Ayodhya Verdict - Right or Wrong?

Priya B wrote:
[quote]gulshan kumar ajmani wrote:
[quote]

The babri Mosque was constructed at the same site where a temple or its remains existed according to survey as admitted by High court. The question is how the action of a ruler like Babar can be disputed. Babar was emperor and during his regime, he was law. what he did cannot be questioned by courts today. Even at the time of partition, there was only mosque and no temple. Some idols werwe stealthily placed in the site in 1949. In 1992, the mosque was unlawfully abolished.
Legally speaking, the disputed site is mosque. However, bringing the matter of faith in consideration and in overall interest of peace and tranquility, it is pragmatic that some portion of disputed sites be given to Hindu. To this extent, the judgment is fair. But giving only one third to Muslims and two third to Hindus is not palatable.[/quote]

The following are the inferences drawn by Justice Agarwal from the ASI report, 2003 (verbatim):

A. The disputed structure was not raised on a virgin, vacant, unoccupied, open land.

B. There existed a structure, if not much bigger then at least comparable or bigger than the disputed structure, at the site in dispute.

C. The builder of the disputed structure knew the details of the erstwhile structure and therefore did not hesitate in using the walls, etc, without any further improvement.

D. The erstwhile structure was religious in nature, and that too non-Islamic.

E. Material like stone, pillars, bricks, etc of the erstwhile structure was used in raising the disputed structure.

F. Artifacts recovered during excavation are mostly non-Islamic. Simultaneously, no artifacts etc which can be used only in Islamic religious place have been found.

The report of the expert agency, that is the ASI, clearly confirms existence of a Hindu religious structure dating back to thousands of years. This evidence too confirms that the disputed site was and is the site of a temple and the Hindus have always believed the same to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. Hence it would not be possible to ignore the fact.[/quote]

The ASI reports simply goes to prove that the Mosque was not built on plain land but by demolishing some other building- presumably Rama temple- and some material of the demolished building used in the temple. But all this carries no meaning. We cannot undo and nobody has the right to undo what happened thousands of years ago. Even national boundaries- not just a building- have changed in thousands of years. Thousands of years neither British law nor Indian constitution prevailed. Nobody can adjudge the action of Babar or any other ruler, who were not subject to present Indian law or British law. The placing of idols in mosque in 1949 and its demolition in 1992 by miscreants are criminal at according to Indian as well as British law. Thus, perfect and plain justice requires that entire land be given for Mosque. However, in order to pacify the Hindu sentiments, it may be okay to give some land for temple also. But this is unfair to give only one third for mosque.

in my point of view the judgement given was absoutly correct and accepted by all the people.....

The judgement may look like to pacify a particular community but it was never proven that the land belonged to Babar or that he had unknowingly built the mosque. It is not possible to prove that he did it out of innocence. So the land once had a temple centuries ago which was later reduced to remains . But people still believed it as birth place of Ram. Hence it is justified in giving the faith its due.

Priya B wrote:
[quote]The judgement may look like to pacify a particular community but it was never proven that the land belonged to Babar or that he had unknowingly built the mosque. It is not possible to prove that he did it out of innocence. So the land once had a temple centuries ago which was later reduced to remains . But people still believed it as birth place of Ram. Hence it is justified in giving the faith its due.[/quote]

There is no need to prove that Babar owned land. He was neither subject to British law nor current constitution. He was an emperor and what he did is lawful. The mosque got built by Babar existed even on the date of independence of India. This is significant. Some idols were stealthily placed at the site. This is unlawful according to current law. The babri mosque was demolished in 1992. This is unlawful. So, justice lies in restoring the lawful position.

Although strictly implementing law will be to restore the Babri mosque, it is not feasible to annoy the majority community who have been fed on the belief that the disputed structure was a temple. Hence, it is okay to allocate some part for temple. But this is grossly unjust to give only one third of the disputed land to Muslims.

I think the mistake we're all making while having this discussion is thinking the parties to the suit are 'the Hindus' and 'the Muslims'. The Hindu community or Muslim community as a whole were not and cannot be parties to the suit. The people who are parties to the suit happen to be Hindus and Muslims, but are not representing themselves as the entire Hindu community or Muslim community.

[quote](1) Ram lala Virajman( I don't know what this means) [/quote]

If I'm not mistaken this actually meant that Bhagwan Ram was a party to the suit, that was being filed on his behalf by his 'next friend'. There was a lot of discussion about this. The end result was that the court declared that even deities can be parties to a suit. Quite an interesting decision on their part, and one that is bound to have repercussions!

Pallavi wrote:
[quote]I think the mistake we're all making while having this discussion is thinking the parties to the suit are 'the Hindus' and 'the Muslims'. The Hindu community or Muslim community as a whole were not and cannot be parties to the suit. The people who are parties to the suit happen to be Hindus and Muslims, but are not representing themselves as the entire Hindu community or Muslim community.

[/quote]

I think when the case was filed it was between two communities represented by two organisations.At that time it was not expected to prolong this much.So no more claimants added from either side.

The judgement has helped in reducing the tense situation and avoiding any kind of clashes by the anti social elements who try to use people for their political games. So we should appreciate and applaud the verdict which had avoided another clash. None of the parties have won or lost the case. This has caused neither elation nor worry for the litigants. So the verdict was a balanced one

Was it a planned one than a balanced one ? Still the clients are going to appeal in SC.

Pallavi wrote:
[quote]I think the mistake we're all making while having this discussion is thinking the parties to the suit are 'the Hindus' and 'the Muslims'. The Hindu community or Muslim community as a whole were not and cannot be parties to the suit. The people who are parties to the suit happen to be Hindus and Muslims, but are not representing themselves as the entire Hindu community or Muslim community.

[quote](1) Ram lala Virajman( I don't know what this means) [/quote]

If I'm not mistaken this actually meant that Bhagwan Ram was a party to the suit, that was being filed on his behalf by his 'next friend'. There was a lot of discussion about this. The end result was that the court declared that even deities can be parties to a suit. Quite an interesting decision on their part, and one that is bound to have repercussions![/quote]

Although under Indian law, artificial juridical persons are recognized, there are real persons behind. There is a sort of 'corporate veil' behind such artificial persons. So 'Ram Lala Virajman' means Hindu community. The persons supposedly representing 'Ram Lala Virajman' talk of Hindu sentiments and nothing else. Hence, virtually, this is a matter between two communities as no individuals/ families are contesting for their own interests.
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]At that time it was not expected to prolong this much.So no more claimants added from either side.[/quote]

With our judicial system, there was no doubt that a judicial decision of this magnitude would not be delivered any time soon. It's one of the reasons people have such little faith in the judicial system.

Like I said earlier, no more claimants could have been added, because any one who has any kind of claim over the property has to be added for the suit to go past the initial stage. Otherwise it would be dismissed for non-joinder of parties.

[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.

[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.

Pallavi,
The time of GD had elapsed.So don't post more arguments.

Thanks friends for making this GD alive for a week.Result will be announced soon.

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