The landmark judgment, a much awaited one, is out: the disputed holy site in Ayodhya should be split between Hindus and Muslims. The court observations has left many a questions unanswered in my mind. This is a controversial subject and I’m sure it’s gonna turn many of my ‘friends’ to foes, but for those who can think in the right way I guess it makes sense. By posting this I’m only airing MY VIEWS AND DOUBTS, WHICH IS CONFINED TO MY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE, and I don’t claim it to be perfect considering the fact that I can think only out of the framework for which I don’t have any data that I can access. I also advice the one who reads this to think positively and take it in the right sense and also discriminate wisely. If you feel you have the answers to what I cite here, you are welcome to air it instead of taking up a fight with me, so that my blindness will be removed.
I hope and wish that both Hindus and Muslims take the ruling in the right spirit and maintain peace and unity, that is being tried to be destroyed by some anti social elements for their personal and vested interests. We live in a civilized society and it’s through discussions and mutual understanding that things has to be sorted out. Being a non-Hindu and a non-Muslim, I believe I view at it without any prejudice.
I’m writing this since I have lost faith in the judicial system as a whole which is plagued by long procedures, power, corruption, and what not. Once it even said it cannot order an arrest as it might lead to public outrage. If the law is afraid of muscle and money power why should we rely on that?
Well, coming to the point, on the Ayodhya issue the court ruling says:
1. The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram
I don’t understand on what basis it was said since there is no evidence to substantiate it.
2. The disputed building was constructed by Babur, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.
Here, the judgment was about the ownership of the disputed site, and why is it that - whether it’s based on the tenets of Islam it is built or not - come into picture?
3. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
It is a well known fact that the media was completely kept out of site at the time of demolishing the Babri Masjid. If they were so sure that there were artifacts they would have let the media in and recorded every evidence. If at all there was something unearthed form the site it surely would have been published and reported with all its pomp and glory. Since that didn’t happen, when we live in the age of technology and have all the scientific methods available, on what basis can one believe in the proof of Archeological Survey of India?
4. It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi [birthplace] of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan [Lord Ram's slippers], Sita Rasoi [Goddess Sita's kitchen], other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshiping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan, ie a birthplace as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial
Again not sure on what basis it is claimed to be the birthplace of Rama. And if it was the birthplace of Rama how did it become Sita’s kitchen? And it says it is established that Hindus had been worshipping and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage since time immemorial then will they dare to climb on the dome and destroy it? If it was Muslims or Christians who did so, we can believe in that, because they don’t promote idol worship and they don’t even mind climbing on it. But for those of VHP, RSS and such organisations to climb on it something that is unimaginable.
5. After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23 Dec 1949.
If the deities were installed in the disputed structure in 1949, then on what basis can they claim the ownership of the property? If today someone comes and installs a diety in parliament, will it be the property of VHP or RSS tomorrow?
6. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshiping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping.
As I said on point #4, if that was the case, Hindus worship and respect their idols so much that no one would have even thought of climbing on the structure to demolish it.
7. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
Again, as of point #2, the case was about ownership, and not about religion.
8. Accordingly, all the three sets of parties - ie Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara [a Hindu sect] - are declared joint title holders of the property/premises in dispute... to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.
It’s a wonderful decision, but has to be seen how it is going to be practical. If they can agree upon each other to handle it with specific time period, or if they can build a temple and mosque side by side as is in many places elsewhere it can be a an exemplary example of communal harmony.
9. However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.
It’s something that is not just. Tomorrow if someone forces into my house and keep an idol how can I give my house to them?
10. It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra [Ram's square] and Sita Rasoi [on a map of the site].
It says: ‘shown by the words ON A MAP OF THE SITE. Here the question is which map and who created the map? If the map was an existing one, then there wouldn’t have been a dispute at all, for then it clearly would have belonged to Rama. It gives a sense that the map was recently made and how can a verdict be based on the newly made map?
11. It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the central government.
It sounds funny to fight for the minor deviations of plot, when a large protion is at stake.
12. The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds within three months.
Does it imply that there shall be no more court procedures? Is this the final judgment? What if the case is taken to the Supreme Court?
13. Status quo... shall be maintained for a period of three months unless this order is modified or vacated earlier."
Does it mean that the court can or will modify the order? And what if it is after three months?
1. The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram
I don’t understand on what basis it was said since there is no evidence to substantiate it.
2. The disputed building was constructed by Babur, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.
Here, the judgment was about the ownership of the disputed site, and why is it that - whether it’s based on the tenets of Islam it is built or not - come into picture?
3. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
It is a well known fact that the media was completely kept out of site at the time of demolishing the Babri Masjid. If they were so sure that there were artifacts they would have let the media in and recorded every evidence. If at all there was something unearthed form the site it surely would have been published and reported with all its pomp and glory. Since that didn’t happen, when we live in the age of technology and have all the scientific methods available, on what basis can one believe in the proof of Archeological Survey of India?
4. It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi [birthplace] of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan [Lord Ram's slippers], Sita Rasoi [Goddess Sita's kitchen], other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshiping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan, ie a birthplace as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial
Again not sure on what basis it is claimed to be the birthplace of Rama. And if it was the birthplace of Rama how did it become Sita’s kitchen? And it says it is established that Hindus had been worshipping and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage since time immemorial then will they dare to climb on the dome and destroy it? If it was Muslims or Christians who did so, we can believe in that, because they don’t promote idol worship and they don’t even mind climbing on it. But for those of VHP, RSS and such organisations to climb on it something that is unimaginable.
5. After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23 Dec 1949.
If the deities were installed in the disputed structure in 1949, then on what basis can they claim the ownership of the property? If today someone comes and installs a diety in parliament, will it be the property of VHP or RSS tomorrow?
6. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshiping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping.
As I said on point #4, if that was the case, Hindus worship and respect their idols so much that no one would have even thought of climbing on the structure to demolish it.
7. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
Again, as of point #2, the case was about ownership, and not about religion.
8. Accordingly, all the three sets of parties - ie Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara [a Hindu sect] - are declared joint title holders of the property/premises in dispute... to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.
It’s a wonderful decision, but has to be seen how it is going to be practical. If they can agree upon each other to handle it with specific time period, or if they can build a temple and mosque side by side as is in many places elsewhere it can be a an exemplary example of communal harmony.
9. However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.
It’s something that is not just. Tomorrow if someone forces into my house and keep an idol how can I give my house to them?
10. It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra [Ram's square] and Sita Rasoi [on a map of the site].
It says: ‘shown by the words ON A MAP OF THE SITE. Here the question is which map and who created the map? If the map was an existing one, then there wouldn’t have been a dispute at all, for then it clearly would have belonged to Rama. It gives a sense that the map was recently made and how can a verdict be based on the newly made map?
11. It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the central government.
It sounds funny to fight for the minor deviations of plot, when a large protion is at stake.
12. The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds within three months.
Does it imply that there shall be no more court procedures? Is this the final judgment? What if the case is taken to the Supreme Court?
13. Status quo... shall be maintained for a period of three months unless this order is modified or vacated earlier."
Does it mean that the court can or will modify the order? And what if it is after three months?
Whatever I have written seem to be one sided, but I have given reasons for it. These are just my doubts and views as I have mentioned in the beginning. I hope those who go through this are wise enough not to take it in the wrong sense. I wish that peace reign in, for no God would want to see His children fight each other and die.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments on the blog: