Ayodhya Verdict-An opinion and discussion on decision of Honorable High Court

Han bhai decision thek hai mere according to.............agar hum bole ki India me sabhi dharam saman hain to ye decision thek hai.............koi aur decision hota jaise ki sirf hindu ya mushlim k favour me hota to bina kaam dange hote,aam janta maari jati aur politiocians iska fayda uthate.........desh me shanti rakhne k liye court ka ye decision thek hai ki equals parts me divide kar do.
 
Ek aur batwara .....1947 a ...2010 b ......

All drama was set early on behind the scenes , the day when three judges were chosen...

a . One Muslim
b . Two Hindus...Baniya aur Bhaman.

Such verdict should be condemned whole heartedly.......
( Though I personally wish Temple to be built .. same as the resultant of the judgement )

This was not judiciary....this is not a judgement ....iste to lakh guna badiya hai ...haryana ki panchayato ka nirnye....jise aajkal ki media badnaam kar rahi hai...

The judgement is UNFAIR .
[ One can assess if an adjective like unfair is used before judgement what can be its repercussions ]

JATs ko Hinduism ka tyaag kar dena chahiye....





POLLING OPTION kyun nahin geri thread starter ne ?
 
Last edited:
satyenderdeswal said:
Dear Members and Friends-


Refer High Court judgment of dividing Ayodhaya conflict land in to three parts.
33% to Sunni Board,33% to Nirmohi akhara and 33 % to Hindus to make Temple.

http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6658443.cms

Is it right to divide in such proportion??

It should have been based on the population margin of Hindus and Muslims.
Click to expand...


मौके की नजाकत को देखते हुए हाल-फिलहाल फैसला ठीक ही है. वैसे और बढ़िया होता यदि उस जमीन को 4 : 4 : 2 के अनुपात में बांटा जाता. 40-40 % हिंदुओं और निर्मोही अखाड़े को और बाकी 20 % वक्फ बोर्ड को. खैर निर्मोही अखाड़ा भी हिंदुओं का ही है...इस प्रकार हिंदुओं को 67 % के लगभग जमीन मिलने पर फैसला हुआ है. बढ़िया है...भव्य मंदिर बनेगा श्रीराम का...सुप्रीम कोर्ट में जाकर मुझे नहीं लगता कि वक्फ बोर्ड को कुछ हासिल होने वाला है...
 
सभी लोगो की अपनी अपनी राय हैं | कई लोग जाति से पहले मजहब को तवज्जु दे रहे हैं | आज बाबरी मस्जिद का फैसला आना हैं सभी टक टकी लगाये देख रहे हैं और हर जुबान पर एक ही सवाल हैं की क्या रहेगा क्या फैसला आएगा ? सबसे ज्यादा दुःख तो तब होता हैं जब कोई जाट ऐसा मुर्ख सवाल करता हैं की हिन्दुओ के हक में आएगा या मुसलमानों के हक में ? अगर मजहब ही सब कुछ होता तो शयद चौधरी छोटूराम जाट को एक नहीं कर पाते | मजहब के ऊपर उनका एक ही जवाब होता था जिसके दम पर जाट एक हुआ ........

'' माना के मजहब जान हैं इंसान की ,
कुछ इसी के दम से कायम शान हैं इंसान की ,
रंग-ऐ-कौमियत मगर ये बदल सकता नहीं ,
खून आबाई रग-ऐ-तन से निक़ल सकता नहीं ''

एक तरफ तो सभी कहते हैं जाट ही जाट को मरता हैं और साथ में एक मिसाल भी कहेंगे की ' जाटडा और काटडा अपने ने मारा करे स ' | इस बात का इल्म भी हैं और फिर भी आपस में एक दुसरे को बांटने का काम करते हैं | जब खुदा या भगवन का जिक्र आता हैं तो कहते हैं की वो तो निरंकार हैं एक हैं फेर ये झगड़ा क्यों ?

''ऐ खुदा मुझे ऐसी खुदाई ना दे के अपने सिवा कोई दूसरा दिखाई ना दे ,
ऐसे एहसास का नाम हैं खुदा जो रहे सामने और दिखाई ना दे ''

पता नहीं लोग फिर भी उस शक्ति को क्यों कैसे बाँट देते हैं जिसका सिर्फ एहसास हैं देखा नहीं हैं सिर्फ महसूस किया हैं |

आखिर में एक ही बात कहना चाहूँगा ..

