(1) Media- doing good buiseness and will continue (2) Central government - did you see recent inflation rate - its 16.44! (3) Suresh Kalmadi
The biggest losers - (1) lawyers - and if same trend continues - (2) the tea shop owner - no more topic as hot as tea/ coffee to be discussed!
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Ram Janma Bhoomi Verdict: Why Sunni Wakf Board claim was rejected?
My grand ma used to say - JAR, JAMEEN, JORU, JOR KE; JOR GHATE TO AUR KE - Immovable (property), land and wife belong to the strong/ powerful people, your power is reduced, these things become others'!
There is lot of merit in this popular proverb of our villages even today.
What had worked against Hindu claim in 1885, that 350 years has passed . . . worked similarly against Sunni wakf board!
Hindus though kept praying inside the mosque . . . had no way to claim the temple and so they lost in 1885.
Similarly, in 1949 when during a riot the lord Ram idol was placed in the main dome area, Muslims, demoralised by the the division of India, had no confidence in the shystem . . . left the issue! The first title suit was filed only in 1989 from the muslim side! Thats the reason all the judges have declined their claim! Of course in addition there were other reasons sought by justice Sharma that as testified by the shia clerik (dont know if it would have been a shia mosque how he would have testified!) a mosque on the religiously disputed location is HARAM (unreligious) . . .
Manish Kumar
There is lot of merit in this popular proverb of our villages even today.
What had worked against Hindu claim in 1885, that 350 years has passed . . . worked similarly against Sunni wakf board!
Hindus though kept praying inside the mosque . . . had no way to claim the temple and so they lost in 1885.
Similarly, in 1949 when during a riot the lord Ram idol was placed in the main dome area, Muslims, demoralised by the the division of India, had no confidence in the shystem . . . left the issue! The first title suit was filed only in 1989 from the muslim side! Thats the reason all the judges have declined their claim! Of course in addition there were other reasons sought by justice Sharma that as testified by the shia clerik (dont know if it would have been a shia mosque how he would have testified!) a mosque on the religiously disputed location is HARAM (unreligious) . . .
Manish Kumar
Rama Janma Bhoomi verdict: A relief than anything else
Though every one felt in his heart, but every one was confused and no one was confident and only few came in open. This verdict is a relief becasue -
(1) It will work as a reference point for further negotiations among the representatives from different parties as till now every one felt as and what ever he wished! At least to say in open. What every one felt in his heart inside, only he can say.
(2) It is authentication that temple was there below the mosque!
(3) It is obvious that British did not take the pain to look in to the matter because they were not interested in our people and pride! Not because it was not possible or not necessary!
(4) It has cleared the doubt that "faith" is a fact and if duly proved by popular practice, court does consider that!
(1) It will work as a reference point for further negotiations among the representatives from different parties as till now every one felt as and what ever he wished! At least to say in open. What every one felt in his heart inside, only he can say.
(2) It is authentication that temple was there below the mosque!
(3) It is obvious that British did not take the pain to look in to the matter because they were not interested in our people and pride! Not because it was not possible or not necessary!
(4) It has cleared the doubt that "faith" is a fact and if duly proved by popular practice, court does consider that!
Rama Janma Bhoomi: First Indian Verdict
GIST OF THE FINDINGS by S.U.Khan J.
1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.
2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion
belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was
constructed.
3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a
very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in
construction of the mosque.
5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by
Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth
place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area
within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises
in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and
Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented
situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were
there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the
mosque.
8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well
as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus
were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to
formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of
Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the
Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord
Ram.
12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early
hours of 23.12.1949.
13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession
of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition
that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree
the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to
the share of the Hindus.
Order:-
Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are
declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F
in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in
Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.
A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.
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 is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is
shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.
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.
The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds
within three months.
List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree
after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui
(1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless
this order is modified or vacated earlier.
1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.
2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion
belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was
constructed.
3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a
very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in
construction of the mosque.
5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by
Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth
place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area
within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises
in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and
Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented
situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were
there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the
mosque.
