verdict based more on faith and religious belief than the basic tenets of history, archaeology, legal logic and historical facts of other streams of scientific knowledge can spark a debate on the jurisdiction of the courts.
The Forward Bloc while appealing for calm said the Ayodhya issue should be settled before the judicial courts and not at the streets.
Keywords: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, Ayodhya title suit
Email the Editor
Another fall and we may not rise again: Justice Khan tells parties-01/10/2010
01/10/2010
Another fall and we may not rise again: Justice Khan tells parties
Lucknow: “My judgement is short, very short. Either I may be admired as an artist who knows where to stop, particularly in such a sensitive, delicate matter or I may be castigated for being so casual in such a momentous task. Sometimes patience is intense action, silence is speech and pauses are punches.” This is the epilogue at the end of Justice S U Khan’s 285-page judgment in the Ayodhya title suits.
He reminds both the warring factions that "the one quality which epitomised the character of Ram is tyag (sacrifice)". "When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters. However, the Koran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span, Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed."
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 says he did not delve too deep into history and archaeology, for four reasons. "Firstly, this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits. Secondly, I was not sure as to whether at the end of tortuous voyage I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded). Thirdly, having no pretence of knowledge of history I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians," Justice Khan writes.
Regarding his fourth reason, he quotes the SC's ruling in the Karnataka Board of Waqf vs Government of India -- "As far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned there is no room for historical facts and claims. Reliance on borderline historical facts will lead to erroneous conclusions."
Justice Khan also quotes Iqbal: "Watan ki fikra 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 goes on to quote Darwin, remarking "What an authority to quote in a religious matter/dispute!". "Only those species survived which collaborated and improvised," Justice Khan points out.
He writes in his epilogue: "Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teachings of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others." 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."
Source: The Indian Express
Another fall and we may not rise again: Justice Khan tells parties
Lucknow: “My judgement is short, very short. Either I may be admired as an artist who knows where to stop, particularly in such a sensitive, delicate matter or I may be castigated for being so casual in such a momentous task. Sometimes patience is intense action, silence is speech and pauses are punches.” This is the epilogue at the end of Justice S U Khan’s 285-page judgment in the Ayodhya title suits.
He reminds both the warring factions that "the one quality which epitomised the character of Ram is tyag (sacrifice)". "When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters. However, the Koran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span, Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed."
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 says he did not delve too deep into history and archaeology, for four reasons. "Firstly, this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits. Secondly, I was not sure as to whether at the end of tortuous voyage I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded). Thirdly, having no pretence of knowledge of history I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians," Justice Khan writes.
Regarding his fourth reason, he quotes the SC's ruling in the Karnataka Board of Waqf vs Government of India -- "As far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned there is no room for historical facts and claims. Reliance on borderline historical facts will lead to erroneous conclusions."
Justice Khan also quotes Iqbal: "Watan ki fikra 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 goes on to quote Darwin, remarking "What an authority to quote in a religious matter/dispute!". "Only those species survived which collaborated and improvised," Justice Khan points out.
He writes in his epilogue: "Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teachings of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others." 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."
Source: The Indian Express
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