'' खुदाई में खलल होता अगर खुदा दो होते ,
हजार सजदे करो मगर बुत कभी खुदा नहीं होते ''

It was sent to me by fellow jatlander Raka bhai n totally in synch with his views.


n bhaiyon jat mahjabhi kahan se ho gaye n how does it matter ki wahan kya banta hai, why this hype even media( unka to samajh aata hia ki unhe apni rotiyan sekani hai iss par , par tam dukhi mat ho?
jaton k gaon mein jaogey to siwale milenegy( koi dada ya baba) eeb iss brahamanwad k chhakaron mein na pado, humne to mandir na abhi banwaye, jitne mandir bane samajho ek aur baman ka jugar ho gaya wahan aur apne paise gaye usse banwane aur wahan baad mein chadawe mein, So Upernder bhai n Satyender bhai ye hindu muslim baat chhodo n Jatland pe hum Jat ki tarah baat kare to jyad amajaa ayega n i
never heard about any communal riots in Jat populated areas.
 
Last edited:
The basis of the Hindu claim is that this Ayodya site was sacred to them the birth place of their diety Lord Ram. They worshiped here from time immemorial.

The claim is also that the Muslims destroyed the temple, and built a Mosque using the material. The occupation was illegal.


It is acknowledged by the High Court that this site was the revered by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram. There was a Hindu temple where the mosque was built, and it was still continuously in use by Hindus.

Only one justice, Justice Khan claimed that there was no active temple, but temple ruins where the Mosque was built.

Even if that was so, why could a place of worship not be built elsewhere?

The judges dismissed the Waqf petition to title.

That done , the judges had no basis for ordering partition.

If the court found the Muslims, had no title, the only basis they had to order partition, was that the Muslims were also occupying the site and ownership was disputed.

The dispute arises because the Muslims were occupying the site illegally by force. If sheer occupation by force is acceptable, the any property can be so occupied, and the illegal occupier will be be given a right to ownership, simply by virtue of being in possession. That would fly in the face of common sense and law.

An analysis of the legal judgments will be interesting.

One Judge Justice Sharma, has made a finding that the structure claimed by the Muslims ,was not a mosque and could not be one, because it was built against the 'tenets of islam'.

If the tenets of islam prohibit such construction, that will open the way to remove mosques from other sites where they have been constructed on top of Hindu temples, after they had been destroyed ( which was common practice ).

This is new argument and legal finding , and may well set a precedent.


Ravi Chaudhary
 
Last edited:
What a sad discussion. No facts, no analysis- just give a spin to everything based on your own narrow ideological inclinations.

All 3 judges gave different judgments. The "split decision" is the majority decision of Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal with Justice Sharma dissenting (he apparently favored giving the entire land to Hindu groups based on his interpretation of Islam and legality of mosque as per tenets of Islam- wow!). Even in that decision both Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal had different "findings". But the common finding is that neither of the 3 parties could prove full title to the disputed land. What judges found was evidence of joint usage over a long period of time. Given the joint usage they split the land into 3 parts giving partial relief to all parties. If you can't prove full title, you can't get full relief.

Nirmohi Akhara gets the part of land that used to have Ram Chabutara and Sita Rasoi (outside the previous mosque). The Hindu group gets the part of land under the dome of previous mosque where Ram Lalla idols were kept in 1949. The Waqf Board gets the last one third. Crucially, the courts considered the "evidence" from 500 years ago (which are hardly conclusive) and the belief of Hindus that the spot was sacred as Lord Ram was born there. They used some imagination to come up with a solution that is the best solution and the only possible solution. Of course, the die-hards on either side can still claim full title. And they are! I wish all of them could be gathered in one place, given a lathi each and told to sort it out between themselves.

This will go to Supreme Court. I hope it gets stuck there for another 20 years. India would have moved on further by then and there would be even lesser number of people who would care about this.
 
Ayodhya verdict

The Ayodhya verdict is being seen as a diversion from the rule of law and many in the legal fraternity have reservations about it. But the decision has been responded by all the involved parties and masses with equanimity.Regarding the division of disputed land, the interested parties are ready to knock the door of apex court.If there are any irregularities or flaws in the verdict by Allahabad HC ,they can be contended in the Supreme court.The idea of dividing the land on basis of the population ratio, as proposed by Mr Satyender Deswal , would have intensified the communal hues of the conflict and maybe we would not have been witnessing the calm and mature response from the masses.
 
