The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 26 Sep 2019 18:06

the case is plain and simple... and can be decided in a day. There was a temple which was destroyed ( the excavations have amply proved that) ... and mosque was built over its ruins and using the material from the temple. A ASI report substantiates it...idk what the hell are the arguments from the muslim side. its plain and simple case of criminal conduct in the past by muslim invaders which needs to be corrected.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 26 Sep 2019 19:03

Yesterday they dissed the Archaeological report and today the apologise. This they are just trying to run the clock down for when the CJI will retire and then perhaps the entire things will have to be re-heard by a new bench. Tarikh pe Tarikh.

https://twitter.com/ndtv/status/1177133795272605696

NDTV @ndtv

Ayodhya case: Muslim parties apologise for doubting archaeological report. http://ndtv.com/india-news/ayo

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 26 Sep 2019 19:39

the court should focus on just this aspect..ASI excavation...rest all is nonsense as to who built it, who prayed when and how etc etc.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 26 Sep 2019 22:40

Their arguments focus on tap dancing with diametrically opposing arguments upon legal construct of fait accompli .
1. "There was a mosque structure there and it was destroyed. This is the sole issue to be redressed".
2. "If there's a temple underneath, the alleged destruction happened long ago and there's no proof and the mosque cannot be faulted for that"

Fait accompli works in the present context with the overwhelming amount of proof of destruction of one structure, but the evidence of destruction of a prior structure is a very uncomfortable fact that destroys their own claim on exactly the same basis, and therefore it must be suppressed by any means possible. Thus, the Muslim side is necessarily going to have to focus on obfuscation and emphasizing only immediate factual considerations.

The increasing number of arguments favouring the Hindu narrative is a sign than the other side is finding the task of "I want to use this argument against you, and also want to stop you from using the same against me" approach untenable, and want a face saver way out.

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 01 Oct 2019 10:02

Don't want to take part in Ayodhya mediation: Ram Lalla
Senior lawyer C S Vaidyantahan, appearing for deity 'Ram Lalla Virajman, referred to some media reports on mediation and said that he did not want to take part in the mediation any further and would like a judicial decision from the bench.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 07 Oct 2019 11:05

For those who are not familiar:

Most may know of how Guru Tegh Bahadur, the 9th guru of the Sikhs, was publicly beheaded in 1675 by Aurangzeb for refusing to convert to Islam and defending Kashmiri pandits from conversion. The Gurudwara Sis Ganj in Chandni Chowk in Delhi is the spot he was killed. The Gurudwara Rakab Ganj is the spot where he was cremated by a Sikh disciple who burned his own home with the body inside . Many know this story .

What’s less known is that both those memorials were subsequently destroyed and replaced with mosques, which were both subsequently destroyed and replaced with gurudwaras again . There were extended court battles between the Sikhs and Muslims during the British era on this matter, and in the case of Gurudwara Sis Ganj, the Privy Council decided in favor of the Sikhs in the 1920s, paving the way for the current structure there .

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 07 Oct 2019 11:19

I was fortunate to visit Sis Ganj Gurudwara a couple of years back. Rakab Ganj Gurudwara I have not visited till date. Will do so next time in Delhi.

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 07 Oct 2019 18:24

I don't know why it even matters whether there was a temple there or not. Hindus believe that Lord Ram was born there, end of story. Religion is a matter of belief, not science or history. It's not that Muslims are not allowed to build a mosque anywhere else like how the Saudis have it. Only in India do we treat the majority like this.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 13 Oct 2019 22:34

Section 144 has been imposed in Ayodhya in anticipation of verdict.

Peregrine · Post by **Peregrine** » 15 Oct 2019 17:19

Ayodhya case: Need to correct historical wrong committed by Babur, Hindu party tells SC – PTI

HIGHLIGHTS

- A 5-judge Constitution bench was told by senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for a Hindu party, that there were several mosques in Ayodhya where Muslims can pray but Hindus cannot change the birth place of Lord Ram.

- The bench asked several questions to Parasaran on legal issues like law of limitation, doctrine of adverse possession and questions as to how Muslims are ousted from seeking title over 2.77 acre disputed land at Ayodhya

NEW DELHI: A "historical wrong" was committed by victorious emperor Babur by constructing a mosque at the birthplace of Lord Ram in Ayodhya which needed to be rectified now, a Hindu party said in the Supreme Court on Tuesday in the Ram Janmbhoomi Babri masjid land dispute case.