8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well
as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus
were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to
formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of
Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the
Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord
Ram.
12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early
hours of 23.12.1949.
13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession
of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition
that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree
the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to
the share of the Hindus.
Order:-
Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are
declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F
in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in
Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.
A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.
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 is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is
shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.
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.
The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds
within three months.
List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree
after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui
(1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless
this order is modified or vacated earlier.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Rules not taught at schools
Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!
Rule 2: The world doesn't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
Rule 2: The world doesn't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
Ramajanma Bhoomi: The Ideal solution
many people have misunderstood me afterreading my blog below -
http://indianneurosurgeon.blogspot.com/2010/09/get-your-own-judgement.html
Friends, purpose of my article was not to conclude, it wasto help you to understand the complexity of the problem.
I feel, there have been drastic changes/ excesses in the issue twice - once by Babur in 1528 and second in 1949 during a communal riot. Law can not reverse either of it easily as one was done by the extablishment and other by the mass in majority.
The ideal solution is direct interference by the establishment only. Present establishment is captive of its own cuccoon for the sake of vote bank. Neither the BJP nor the non BJP parties had/ have the guts to take over the disputed land under government control. So! People have to suffer!
http://indianneurosurgeon.blogspot.com/2010/09/get-your-own-judgement.html
Friends, purpose of my article was not to conclude, it wasto help you to understand the complexity of the problem.
I feel, there have been drastic changes/ excesses in the issue twice - once by Babur in 1528 and second in 1949 during a communal riot. Law can not reverse either of it easily as one was done by the extablishment and other by the mass in majority.
The ideal solution is direct interference by the establishment only. Present establishment is captive of its own cuccoon for the sake of vote bank. Neither the BJP nor the non BJP parties had/ have the guts to take over the disputed land under government control. So! People have to suffer!
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Last Revolution: All India Car Rally
Dear friends,
to me, last revolution on this earth will be 100% ability of 100% population of the world to understand, analyse and interpret the things and happenings around. That should be the purpose of education. 100% literacy is the first step towards this. More than 1200 years ago this was proved by Adi shankaracharya while discussion with Mandan Mishra.
I am planning to organise an all India car rally to stress upon this thought of mine. Final date and agenda will be revised and declared later. Following is for you to know and GIVE ME IDEA AND SUGGESTION.
To plann if you or any one around you can acompany me/ us. You need not to join me/ us for whole tour but may acompany for even a short distance of your convenience. If so, Please let me Know.
I will need help like place to stay and expences - if you can be my financer/ sponserer/ if you can find some one for me/ us.
I am a neurosurgeon and would like to do some surgery fee of cost as per my habit . . . wherever possible. So I request my doctor friends and hospitals to organise and let me know for a one day free medical camp - If you can find sponserer for the medical camp.
Purpose of the rally -
Public awareness about-
100% literacy and to understand the Aim of education- To develop abilility to understand, analyse and decide for one self - to avoid misguidence through misinterpretation and misunderstanding – in a planned way wantedly and knowingly by others! So aim for 100% education not just literacy!
Believe others but not blindly, for anything, for anyone - must cross check, use your own brain!
Democracy - the best way of governence
Journey plan - the way, dates and stay - all are just tentative - every thing may change depending upon the the informations and suggestions.
I may not do it continuously - may be in episodes - dividing in 5 installments.