The judgment is based more upon the wisdom of reconciliation and communal harmony rather than historical and archeological evidences which were not convincing enough to prove clear and sole title of any of the disputing parties. Even though it does not seem to be tilting in favour of Hindus, the fringe groups of BJP (VHP, RSS, Bajrang Dal) seem to be gloating over it saying that the court has vindicated their stand that disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Rama. Their triumphalism will only provoke the Muslim fanatics and will prompt them not to come to the negotiating table for negotiated settlement or a national reconciliation. This is the time to move on and not to step back to look for the historical follies. The new and resurgent India, perhaps, intends to march ahead bypassing these trivial issues, rather non-issues.
 
Bhai,
Hindu ka sabase bada dharam sthan ayodhya oor muslim ka sabse bada dharam sthal makka.Ab koi hindu makka me Ram Mandir bana ke dikhao na.Yadi nahi bana sakte to ayodhya me masjid kiyo.
 
That is the difference between democracy and monarchy. If we would have been living under kings then there would either me a masjid or mandir, depending upon who the king is, not who is born there.

rakeshdhaka said:
Bhai,
Hindu ka sabase bada dharam sthan ayodhya oor muslim ka sabse bada dharam sthal makka.Ab koi hindu makka me Ram Mandir bana ke dikhao na.Yadi nahi bana sakte to ayodhya me masjid kiyo.
Click to expand...
 
This is because Muslims in general do not flex their muscles in Jat dominated areas as they know that whenever they did, the consequences have been disastrous for them. There have been riots in Meerut in which muslims has to pay heavy price.

rinkusheoran said:
never heard about any communal riots in Jat populated areas.
Click to expand...
 
Every person belongs to some sort of religion. The same way jats too. Otherwise mera naam Javed Kumar hota or aapka Rinku ki jagah shayad Rizwan Sheoran, par aisa nahi hai. Hum sab ke naam hindu hai or hamare baap dada ke bhi. Jats shaadi bhi mantar or hawan wagerah ke saath karte hai, or muslims ki tarah meat bhi nahi khaate or apne mare huey ko dafan bhi nahi karte. Ab agar koi Hindu Jat yeh accept na kare ki woh Hindu hai to isme koi dum nahi hai. koi bhi insaan Naastik ho sakata hai par dharam usse phir bhi nahi chodta. Insaan apna dharam badal to sakata hai par tyag nahi sakata. Yeh hi jeevan ki sachaai hai. Isliye Hindu Jat dharam se Hindu or jaati se Jat hai, Muslim Jats bhi isi tarah religion se Muslim or tribe se Jat hai... Agar aisa naa hota to hindu or muslim jats ki aapas mei marriages ho rahi hoti.

rinkusheoran said:

n bhaiyon jat mahjabhi kahan se ho gaye
Click to expand...
 
vijay123 said:
This is because Muslims in general do not flex their muscles in Jat dominated areas as they know that whenever they did, the consequences have been disastrous for them. There have been riots in Meerut in which muslims has to pay heavy price.
Click to expand...

MUSLIM is one of the race who in actual love JATs.
 
but jats in my area do not love muslims. they love them as much as they do other non jats. in fact the muslims in the villages are a big nuisance, they keep mutiplying like rats, always use filthiest of language and always ready to pick fights.

JKundu said:
MUSLIM is one of the race who in actual love JATs.
Click to expand...
 
पंचायती फैंसला

कपिल अपने सही कहा,
हमारे देश में, लोगों को हर फिल्म और ड्रामे में हैप्पी एंडिंग देखने की आदत पड़ी हुई है !
इसलिए, दोनों धर्मों के लोगो में आपसी शांति व् शोहार्द बनाये रखने के लिए ये ही सही फैसला है !
में टीवी पर कोर्ट के बाहर फैसले के बाद की विडियो लाइव देख रह था और मुझे कुछ वकीलों की मुर्ख हरकतों पर गुस्सा आ रह था !
सभी धार्मिक, राजनितिक लोगों की अपील के बावजूद वो लोग आग भड़काने जैसा वयवहार कर रहे थे !
स्टूडियो के अन्दर बैठे दो सविंधान विशेषज्ञों को फैसला रास नहीं आया, क्योंकि उन्हें फैसला, न्यायिक नहीं पंचायती लगा !
सब को खुश करने के लिए फैसला लिया गया बताया !
मैंने अपने आप से कहा, चलो इन बुद्धिजीवियों को कम से कम ये तो लगता है की पंचायते सामूहिक ख़ुशी का दृष्टिकोण अपना कर फैसले लेती हैं,
और पंचायती फैसलों की सार्थकता आज भी है !
 
spdeshwal said:
स्टूडियो के अन्दर बैठे दो सविंधान विशेषज्ञों को फैसला रास नहीं आया, क्योंकि उन्हें फैसला, न्यायिक नहीं पंचायती लगा !
सब को खुश करने के लिए फैसला लिया गया बताया !
मैंने अपने आप से कहा, चलो इन बुद्धिजीवियों को कम से कम ये तो लगता है की पंचायते सामूहिक ख़ुशी का दृष्टिकोण अपना कर फैसले लेती हैं,
और पंचायती फैसलों की सार्थकता आज भी है !
Click to expand...

As expected some liberal-leftist-pusedo-secularists found court's verdict 'unfair and humiliating' to Muslims. No surprise who these people are (I would have predicted their commentary: Radical, anti-majority, anti-establishment).

Siddhartha Varadarajan:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article805124.ece

Arundhati Roy: http://www.thehin
du.com/news/national/article809423.ece

Rmila Thapar: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article807232.ece

Mulayam Singh Yadav: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/360-degree/ayodhya-tempts-politicians-again-314

It is quite interesting to see how these people selectively pick lines from the verdict and forward their agendas. They seem to suggest as if verdict condone the Babri mosque demolition and/or Muslims should have been given the land [conveniently ignoring the fact that there was a 'temple' at the site but even after 1528 (in 1600-1900's) Hindus were using the 'disputed' land for worshiping which make Hindus a definite share-holder]

I believe this is the best possible judgement.
 
जाट भाईयो,
हिन्दू धर्म के अनुसार, कण कण में भगवान है।मन्दिर में हिन्दु ऒर मस्जिद में मुसलमन क्यों।



भगवान को बाबर के समान बना कर समझौता किया है।इसलिय हमरे अनुसार हि्न्दुऒं के खुन का पानी हो गया लगता है।
 
spdeshwal said:
कपिल अपने सही कहा,
हमारे देश में, लोगों को हर फिल्म और ड्रामे में हैप्पी एंडिंग देखने की आदत पड़ी हुई है !
इसलिए, दोनों धर्मों के लोगो में आपसी शांति व् शोहार्द बनाये रखने के लिए ये ही सही फैसला है !
में टीवी पर कोर्ट के बाहर फैसले के बाद की विडियो लाइव देख रह था और मुझे कुछ वकीलों की मुर्ख हरकतों पर गुस्सा आ रह था !
सभी धार्मिक, राजनितिक लोगों की अपील के बावजूद वो लोग आग भड़काने जैसा वयवहार कर रहे थे !
स्टूडियो के अन्दर बैठे दो सविंधान विशेषज्ञों को फैसला रास नहीं आया, क्योंकि उन्हें फैसला, न्यायिक नहीं पंचायती लगा !


सब को खुश करने के लिए फैसला लिया गया बताया !
मैंने अपने आप से कहा, चलो इन बुद्धिजीवियों को कम से कम ये तो लगता है की पंचायते सामूहिक ख़ुशी का दृष्टिकोण अपना कर फैसले लेती हैं,
और पंचायती फैसलों की सार्थकता आज भी है !
Click to expand...





Agreed on the 'panchayati fhaisla".

Panchayats deliver justice, and are not stuck by some rules. That is the system of the Khap panchayats.

OTOH, the Justices are mistaken in giving the muslims a share in the property.

The Muslims were wrong to destroy a shrine of the Hindus.

Having destroyed the shrine, they compounded the crime, by building a mosque on top of it.

To the claim a right to the property is showing some arrogance.

By acceding to this demand, the judges( 2 of 3) did not give justice

History shows that giving into intimidation does not bring peace.

Ravi Chaudhary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top