A 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, was told by former Attorney General and senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for a Hindu party, that there were several mosques in Ayodhya where Muslims can pray but Hindus cannot change the birth place of Lord Ram.

Parasaran, appearing for Mahant Suresh Das, who is a defendant in a law suit filed by Sunni Waqf Board and others, said that emperor Babur conquered India and committed a historical wrong by constructing a mosque at the birthplace of Lord Ram by placing himself above the law.

The bench, also comprising justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, asked several questions to Parasaran on legal issues like law of limitation, doctrine of adverse possession and questions as to how Muslims are ousted from seeking title over 2.77 acre disputed land at Ayodhya.

The bench asked whether Muslims can seek a decree of declaration with regard to the disputed property even after the demolition of the alleged mosque on December 6, 1992.

"They say, once a mosque always a mosque, do you support this, the bench asked Parasaran.

"No. I do not support it. I will say once a temple always a temple," Parasaran replied.

The bench said that it has been argued by the Muslim parties that they can seek a decree of declaration for the property even if the building in question was no more in existence.

After the bench asked a volley of questions to Parasaran, the CJI said: "Mr Dhavan are we asking sufficient number of questions to the Hindu parties now."

The observation assumes significance as senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Muslim parties, had alleged on Monday that questions are asked only from them and not posed to the Hindu side during the hearings in the Ram
Janmbhoomi-Babri masjid land dispute case.

"Your Lordship didn't ask question to the other side. All the questions have been asked to us only. Of course, we are answering them," Dhavan had said yesterday.

The arguments in the Ayodhya land dispute are continuing on 39th day and will resume after the lunch break.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board,the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

SRajesh · Post by **SRajesh** » 16 Oct 2019 11:08

https://www.news18.com/news/india/on-la ... 47629.html
Is this true breaking news!!
Why now?
Is this 'towel-throwing' or if goes against them then blame 'shias' tactic!!!

Or this new form of 'Satyagraha' non-sense that the Cash-mooris keep oft repeating: anger with dignity

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Oct 2019 11:16

Fearing adverse decision, Waqaf Board have taken their case back.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 16 Oct 2019 11:21

We could have used this judgement as a precedent for kashi vishwanath mathura. Can any lawyer gurus such as Yagnasri garu let us know if this case goes favorable to us, can this be used as a precedent for above cases as well?

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 16 Oct 2019 11:44

Karthik S wrote:We could have used this judgement as a precedent for kashi vishwanath mathura. Can any lawyer gurus such as Yagnasri garu let us know if this case goes favorable to us, can this be used as a precedent for above cases as well?

The problem would be the parliamentary resolution barring any change in status of religious places as they existed on 1947.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 16 Oct 2019 12:11

Kashi wrote:
Karthik S wrote:We could have used this judgement as a precedent for kashi vishwanath mathura. Can any lawyer gurus such as Yagnasri garu let us know if this case goes favorable to us, can this be used as a precedent for above cases as well?
The problem would be the parliamentary resolution barring any change in status of religious places as they existed on 1947.

Can't it be nullified or amended ? gyanwapi is such a eye sore.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 16 Oct 2019 12:26

anything can be done if the requisite political will is there !! if 370 could be repealed/revoked ...

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 16 Oct 2019 12:26

Kashi wrote:The problem would be the parliamentary resolution barring any change in status of religious places as they existed on 1947.

Are these "resolutions" laws? I don't think so. The present Parliament can pass another "resolution" and take things forward

.

Babri Masjid case hearing to end on Oct 16: SC

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 16 Oct 2019 12:32

Seems their lawyer has denied any settlement.

India Today @IndiaToday
· 20m
#RamMandirRumble | UP Sunni Waqf Board lawyer denies any settlement, says not withdrawing title suit. @AneeshaMathur gets us more details.
#ITVideo

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 16 Oct 2019 12:35

Utkarsh Anand
@utkarsh_aanand
· 11m
Now that's a FIRST: Sr adv Rajeev Dhavan starts tearing papers, maps etc handed over to him by #Hindu Mahasabha as he strongly opposes the party in the #SupremeCourt.

#CJI: Mr Dhavan, you can shred it further.

Dhavan tears more pages...

#AyodhyaCase
#RamMandir
#BabriMasjid

Is such an action acceptable in a court ?

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 16 Oct 2019 12:37

People from TN, is santhome really built on Kapaleeswarar temple? People are talking about it in twitter in the light of babri case.

EswarPrakash · Post by **EswarPrakash** » 16 Oct 2019 14:11

Karthik S wrote:People from TN, is santhome really built on Kapaleeswarar temple? People are talking about it in twitter in the light of babri case.

There is a massive beautiful temple for Kapaleeshwarar near Mandaveli in Chennai. No evidence of temple demolitions by Xtians (yet)

Dumal · Post by **Dumal** » 16 Oct 2019 14:15

Karthik S wrote:People from TN, is santhome really built on Kapaleeswarar temple? People are talking about it in twitter in the light of babri case.

Haven’t heard or seen any indications of anything like that. Kapaleeswarar temple is in a traditionally temple environment with a large pond and multiple rows of residential streets alongside many other old temples and Ramakrishna mutt in the vicinity. All of this about 2km from the Santhome area.

The church and other church owned properties are what would have been beach-front in those days.

chandrasekaran · Post by **chandrasekaran** » 16 Oct 2019 14:17

http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/ ... warar.html

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 17 Oct 2019 08:41

Muslim parties ready to drop claim to Ayodhya land
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 623248.cms

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 17 Oct 2019 08:56

I hope sanatana dhArmis give this offer a pass and establish precedent. if it goes against dharmic, one can always appeal to higher authorities.

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 17 Oct 2019 09:47

Vayutuvan wrote:I hope sanatana dhArmis give this offer a pass and establish precedent. if it goes against dharmic, one can always appeal to higher authorities.

The latest move by the Muslims seems to be a ruse, and there are Muslim groups who are not willing for this reconciliation. "We know we will lose the case, so you take what you want. But then later don't make claims for some thing else". Hope the Hindus don't fall for this. As the saying in Malayalam goes, if we can wait for the rice to boil, we can wait a bit more for it to become cold (and then eat it). Let the court give a verdict based on the merit. If it is against Hindu cause take other channels to re-raise the issue. This current conclilitary move again seems to be more of saving face, and show of magnanimity etc. Similar to the way the British "quit India"

.

I was reading in Deccan Herald (printed edition), that one claim put up by the Waqf board was that the land was allotted to them by some government body in the late 1800s. But the Hindu side clearly proved with evidence that the said government body seized to exist two years before it allotted the land to the Waqf board. I got a feeling that this evidence pretty much destroyed the claim of '"government allotting land to the mosque".

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 17 Oct 2019 10:26

I read the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in this matter. We have a very very very good case and Memo case is very bad to start with. They further messed up with their horrible witnesses and what not. These civil appeals before the SC are by nature are a first appeals to a higher court in a property related group of civil suits. So both facts and legal position will be examined by the court in these appeals. From whatever little law I know there is no way we can lose this case if the Judges look just into law and facts. So I am confident of the win.

The surrender drama is a drama to save other majids which are build on the temple sites clearly after destroying the temples like in Kashi. Our side also knows it. So no one is ready to accept that.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 17 Oct 2019 11:03

In any case who can guarantee anything?

Yindu's don't have a pope nor a Church. GOI is secular. One Yindu community/group/leader cannot extend garuntee for the rest.

Only a court can force an order but we all know what happened to the old status quo at RJB site in-spite of a court order.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 17 Oct 2019 11:42

One very interesting outcome of this battle in the Courts that is likely to have a far reaching impact is that it will for once prove the seekoolar history/narrative wrong in a court of law.

While it might sound a small thing its implication can be far reaching. If one of the key events of history is falsified it is reasonable to ask how much of the current history is false.

At a personal level, all of the yindus will get a stick to beat down any seekoolar history/narrative by using the RJB verdict stick. One of the prime casualty will be the mythical Ganga-Jamuna tahjeeb.

SRajesh · Post by **SRajesh** » 17 Oct 2019 11:51

[quote="pankajs"]One very interesting outcome of this battle in the Courts that is likely to have a far reaching impact is that it will for once prove the seekoolar history/narrative wrong in a court of law.

While it might sound a small thing its implication can be far reaching. If one of the key events of history is falsified it is reasonable to ask how much of the current history is false.

At a personal level, all of the yindus will get a stick to beat down any seekoolar history/narrative by using the RJB verdict stick. One of the prime casualty will be the mythical Ganga-Jamuna tahjeeb.[/quote]
Pankaj ji
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/community_p ... di_Arabia/
Look at the amount of ground flattening ordered by the leader of 'al jumma'

And our peacefuls have done diddly-squawk about that

All in all 'green on green' action is okay
But beware U evil yindoo!!

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 17 Oct 2019 12:50

Suraj wrote:For those who are not familiar:

Most may know of how Guru Tegh Bahadur, the 9th guru of the Sikhs, was publicly beheaded in 1675 by Aurangzeb for refusing to convert to Islam and defending Kashmiri pandits from conversion. The Gurudwara Sis Ganj in Chandni Chowk in Delhi is the spot he was killed. The Gurudwara Rakab Ganj is the spot where he was cremated by a Sikh disciple who burned his own home with the body inside . Many know this story .

What’s less known is that both those memorials were subsequently destroyed and replaced with mosques, which were both subsequently destroyed and replaced with gurudwaras again . There were extended court battles between the Sikhs and Muslims during the British era on this matter, and in the case of Gurudwara Sis Ganj, the Privy Council decided in favor of the Sikhs in the 1920s, paving the way for the current structure there .

Yep. Most historical Gurudwaras in India had been converted to mosques and then back to Gurudwaras including Golden Temple to mosque by Abdali, a palace by Mughal governor Meer Mannu and then Gurudwara again by Kapoor Singh.

SRajesh · Post by **SRajesh** » 17 Oct 2019 20:05

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 632388.cms
Why this sudden proclamation by the peacefuls that they reached a settlement and see the statement: win-win for everyone, don't need judgement and urge the Hindu litigants(Ram Lalla Virajman and Nirmohi Akhara) to join
Are they worried about the adverse judgement??
Or being held in poor light and prolonging the case deliberately following the judgement!!

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 17 Oct 2019 20:10

Taqqiyya

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 17 Oct 2019 20:19

i never fail to understand the following...1) if somebody entered the house of His Lordships ( SC judeges) forcefully and occupied their house, do the intruders become the owners of the Lordhips house?? if the mughals, let it be babur etc forcefully occupied a piece of land in india , how the hell can they be the owners of the land. 2) is archeology a science?? Archaeology, archeology, or archæology is the science that studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation and analysis of material remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, biofacts, human remains and landscapes. How the F can the muslims claim that archeology is not a science but history is a science because some dullhead historian said Babur was a nice guy etc etc!! 3) it was claimed that Masjid was built on flat ground when even a idiot can see that where the so called masjid existed was a mound ! and it was also proved that there was an underground strucutre as evidenced in the excavations etc. 4) idk what the F do the SC judges need 4 weeks to deliver the judgement when it can be given in 4 hours.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 17 Oct 2019 20:25

Rsatchi wrote: Why this sudden proclamation by the peacefuls that they reached a settlement and see the statement: win-win for everyone, don't need judgement and urge the Hindu litigants(Ram Lalla Virajman and Nirmohi Akhara) to join
Are they worried about the adverse judgement??
Or being held in poor light and prolonging the case deliberately following the judgement!!

They are scared that the judgement will set a precedence. Also this

https://twitter.com/TIinExile/status/11 ... 8673000451

In 1993, VHP offered to build 100 Mosques if WAQF board withdrew its claim over 2.77 acres of Ram Janmabhoomi

They rejected the offer then.

Now withdrawing the claim when it is almost over.

Another case of "we chose India" after voting for Muslim League and staying back

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Oct 2019 21:00

Rony wrote:
Rsatchi wrote: Why this sudden proclamation by the peacefuls that they reached a settlement and see the statement: win-win for everyone, don't need judgement and urge the Hindu litigants(Ram Lalla Virajman and Nirmohi Akhara) to join
Are they worried about the adverse judgement??
Or being held in poor light and prolonging the case deliberately following the judgement!!
They are scared that the judgement will set a precedence. Also this

https://twitter.com/TIinExile/status/11 ... 8673000451
In 1993, VHP offered to build 100 Mosques if WAQF board withdrew its claim over 2.77 acres of Ram Janmabhoomi

They rejected the offer then.

Now withdrawing the claim when it is almost over.

Another case of "we chose India" after voting for Muslim League and staying back

the time for arbitration has passed the deadline.

also, all parties to the case are not on board with this "piecemeal" offer by just one of the litigants

at this stage, the offer is fraudulent and a blatant attempt to delay proceedings so that it goes out of the present CJI's hands.

most importantly, a court judgement removes all chances of a quid pro quo "settlement".

the congis, commies and the naxals as well as the BIF, do not want the supreme court interfering in this matter and hence the revival of the fraudulent out of court settlement ploy.

twitter

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 17 Oct 2019 21:09

Sachin wrote:
Kashi wrote:The problem would be the parliamentary resolution barring any change in status of religious places as they existed on 1947.
Are these "resolutions" laws? I don't think so. The present Parliament can pass another "resolution" and take things forward .

Babri Masjid case hearing to end on Oct 16: SC

Even laws can be changed by Parliament.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 17 Oct 2019 21:10

manjgu wrote:i never fail to understand the following...1) if somebody entered the house of His Lordships ( SC judeges) forcefully and occupied their house, do the intruders become the owners of the Lordhips house?? if the mughals, let it be babur etc forcefully occupied a piece of land in india , how the hell can they be the owners of the land. 2) is archeology a science?? Archaeology, archeology, or archæology is the science that studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation and analysis of material remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, biofacts, human remains and landscapes. How the F can the muslims claim that archeology is not a science but history is a science because some dullhead historian said Babur was a nice guy etc etc!! 3) it was claimed that Masjid was built on flat ground when even a idiot can see that where the so called masjid existed was a mound ! and it was also proved that there was an underground strucutre as evidenced in the excavations etc. 4) idk what the F do the SC judges need 4 weeks to deliver the judgement when it can be given in 4 hours.

Unfortunately the law in India and pretty much everywhere else says yes. The doctrine is called adverse possession and in India the limit is 12 years. If you capture and hold on to a property for 12 years it’s yours unless the owner takes legal action to evict you. In law possession is the most important part in deciding who gets the ownership. The law is not made by judges but the legislature that favors renters/poor over property owners simply because of the arithmetic of vote bank size.

Upside is, Since Hindus have always contested the ownership and have retained continued possession of at least a part of the property Hindus have a good case for adverse possession.

Muslims have a conundrum, if they claim adverse possession than they have better case than Hindus since they posses the site since 15/16th century but that would also mean accepting that they destroyed a temple to get the possession of the site.

Legally, as for as I understood the comments and information flowing out of the case arguments, case would be decided not on if a temple was destroyed to build the mosque but on the basis of the possession of the property.

Determining legality of destroying a place of worship/property by a victorious invader king, 400 years earlier is not easy. It’ll set a president which would creat a nightmare situation. People will rush to court asking it to restore everything private/public that was ever destroyed in a past war to their rightful current descendants. Other legal problem is - can you apply laws created in -19th and 20th century to distant past such as 16th century events?

With that said the destruction of the temple and subsequently the mosque are the key events in determining the chain of current possession by relevant parties.

More than that, acceptance of existence of a temple, by the high court and now appears that SC is going to accept it too, has deprived muslims of high moral ground they were holding (with the help of sickulars) after the mosque was demolished by a Hindu mob in early 1990s

Modi once said before 2014 election when asked by a journalist how he would make pakistan change its behavior, would he go to war? His simple answer has always lingered in my brain ever since.

His answer was “jab hum badlenge, hamara swabhav or tarika badlega to world bhi badlega”. Loosely translated in english- once india changes its ways and attitude, the ways and attitude of world towards India would change too.

Thats exactly what’s happening......

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 17 Oct 2019 21:49

Excellent post, Katare .

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 17 Oct 2019 22:07

Katareji, the limit of 12 years does not apply to Ram Lalla, since the deity is considered a minor. So this is an aspect which is different from the usual property disputes.