Chennai– Kanchipuram - chengalpet- (via dindivanam) – Pondicherry night halt 1 –
Pondicherry - Chidambaram (ann malai university) – nagapattinam night halt 2 –
Nagapattinum - thanjavur – thiruchi night 3–
Thiruchi - dindigul – Madurai night 4 –
madurai - thirunveli night 5–
- Thirunalveli - kanyakumari – trivendrum night 6–
–Trivendrum - ambala puzha - kochchi night 7
kochchi - agatti (lakshya dweep) by flight –
agatti kochchi kochchi – chazhoor night halt –
chazhoor - calicut night halt -
calicut– mangalore night halt–
– mangalore - goa –night
– goa – mumbai- night-
mumbai 2 days
– mumbai – surat – vadodada- ahmedabad Night -
–ahmedabad - rajkot –porbander night
- porbander – rajkot – Jamnagar - Malia - Samakhiali - Radhanpur night–
- – Radhanpur - Barmer- Jaisalmer - night
Jaisalmer - Pali - Jodhpur - Udaipur - night
udaipur- ahmedabad - night halt
Ahmedabad - indore night halt
indore - dhule - Nashik - night
Nashik - pune- night
Pune - kolhapur night
Kolhapur - hubli - night
Hubli- bengaluru - night
bangaluru - Kolar - Chitoor- night
Chitoor - tirupati - night
tirupati - -
aurangabad -
Nagpur - Nirmal - night
Nirmal - Hyderabad - Night
Hyderabad - vijayawada night
Vijayawada - Nellore night
Nellore - Tirupati - night
Tirupati - Madanapalli - anantpur - night
Anantpur- gooty – guntakkal – bellary – hossapete night-
hossapet - annigeri – hubli – belgaum night–
belgaum satara night
satara – pune night
pune – ahmednagar – rajani night
rajani – Malegaon – prabhani - night
parbhani – puma – bhokar – nirmal - night
nirmal – soanpet – chakeriyal – kodecherla – savel – venchariyal –ibrahima patan - metapalli night
metapalli – kortula – thati palli –jagitalmancherial – chinnur – bhopalpatanam – night
bhopalpatnam – jagadal pur night
jagadalpur – raipur night
raipur – sambal pur night
sambalpur – padampur night
padam pur – kharagpur night halt
kharagpur – singur – night halt
Singur – kolkata - port blair
port blair – kolkata night halt –
kolkata – bhabta – berhampur night
berhampur – farakka – malda – durgapur night
durgapur – raiganj – dalkola –kanki – kishanganj – bidhan nagar – silliguri night
silliguri – gangatok – sevoke night
sevoke –nagarkata - goyerkata – birpara – falakata – mathura - cooch behar night
cooch behar – golakganj – bilasipara – abhayapuri – golapara – agia – krishnai –guwahati – night
guwahati – jorabat – shilong – wahjajer night
wahajajer- badar pur night
badarpur – patharkandi – manu night
- manu – aizawl night
aizawl – lung chhuan – churachandpur – imphal night
imphal – senapati – kohima night
kohima – dimapur – kathiatali – amoni – tejpur – night
tejpur – gohpur – itanagar – gohpur – night
gohpur – tejpur – baihata chairali – night
baihata chairali – bogaigaon – alipurduar – hashimara –night
hashimara – nagarkata – silliguri – night
silliguri – rupauli – purnia – bhagalpur night
Bhagalpur - Patna - night
Patna - Buxar - Patna - night
Patna - Samastipur - night
Samastipur - darbhanga - Sitamarhi - Motihari - night
Motihari - Gopalganj - Chhapara - muzaffarpur Night
Muzaffarpur - Hajipur - Bihar sharif- Barhi
Barhi - Ranchi night
Ranchi - daltenganj – aurangabad – night
aurangabad –sasaram - mugalsarai – varanasi – night
BHU- allahabad- night
Allahabad - Lucknow night
Lucknow 1 day
lucknow - Kanpur - jhansi– night
jhansi – shivpuri – guna – biaora – dewas – indore – night
indore – dahod – godhara –night
Godhara - anand – ahemedabad – night
ahmedabad – himmatnagar- udaipur – night
udaipur – pali – jodhpur – nagaur – night
nagaur – bikaner – sriganganagar- night
sriganganagar – bathinda – amritsar – pathankot – night
pathankot – jammu –night
jammu – anatnag night
Anatnag – Srinagar – anant nag - night
Anantnag - – jammu –night
jammu –pathankot night
pathankot –shahpur – jogindernagar –mandi – beri – night
beri –shimla – night
shimla –chandigarh – ambala – narayanagarh – night
narayanagarh – herbertpur – dehradun – night
dehradun – rishikesh – haridwar – night
roorkee –muzaffarnagr – meerut – delhi – night
2 days at delhi
– delhi – agra – mhow - dhule night halt
dhule to Mumbai night halt
Mumbai – chitradurga night
chitra durga – Chennai
Routes can be changed depending upon further planning.
