A literal ‘right or wrong’ stance cannot really be taken. In one of the many interviews conducted before the judgment came out, I remember hearing this one statement and marveling at how it seemed to hit the nail on the head; unfortunately I don’t recall who said it. He said ‘the best judgement is where neither party is satisfied with the verdict.’ Keeping with this statement, I guess the judgement can be said to be ‘right.’

However, like I said, taking a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ stand is too simplistic. Personally, I feel the judgement is fair. The fact that there were (thankfully!) no riots or protests against the verdict seems to imply that the majority population feels the same way.

I agree with pallavi that a literal 'right or wrong' cannot be taken. The issue of birth place of Rama is not a historic fact but a matter of faith. Many believe that Rama was born at the particular site and the verdict has respected the sentiments of people. At the same time, it is fact that there was Babri Mosque that was demolished by certain groups. The court had to adopt a middle course. Hence, the disputed land has been partially given to Muslims also. The decision is quite fair and no party has been given undue fair. Thus justice has not only been given but also seen to be given. No verdict could be better.

In India there are lot of issues which needs more attention than Ayodhya verdict.But as they have announced the verdict let's talk about that.

I would say that the committee's verdict is fair enough.I could call it a wise decision because we cannot get in to communal riots if the judgment was in favoras of one party.Right now, Maintaining peace and harmony in our country is very important than any other thing.

OK Pallavi and Gulshan, what you pointed out is true. Fair or unfair was to be the question.But I wish to know whether it is in right direction or wrong direction the things are going.

Just look.Only three clients were joined in this case. Hence the court ordered to divide the land between these three clients. If there were 10 or more parties what should have done then? Is it a right verdict in that sense? Don't it seems to be for satisfying all the parties concerned? For this why it required sixty years? In that sense don't it seems in wrong direction ?

Abid Areacode wrote:
[quote]OK Pallavi and Gulshan, what you pointed out is true. Fair or unfair was to be the question.But I wish to know whether it is in right direction or wrong direction the things are going.

Just look.Only three clients were joined in this case. Hence the court ordered to divide the land between these three clients. If there were 10 or more parties what should have done then? Is it a right verdict in that sense? Don't it seems to be for satisfying all the parties concerned? For this why it required sixty years? In that sense don't it seems in wrong direction ?[/quote]

Dividing the land in three portions is not logical. There should be only two parties- Hindus and Muslims- and issue related to two matters- Rama temple and mosque. The Hindus have been wrongly given two parts- Rama Lala Virajmaan and Nirmohi Akhada.

But the decision does not fully satisfy or dissatisfy any party. So, this seems reasonable. However, the matter is being appealed in supreme Court.

Yes. So I think it is not a right way. If someone claims a new case like this today and understanding the verdict join as clients in case and after 50 or 100 days when the verdict comes , it may quote this verdict as reference.Isn't it possible?But being a sensitive issue without making any one unpleased court has declared it.So it is a confusion whether it is a right way or wrong one.That is the topic of our discussion.

Come on friends.Discuss and bring out your thoughts.

The younger generation of India must be pretty much happy with the verdict.We should stop fighting in the name of God."Allah" and "Rama" both are Gods.In other words,Love is god.No God will be happy to see thousands of people being killed by their fellow men.Every religion preaches love to human mankind.

The people should have a maturity to respect the religious feelings of other community.If the verdict would have been in the favor of either one of the party then India would turn a blood bhumi rather than ram janma bhumi or a masjid bhumi.

Why to separate ourselves as "Hindus" and "Muslims"?.Let us all be united under one roof "India". :) :) .Let us stand by our pledge "All Indians are my brothers and Sisters".The thought that 1/3 part of the land is enjoyed by our own brothers will never make us think the verdict is wrong. :)

This verdict is a positive sign for India prospering. :) :)

Abid Areacode wrote:
[quote]Yes. So I think it is not a right way. If someone claims a new case like this today and understanding the verdict join as clients in case and after 50 or 100 days when the verdict comes , it may quote this verdict as reference.Isn't it possible?But being a sensitive issue without making any one unpleased court has declared it.So it is a confusion whether it is a right way or wrong one.That is the topic of our discussion.

Come on friends.Discuss and bring out your thoughts.[/quote]

Plain facts are that there was a mosque and not temple when demolished. The miscreants would not have demolished a temple. In fact, there were no Hindu idols there till 1949, when some people stealthily place some idols there. It cannot be said whether there was actually a temple when the mosque was got constructed by Babar or some one else. In fact, we should accept the position as existed on 15th august 1947, when we got independence. Babri mosque was unlawfully demolished and the idols unlawfully placed at the site. Legally speaking, the position immediately before demolition of the mosque should be restored. This would be perfectly correct decision.
However, this is not a purely land issue. Hindus believe rightly or wrongly that the site is birth place of Lord Rama. Hence, the High court gave some portion to Hindus for Rama temple. Some portion also given for mosque. the Hindus believe that the Babri mosque site was once a temple and mosque was constructed there. taking a broader view, it is not feasible to take a totally legalistic view. sentiments of all communities including Hindus have to be considered. Personally, I believe that Rama is an unreal figure and character of an epic. So, there is no actual birth place. But the majority community believes that Ayodhya and the particular site is birth place of Rama. court had no option but to act in the way they did. But the land should have been distributed in two parts and not three.

The Allahabad High Court in 2002 commissioned the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate part of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. For nearly six months, from March 12, 2003, to August 7, 2003, the country's best excavators worked on the premises - though under instructions to dig 10 feet "around" the spot under the central dome where the idol of Shri Ram Lala existed -- to verify claims about the presence of a previous structure, allegedly a Hindu temple.

The ASI report in 2003 concluded that there is "architectural evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the 10th century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure". The survey body said the remains of the "massive structure" pre-dating the construction of the mosque indicated "distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India".

The report factored in both Justices Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma determining individually that a Hindu temple was "demolished" to construct a mosque.

Sudhir Agarwal the judge banks on the Hindu "belief", which has "lasted more than 200 years", pre-dating the British "Divide and Rule" policy. Justice Sharma holds that the report only "confirms" that the disputed site "was and is" the site of a temple believed by the Hindus to have been "always the birthplace of Lord Ram".