[quote] We need to talk in plain and understandable terms. The facts are- Babar got constructed a mosque supposedly on remains of a Hindu temple. Babar's action can not be questioned in today's courts as he was not subject to current law and he was emperor and thus his word was law. Thus Babri Mosque was lawful. Some idols were unlawfully placed in the mosque in 1949 and the mosque unlawfully demolished in 1992. Strictly speaking, justice requires that entire land be used for construction of mosque so as to undo the offences of placing idols in 1949 and demolishing the building in 1992. However, this will enrage the majority community who are fed on the belief that the disputed site is a temple. So, it is okay to give some part for temple. However, giving only one third for mosque is not proper.[/quote]
Just because a person is an Emperor or a Ruler doesn't make his word lawful. I'm not taking about Babur in particular here, just generally. No one considers what the British did to India 'lawful.' They were in power, and so their word was law at the time. But in today's time we don't consider it lawful.
Facts can be interpreted in different ways. You believe that the entire land should be used to construct a mosque. There are other with equally valid interpretations that disagree. Which is why we have a panel of judges in the first place. To critically look at the facts and interpret them in the judicial sense, as opposed to the religious or sentimental point of view.
Pallavi wrote:
[quote][quote] We need to talk in plain and understandable terms. The facts are- Babar got constructed a mosque supposedly on remains of a Hindu temple. Babar's action can not be questioned in today's courts as he was not subject to current law and he was emperor and thus his word was law. Thus Babri Mosque was lawful. Some idols were unlawfully placed in the mosque in 1949 and the mosque unlawfully demolished in 1992. Strictly speaking, justice requires that entire land be used for construction of mosque so as to undo the offences of placing idols in 1949 and demolishing the building in 1992. However, this will enrage the majority community who are fed on the belief that the disputed site is a temple. So, it is okay to give some part for temple. However, giving only one third for mosque is not proper.[/quote]
Just because a person is an Emperor or a Ruler doesn't make his word lawful. I'm not taking about Babur in particular here, just generally. No one considers what the British did to India 'lawful.' They were in power, and so their word was law at the time. But in today's time we don't consider it lawful.
Facts can be interpreted in different ways. You believe that the entire land should be used to construct a mosque. There are other with equally valid interpretations that disagree. Which is why we have a panel of judges in the first place. To critically look at the facts and interpret them in the judicial sense, as opposed to the religious or sentimental point of view.[/quote]
Prior to British Rule established after 1857, there was no constitutional or legal system. The ruler for the time being could do anything. Babri mosque was constructed when King's word was law. We cannot comment on legality of anything done when king's word was law. so construction of mosque by Babar or anyone cannot be termed as unlawful. This much should be clear beyond doubt. But the placing of idols in 1949 at the disputed site was unlawful and similarly, demolition of mosque in 1992 was unlawful. This must also be clear beyond doubt. Under strict legal provisions, entire land should accordingly go to Muslims for mosque. However, the majority community claims that the disputed site is Rama's birth place. Only for this sentiment and to maintain peace, some land is to be given for temple. But giving only one third for mosque is unfair.
I hope the position is very clear. But national unity is most important. all concerned should adopt the policy of give and take and settle the issue.
G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/
[quote]But the placing of idols in 1949 at the disputed site was unlawful and similarly, demolition of mosque in 1992 was unlawful. This must also be clear beyond doubt. Under strict legal provisions, entire land should accordingly go to Muslims for mosque. However, the majority community claims that the disputed site is Rama's birth place. Only for this sentiment and to maintain peace, some land is to be given for temple. But giving only one third for mosque is unfair.
I hope the position is very clear. But national unity is most important. all concerned should adopt the policy of give and take and settle the issue.[/quote]
This is your interpretation of the facts. Some people claim that there was never a mosque there to begin with... It's all in the interpretation.
What strict legal provisions??
The land wasn't given just based on a 'sentiment'. The fact that people believe that it's the birth place of Ram is in fact very important.
Here is the result of this GD.
http://www.boddunan.com/forums/3-contests-a-rewards/84007-result-of-group-discussion-contest-october-5th-to-october-11th.html#84008