I wait for your suggestions
Dr. Manish Kumar
to me, last revolution on this earth will be 100% ability of 100% population of the world to understand, analyse and interpret the things and happenings around. That should be the purpose of education. 100% literacy is the first step towards this. More than 1200 years ago this was proved by Adi shankaracharya while discussion with Mandan Mishra.
I am planning to organise an all India car rally to stress upon this thought of mine. Final date and agenda will be revised and declared later. Following is for you to know and GIVE ME IDEA AND SUGGESTION.
To plann if you or any one around you can acompany me/ us. You need not to join me/ us for whole tour but may acompany for even a short distance of your convenience. If so, Please let me Know.
I will need help like place to stay and expences - if you can be my financer/ sponserer/ if you can find some one for me/ us.
I am a neurosurgeon and would like to do some surgery fee of cost as per my habit . . . wherever possible. So I request my doctor friends and hospitals to organise and let me know for a one day free medical camp - If you can find sponserer for the medical camp.
Purpose of the rally -
Public awareness about-
100% literacy and to understand the Aim of education- To develop abilility to understand, analyse and decide for one self - to avoid misguidence through misinterpretation and misunderstanding – in a planned way wantedly and knowingly by others! So aim for 100% education not just literacy!
Believe others but not blindly, for anything, for anyone - must cross check, use your own brain!
Democracy - the best way of governence
Journey plan - the way, dates and stay - all are just tentative - every thing may change depending upon the the informations and suggestions.
I may not do it continuously - may be in episodes - dividing in 5 installments.
Chennai– Kanchipuram - chengalpet- (via dindivanam) – Pondicherry night halt 1 –
Pondicherry - Chidambaram (ann malai university) – nagapattinam night halt 2 –
Nagapattinum - thanjavur – thiruchi night 3–
Thiruchi - dindigul – Madurai night 4 –
madurai - thirunveli night 5–
- Thirunalveli - kanyakumari – trivendrum night 6–
–Trivendrum - ambala puzha - kochchi night 7
kochchi - agatti (lakshya dweep) by flight –
agatti kochchi kochchi – chazhoor night halt –
chazhoor - calicut night halt -
calicut– mangalore night halt–
– mangalore - goa –night
– goa – mumbai- night-
mumbai 2 days
– mumbai – surat – vadodada- ahmedabad Night -
–ahmedabad - rajkot –porbander night
- porbander – rajkot – Jamnagar - Malia - Samakhiali - Radhanpur night–
- – Radhanpur - Barmer- Jaisalmer - night
Jaisalmer - Pali - Jodhpur - Udaipur - night
udaipur- ahmedabad - night halt
Ahmedabad - indore night halt
indore - dhule - Nashik - night
Nashik - pune- night
Pune - kolhapur night
Kolhapur - hubli - night
Hubli- bengaluru - night
bangaluru - Kolar - Chitoor- night
Chitoor - tirupati - night
tirupati - -
aurangabad -
Nagpur - Nirmal - night
Nirmal - Hyderabad - Night
Hyderabad - vijayawada night
Vijayawada - Nellore night
Nellore - Tirupati - night
Tirupati - Madanapalli - anantpur - night
Anantpur- gooty – guntakkal – bellary – hossapete night-
hossapet - annigeri – hubli – belgaum night–
belgaum satara night
satara – pune night
pune – ahmednagar – rajani night
rajani – Malegaon – prabhani - night
parbhani – puma – bhokar – nirmal - night
nirmal – soanpet – chakeriyal – kodecherla – savel – venchariyal –ibrahima patan - metapalli night
metapalli – kortula – thati palli –jagitalmancherial – chinnur – bhopalpatanam – night
bhopalpatnam – jagadal pur night
jagadalpur – raipur night
raipur – sambal pur night
sambalpur – padampur night
padam pur – kharagpur night halt
kharagpur – singur – night halt
Singur – kolkata - port blair
port blair – kolkata night halt –
kolkata – bhabta – berhampur night
berhampur – farakka – malda – durgapur night
durgapur – raiganj – dalkola –kanki – kishanganj – bidhan nagar – silliguri night
silliguri – gangatok – sevoke night
sevoke –nagarkata - goyerkata – birpara – falakata – mathura - cooch behar night
cooch behar – golakganj – bilasipara – abhayapuri – golapara – agia – krishnai –guwahati – night
guwahati – jorabat – shilong – wahjajer night
wahajajer- badar pur night
badarpur – patharkandi – manu night
- manu – aizawl night
aizawl – lung chhuan – churachandpur – imphal night
imphal – senapati – kohima night
kohima – dimapur – kathiatali – amoni – tejpur – night
tejpur – gohpur – itanagar – gohpur – night
gohpur – tejpur – baihata chairali – night
baihata chairali – bogaigaon – alipurduar – hashimara –night
hashimara – nagarkata – silliguri – night
silliguri – rupauli – purnia – bhagalpur night
Bhagalpur - Patna - night
Patna - Buxar - Patna - night
Patna - Samastipur - night
Samastipur - darbhanga - Sitamarhi - Motihari - night
Motihari - Gopalganj - Chhapara - muzaffarpur Night
Muzaffarpur - Hajipur - Bihar sharif- Barhi
Barhi - Ranchi night
Ranchi - daltenganj – aurangabad – night
aurangabad –sasaram - mugalsarai – varanasi – night
BHU- allahabad- night
Allahabad - Lucknow night
Lucknow 1 day
lucknow - Kanpur - jhansi– night
jhansi – shivpuri – guna – biaora – dewas – indore – night
indore – dahod – godhara –night
Godhara - anand – ahemedabad – night
ahmedabad – himmatnagar- udaipur – night
udaipur – pali – jodhpur – nagaur – night
nagaur – bikaner – sriganganagar- night
sriganganagar – bathinda – amritsar – pathankot – night
pathankot – jammu –night
jammu – anatnag night
Anatnag – Srinagar – anant nag - night
Anantnag - – jammu –night
jammu –pathankot night
pathankot –shahpur – jogindernagar –mandi – beri – night
beri –shimla – night
shimla –chandigarh – ambala – narayanagarh – night
narayanagarh – herbertpur – dehradun – night
dehradun – rishikesh – haridwar – night
roorkee –muzaffarnagr – meerut – delhi – night
2 days at delhi
– delhi – agra – mhow - dhule night halt
dhule to Mumbai night halt
Mumbai – chitradurga night
chitra durga – Chennai
Routes can be changed depending upon further planning.
I wait for your suggestions
Dr. Manish Kumar
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Ramajanma Bhoomi: Get your own judgement
Ram JanmabhoomiThe exact location of Rama's birth is not stated with any specific accuracy by the Hindu texts, but the term popularly refers to a tract of’ land in Ayodhya.CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS IN THE STRUGGLE FOR THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND AND MY CRITICAL ANALYSIS- Before writing further, let me tell you that I feel there is no litigation in this world which can’t be solved amicably benefiting bothe the parties but only when both of them want!In 1528, the Babri Mosque was constructed by Babar's general, Mir Baqi post destruction of existing Ram Mandir. This is a fact. No more discussions on it. Please. If you don’t believe me go and see the backyard of Kashi Vishwanath temple which still exists – the connection between the temple and the mosque has been demolished! I mean to say that there are many more examples and I can say it with confidence because I have personally seen it in 1992- 93 and I was accompanied by my dearest friend and presently an editor with one of the most famous news channels. But that is not the end!P. Carnegy wrote in 1870:"It is said that up to that time (till British rule was established), the Hindus and Mohamedans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since the British rule a railing has been put up to prevent dispute, within which, in the mosque the Mohamedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings." And this railing had obviously reduced the Hindu claim as it had made the Hindu prayer place within the precinct but outside the main place called “garbh griha”!This platform was outside the disputed structure but within its precincts. Hindu protagonists say that they have been demanding the return of the site for centuries, and cite accounts from several western travellers to India during the Mughal rule in India.The District Gazetteer of 1905 confirmed that both Hindus and Muslims were offering prayers in the same building until 1855.
