The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 10 Nov 2019 08:00

KJo wrote:uddu you are right, Modi was there, but he was in the background during those years probably watching and learning. The top BJP leaders were LKA, ABV and MMJ and LKA was at the forefront of the RJB movement at great personal risk.

It was Sri LK Advani on political side from BJP and Sri Ashok Singhal on Hindu side from VHP brought Sri Ram to pan-India for wider support. Rath Yatra and subsequent Karseva brought both political power for BJP and Ram temple for Hindus. Other BJP people Murali Monohar Joshi, Uma Bharati, Kalyan Singh, etc contributed also.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 10 Nov 2019 08:07

I remember telling an old friend over dinner in Malloostan in 2003, that NaMo was headed to become PM. Did not seem possible to most ppl at the time, given the noise.
Events of 199x united and woke up millions of yindoos. Can't say any more for fear of Polis

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 10 Nov 2019 08:08

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 10 Nov 2019 08:21

Perhaps it is time to lock and archive this thread? Looks like Ayodhya case is over, and the temple will take at least 6 months to build. Afraid that one might be tempted to start posting about history, and that is apparently not a good idea with the Polis watching.
Move on to next Core Issue: Uniform Civil Code? Scrap the My-Nawrities Education scam that is destroying Indian education and the idea of Equal Opportunity?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Nov 2019 08:28

fanne wrote:
pankajs wrote:https://twitter.com/ThePrintIndia/statu ... 2735180800
No Kamments.
I wouldn't put it past the print to put false news

Its not false, I heard it myself when he gave a press conference (although it is possible that I misunderstood). IIRC he was asked about RSS starting an agitation for Mathura and Kashi and his response was that RSS is not about agitations but about individual human development or something of that sort. "RSS aandolan nahi karti vyakti banatey hai"

But for all you know he said as much in the public and like Yudhishtir added "we'll do the rest later" in a mutter to himself .

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 10 Nov 2019 08:35

They have clearly been asked to shut up for now. This govt's style is to get things done, not yak-yak. Obviously one does not want to go to a court case for these temples: any court approach will lead to long-drawn-out trial, appeal, riots, appeak, SC, revision petition...

Maybe there are other ways to accomplish the desired end result.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 10 Nov 2019 09:04

Cain Marko wrote:
fanne wrote:
I wouldn't put it past the print to put false news
Its not false, I heard it myself when he gave a press conference (although it is possible that I misunderstood). IIRC he was asked about RSS starting an agitation for Mathura and Kashi and his response was that RSS is not about agitations but about individual human development or something of that sort. "RSS aandolan nahi karti vyakti banatey hai"

But for all you know he said as much in the public and like Yudhishtir added "we'll do the rest later" in a mutter to himself .

If indeed it is what was said, it does not mean that they will not pick up Mathura or Kashi. They neither said yes or no. In fact if anything, they said no comments in their own way (and in hindi)

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 10 Nov 2019 09:21

https://www.news18.com/news/india/the-c ... 80129.html
The Curious Case of the 1,045-Page Ayodhya Judgment With Its Mystery Author and Dissenting Opinion
While the verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case was unanimous, one of the judges dissented on the issue of the exact birthplace of Ram.
News18.comUpdated:November 9, 2019.
New Delhi: Apart from the order itself, two features of the judgment delivered by the five-judge bench in the Ayodhya title dispute have stood out. First, it does not specify the name of the judge(s) who authored the judgment. And secondly, the unanimous judgment does not mention the name of the judge who dissented on the issue of the exact birth-place of Lord Ram.
Both of these facts about the order may be considered a major departure from the norm, especially in such a high-profile case.
The established practice is to specify the name of the judge who has authored the judgment on behalf of a bench. The reason behind the decision to not mention the name of the author of the 1,045-page judgment is not clear. However, it may have resulted out of the sensitivity of the case.
The matter was heard by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. CJI-designate Justice S A Bobde and Justices DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer were the others on the bench.
The other curious fact is that the judgment carries a 116-page addendum, which explains why the disputed place is the birthplace of Lord Ram as per the faith and belief of Hindus. Even the author of this addendum remains a mystery.
There was one judge who dissented on the issue of birthplace. The judgment has at the very end of the order a line that states, “One of us, while being in agreement with the above reasons and directions, has recorded separate reasons on: ―Whether the disputed structure is the birth-place of Lord Ram according to the faith and belief of the Hindu devotees. The reasons of the learned judge are set out in an addendum.'
....
Gautam

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Nov 2019 10:08

Now that verdict has come I will.lock the thread on Sunday 11/10 6:00 pm so everyone can write their thoughts.
It has been a long wait for some of members since 6 December 1992.

#JaiShriRam

Santosh · Post by **Santosh** » 10 Nov 2019 10:15

rkhanna wrote:
ramana wrote:Only thing is SC used Art 142 to give 5 acres which is beyond the case at hand.
This is judicial overreach.
Not necessarily.
I think the 5 acre land was accorded due to the demolition of the mosque which the Supreme court called illegal. Article 142 states "make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it"

Why should the courts not be held accountable for delaying justice indefinitely? Why should UP govt under mullah Mulayam Yadav not be held accountable for opening fire and killing kar sevaks? Such things do not happen in vacuum. All aggrieved parties need to be compensated and also accountable parties be punished including courts themselves.

williams · Post by **williams** » 10 Nov 2019 10:27

Santosh wrote:
rkhanna wrote:
Not necessarily.
I think the 5 acre land was accorded due to the demolition of the mosque which the Supreme court called illegal. Article 142 states "make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it"
Why should the courts not be held accountable for delaying justice indefinitely? Why should UP govt under mullah Mulayam Yadav not be held accountable for opening fire and killing kar sevaks? Such things do not happen in vacuum. All aggrieved parties need to be compensated and also accountable parties be punished including courts themselves.

Santosh Ji is a political question, not a legal argument. I would say we let go of the 5-acre land, it is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. It gives something to save face and we move on to other things. The biggest gain, in this case, is it sets precedent for other such disputes.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 10 Nov 2019 10:28

I don’t see anything wrong with what Mohan Bhagwat said . RSS shouldn’t be busy working on Kashi and Mathura . That is VHPs prerogative .

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 10 Nov 2019 10:41

Is there any news on what happens to the cases on Kar Sevaks including ones on Shri LK Advani, Shrimati Uma Bharati etc?

If SC agrees that Ram Lalla land belongs to Ram temple, Karsevaks protests are righteous and justified.

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 10 Nov 2019 10:48

Jai Shri Ram.

Dec 6th 1992 will never be forgotten. In the memories of two friends I lost during the riots in old Ahmedabad city. We were busy throwing Molotov cocktail, and light bulb filled with petrol. I came downstairs once army personal came knocking on the door to warn not to continue because shoot at sight ordered was issued. Two of my friends didn't took the warning seriously.

Santosh · Post by **Santosh** » 10 Nov 2019 10:55

williams wrote:Santosh Ji is a political question, not a legal argument. I would say we let go of the 5-acre land, it is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. It gives something to save face and we move on to other things. The biggest gain, in this case, is it sets precedent for other such disputes.

They have set a bad precedent by giving Muslims twice the amount of land under dispute inspite of acknowledging that they have no claim. That the construction of mosque over ancient temple was illegal.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Nov 2019 11:00

UlanBatori wrote:My coujins in desh warn that GOI Bada Bhai eej watching all messages, and can arrest w/o warrant etc on cyber crime charge. Specific ban on sending any images of 1992 events, and generally against inciting violence, offending relijjus sentiment. Came from an INC-fan, so it said criticizing the govt and PM is illegal, which I do not believe.

INC fan have their bias and dream of Neroynan era.

Folks are fan of BRF type thinkers.

BRF kept the torch lit during the dark UPA days.

#JaiShriRam

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 10 Nov 2019 11:45

The destruction of Babri Masjid was followed by the destruction of a number of Hindu temples in Bangladesh in retaliation. No one remembers that.
Gautam

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 10 Nov 2019 12:00

Santosh wrote:
williams wrote:Santosh Ji is a political question, not a legal argument. I would say we let go of the 5-acre land, it is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. It gives something to save face and we move on to other things. The biggest gain, in this case, is it sets precedent for other such disputes.
They have set a bad precedent by giving Muslims twice the amount of land under dispute inspite of acknowledging that they have no claim. That the construction of mosque over ancient temple was illegal.

they are not happy.

They would have benefitted to the tune of tens of thousands of crores in govt spending on the minority and its interests had they acquiesced to the negotiated settlement.

Their own people are to blame. Their grasp was far shorter than their reach and hot headed vested interests from their own community came into play. Their shortsightedness dwarfed their commitment to the community and their desperate bid for political power by leveraging the RJB issue was their downfall.

this is exactly what happened to jinnah. By his vocal protestations and communal blustering, he painted himself into a corner.

and, what he eventually got and what he actually wanted were not even in the same universe, not to mention ballpark.

Moreover, the unanimous 5 judge bench decision leaves almost no scope for asking for a review. If there was even a single dissenting voice among the 5, that could have been leveraged to ask for a review.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Nov 2019 12:04

ritesh wrote:
Cybaru wrote:5 acres is great move. Everyone gets something and goes home happy: New Temple, New Mosque.
Actually speaking extremely disappointed by this award... This is what afflicts hindus due to centuries of oppression by moslems and euorpean maruders.

How is that we cannot even celebrate this epoch making victory is just mindbogling.

This thinking of what will others say needs to be rooted out of our thinking.

P.S: Did Spain showed such consideration when reconverting mosques into churches? Did French think what would mideast think while banning burqa? Who are we deceiving by doing these things?

Missed, hence adding...
SuSwamy says there are enough mosques in Ram nagari but no one visits them as not enough population of moslems to support it. So question is why one more to the list?

Whoa! If you are unhappy - be so! I don't really care! Don't tell me what my thinking needs to be...

I am pretty pleased with the decision. Every party gets +ve outcome and that's the way civilized society should be. Trying to devolve into past and holding onto 2000 year old grudges doesn't let anyone more forward and do great things. We got what we want.. Move on.. be thankful it is positive and a step forward for everyone. Take your hatred elsewhere.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 10 Nov 2019 12:10

Cybaru no need to get cocky and patronising. The same feeling has been echoed by many. The point on which other side fought the case couldn't be established. Therefore they lost the case but still got 5 acres land. Look up Ramana saars comment on the article that was used for this particular decision.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Nov 2019 12:11

It was pointed at that particular response and poster!

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 10 Nov 2019 12:14

ramana wrote:Now that verdict has come I will.lock the thread on Sunday 11/10 6:00 pm so everyone can write their thoughts.
It has been a long wait for some of members since 6 December 1992.

#JaiShriRam

It's great happiness that we closed J&K thread and now this. One by one mission accomplished.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 10 Nov 2019 12:21

Santosh wrote:
williams wrote:Santosh Ji is a political question, not a legal argument. I would say we let go of the 5-acre land, it is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. It gives something to save face and we move on to other things. The biggest gain, in this case, is it sets precedent for other such disputes.
They have set a bad precedent by giving Muslims twice the amount of land under dispute inspite of acknowledging that they have no claim. That the construction of mosque over ancient temple was illegal.

The land was given for following reasons

1. Muslims have "some" right to the land because of possession / adverse possession on a part at least, IIRC the inner courtyard. Record exist of Muslims offering prayer at the site from the time the case started sometime in the 19th century till about 1947(???) when the site was locked. BUT the the balance of rights favored the Hindus and hence they were given full control of the RJB site. Remember, this taken up by the SC as a Land Title case decided on Title, Possession and Adverse possession and nothing else.

2. After the instillation of Ram Lalla's murties inside the inner courtyard, the site was locked and the Muslims were prevented from exercising their right to offer prayer till date. After the locks were opened, Hindus were allowed to offer prayer while the Muslims were not.

3. Demolition of the existing structure on the RJB land where the act was held to be illegal and criminal.

To account for both of the above, the SC gave the Muslims a separate site. BTW, Hindus/VHP/RSS/BJP was always prepared to grant them an alternate site and help them build a Mosque in exchange of the Muslims vacating the site.

Note also, the SC in some measure, upheld the Allahabad findings even when it differed in the final resolution. Would you have rather preferred 1/3 (~ 0.92 acre) RJB land for the Muslims, as recommended by the HC, with a Mosque on the site and a common wall to the temple over 5 acres at some other place?

PS: Just from a few tweets I read. Did not do any research nor have read the judgement. Also Sai Deepak's comments on the RSTV program that I had posted previously on this very thread.

PPS: The moment one understand "balance of rights" everything else will be clear.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 10 Nov 2019 13:16

Watch the embedded video for a few answers

https://twitter.com/TV9Bharatvarsh/stat ... 0267203585

TV9 भारतवर्ष @TV9Bharatvarsh

#AYODHYAVERDICT | सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 2.77 एकड़ जमीन का स्वामित्व राम जन्मभूमि न्यास को सौंपा, TV9 भारतवर्ष पर आसान शब्दों में समझिए फैसले के बाद अब क्या होगी वास्तविक स्थिति. ( @thesamirabbas, @hemantsharma360)

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 10 Nov 2019 13:20

ramana wrote:Now that verdict has come I will.lock the thread on Sunday 11/10 6:00 pm so everyone can write their thoughts.
It has been a long wait for some of members since 6 December 1992.

#JaiShriRam

Wait till the Trust formation details are revealed as directed by the SC or till at least the time the 5 acre alternate plot for the Muslims is identified.

I also expect nuggets from the judgement to be discussed on SM and that too should form a part of this thread.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 10 Nov 2019 13:42

twitter

thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/The-verdict-on-Ayodhya-a-historians-perspective/article15523346.ece …Heartburn of Romila Thapar where she is ridiculing the judges for nailing her lies She is even not accepting the court judgement

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 10 Nov 2019 14:01

https://www.news18.com/news/immersive/2 ... urney.html

9 November, 1989 was the ‘auspicious’ day chosen by top Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and VHP leaders to performs shilanyas and lay the foundation for the ‘proposed grand temple’ at Ayodhya. It was to be the culmination of decade long campaign led by the VHP and nurtured by the RSS.

30 years to be exact by the western calendar .. from Shilanyas to the RJB verdict.

Mollick.R · Post by **Mollick.R** » 10 Nov 2019 14:18

just wanted to share this two videos before the thread is locked down.............

Brutal Killings of Karsevaks 1990 Shaurya Diwas (Part 1)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvdVZ2kZ1c8&t=629s

Brutal Killings of Karsevaks 1990 Shaurya Diwas (Part 2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgljJF7 ... 1573376115

Maulana mulayam and his 7 next generations should go I-IELL.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 10 Nov 2019 14:26

This was Rt'ed by a Lawyer handle ...

https://twitter.com/sahajtloi/status/11 ... 7789111297

Sahaj Arora @sahajtloi

The core crux of the Judgment -- adverse possession, Title, Possessory title - Main thing, Dispute over the central dome and Limitation - barring faith & Belief, and the ASI , Explained #AYODHYAVERDICT #AyodhyaJudgment

The matter decided on Title, Possession and Adverse Possession.

He also has an attached video
Ayodhya Ram Mandir Judgement | Ratio Decision Explained | Title Adverse Possession
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFKxuknudts

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 10 Nov 2019 14:43

I think the thread should be kept alive for a few more weeks/months to deal with the aftermath of the landmark legal verdict. Here is a pdf of the judgement (downloadable)

Da Uninanimous Judgement on Ayodhya Case

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... /JUD_2.pdf

Also there is a timebound activity of identifying land and some trust formation. The judgement, the trust formation and unfolding of land allocation activities are quintessential BRF-type fodder that can get discussed, analyzed and just as importantly their repercussions in society (social media- twitter reactions from the usual suspects) can get recorded here. These are all precedent-setting ativities worth discussing. I dont see a point in creating a new thread for it.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 10 Nov 2019 14:46

^^
Tag the Mod. They might not read every single post on the thread.

SRajesh · Post by **SRajesh** » 10 Nov 2019 15:00

https://thewire.in/law/ayodhya-title-su ... ition-case
Mods sorry to put this here but there is going to be growing clamour from the 'usual suspects' to make it equal=equal
Maybe to start a new thread after this is locked.!!!

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 10 Nov 2019 15:27

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bJb7ka0pGE
How SC's #AyodhyaVerdict settles a property dispute & goes way beyond it, looking for closure

Start @ 10:00

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 10 Nov 2019 15:56

Confession time! Why 5:0 was important to beat the propaganda that would have been unleashed. At least one important talking point has been blunted.

https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-ay ... babilities
Ayodhya Verdict: In 'Balance of Probabilities', Judges Missed Chance to Speak With Courage
Even a solitary voice is sufficient to break the majoritarian consensus that is being built today.

That unanimity hurt. It did. One had hoped, or wished to have a hope, that there would be a chink in the armour somewhere. An ambiguity. The absence of it – the full glare of a “unanimous” majoritarianism – came like a stab in the heart of the idea of India.

Unanimously it was decided that whatever the facts are, when it comes to the “balance of probabilities”, the Hindu side should win. Notwithstanding the fact that it could not prove its exclusive possession of the land, that the existence of mosque was indisputable, that Muslims had continued to offer Namaz at the mosque till 1949, that the mosque was desecrated by an illegal act that year in which idols of Hindu deities were smuggled into its innermost part, that the mosque was demolished through a violent and illegal act in 1992.

As one of the commentator, IIRC Coupta, made the point that the SC has made a distinction between the title to the land vs title to the structure on the land.

So while the title to the structure indisputable belonged to the Muslims, the "Balance of Probabilities" on the land favored the Hindus as decided by unanimity.

The land was thus handed over to the Hindus while the Muslims were compensated for their "indisputable" title to the structure and its destruction by allocating 5 acres of land separately.

That is the gist of the judgement delivered unanimously! Zimple wonlee.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 10 Nov 2019 16:04

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... ojvvK.html
Ayodhya verdict: Ex-SC judge Asok Ganguly raises questions about evidence that land belonged to Ram Lalla

Retired Supreme Court judge Asok Kumar Ganguly on Saturday raised questions about the Supreme Court’s verdict on the politically-sensitive Ayodhya title suit and said he was disturbed by the judgment.

Ex-SC judge trying to get into the good books of the libarandus. Wasn't he accused of a version of #MeToo before #MeToo era?

SRajesh · Post by **SRajesh** » 10 Nov 2019 16:10

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 989488.cms
And now this
Specifically speaking of joint worship
also speaking of cradle/bedi
Now that it is 5-0 these things are coming out of the wood work!!
So much for the liberandu/leftist media/academia trying desperately to control the narrative in the country for the last 70 odd years

Vasu · Post by **Vasu** » 10 Nov 2019 16:12

It must be killing the Congress party and the Gandhis to have to portray a picture of acceptance and support to the Supreme Court verdict. Thankfully, they have the Gandhis' official mouthpiece, National Herald, providing an outlet to air their extreme frustration. Sample the wares:

1. Why the Ayodhya verdict reminds us of the Supreme Court of Pakistan

The Supreme Court of India has ruled exactly what Vishwa Hindu Parishad and BJP wanted from the beginning, even after accepting that installing idols and demolition of the mosque was unlawful

2. Mrinal Pande - Is Ayodhya, the city cursed by Sita, resigned to intrigue and disharmony?

The irony of recreating a mythical Ram Rajya in a backward and poverty-stricken area, marked by bad governance and a town cursed by Sita, is lost on people dazzled by ‘Deepotsav’ and ‘Ganga Aarti’

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 10 Nov 2019 16:54

pankajs wrote: As one of the commentator, IIRC Coupta, made the point that the SC has made a distinction between the title to the land vs title to the structure on the land.

. Notwithstanding the fact that it could not prove its exclusive possession of the land, that the existence of mosque was indisputable,,,,,,,So while the title to the structure indisputable belonged to the Muslims, the "Balance of Probabilities" on the land favored the Hindus as decided by unanimity.

I understand that having a title is a good thing and indicates possession of said property, and that the SCI justices view titles as legal documents....but of what validity is a title that is created and/or taken by force of violent harm to you or your family. This point ....the highly wisdomic commentators and the intellectual illuminati will not touch.....

In other words, which idiot in Ayodhya would have willingly signed the title of Ram Janma Bhoomi land to Babur or Baki or any of his descendents or the Waqf board, whether in 1500s or 1850s or 1940s? DOes anyone in India think the title was signed willingly by the Hindu owner/group so the buyer (did they buy the land, if so for how much, I am curious) would build a mosque on the land. It was all about taking things force from the very beginning, so I find all commentary about the sanctity of a 'title' within the context of Ayodhya quite disingenuous. Yes, if an owner willingly sells a land and signs the title, which happens millions of times, there the title is meaningful.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 10 Nov 2019 17:18

There was NO title to the land with anyone. If there has been one then it would have been an open and shit case.

Because no one had title to the RJB land, it the court had to rely on possession / adverse possession Plus ASI's report. The 'Balance of Probabilities' on possession and adverse possession ensured that the land was handed over to the Hindus. After the SC order clear title would vest with the RJB trust to be created by GOI.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 10 Nov 2019 17:18

Watch the embedded video ..

https://twitter.com/Abhina_Prakash/stat ... 8888589312

Abhinav Prakash @Abhina_Prakash

Communists planned a protest against the #AYODHYAVERDICT at the Sabarmati dhaba at JNU. Got the video of what happened instead