'Since the mutiny of 1857, an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the mosque and the Hindus, who are forbidden access to the inner yard, make their offerings on a platform (chabootra) which they have raised in the outer one.'What might have happened is, though mosque was made on the temple and prayers might have been offered, as a local arrangement and as a goodwill gesture, Muslims might have allowed the Hindus to continuing the prayer. Especially because they too might had appreciated the excess done. Also because of less number in the town of ayodhya though they are in good number at Faizabad (greater significance will be clear later), Muslim cleric might have thought it an easy way to strike a peace at local level to live with harmony. Due to the contemporary Muslim rule, Hindus might have accepted the compromise as whatever have got from something which they have lost totally! Any way to me that sounds wonderful. On the part of local Muslims, they had done a great job. No doubt.The first suit in the matter was filed on January 19, 1885. It sought to gain the right over the chabootra (raised platform) for the plaintiff, Raghubar Das.The plaintiff, who described himself as the Janmasthan mahant, sought permission to erect a temple on the chabootra, which was then popularly accepted as the birthplace of Lord Ram. The birth place got shifted out of compromise!
In his order dated February 24, 1885, (within 36 days of filing of the case) the judge declined permission on the ground that, even though the land on which the chabootra stood belonged to the plaintiff, 'it was so close to the existing masjid that it would be contrary to public policy to grant a decree authorising him to build a temple as desired by him.'
The Faizabad sub-judge who came to this decision was Pandit Hari Kishan, a Brahmin. He might have accepted the claim by the mahant on the property keeping the history in view.Das then appealed to Faizabad's district judge, Colonel J E A Chambier, who, after a spot inspection on March 17, 1886, (within one year) dismissed the appeal on the same grounds. The Englishman also struck down the part of the sub-judge's verdict which conceded the property to Das.He might have seen the potential of further litigations and problems by conceding the property to the mahant.Judge Chambier ruled: 'I found that the masjid built by Emperor Babar stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya... It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on the land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as it occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo.' He went on to observe: 'This chabootra is said to indicate the birthplace of Ram Chander... A wall pierced here and there with a railing hide the platform of the masjid from the enclosure in which stands the chabootra.The matter went up to Oudh Judicial Commissioner W Young who, while rejecting Das's plea, observed in his judgment dated November 1, 1886: 'This spot is situated within the precincts of the grounds surrounding a mosque erected some 350 years ago, owing to the bigotry and tyranny of the emperor who purposely chose this holy spot, according to Hindu legend, as the site of his mosque.
'THE HINDUS SEEM TO HAVE GOT VERY LIMITED RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO CERTAIN SPOTS WITHIN THE PRECINCT ADJOINING THE MOSQUE AND THEY HAVE, FOR A SERIES OF YEARS, BEEN PERSISTENTLY TRYING TO INCREASE THOSE RIGHTS AND TO ERECT BUILDINGS on two spots in the enclosure, namely Sita ki rasoi (Sita's kitchen) and Ram Chandra ki janmabhoomi.' What might have happened is, British might have found these controversial issues a good diversion from the mutiny of 1857 and might have encouraged Hindus to up the claims. Or, other way around is also possible that perceiving the neutral attitude of the administration, Hindus might have thought that they will get the land back through the legal gate. Upholding the earlier decisions, the judicial commissioner only disputed the mahant's claim to ownership of the chabootra.With the dismissal of this appeal, the Hindus' first legal battle to gain control over the disputed area came to an end. Obviously, no court can subvert or reverse the encroachment done by any establishment itself! Especially as they were least interested to honour the mass!Nothing significant was reported over the next 48 years until 1934, when a communal flare-up over the slaughter of a cow in a neighbouring village provoked an attack on the Babri Masjid.This was the beginning!Some damage was caused to one of the three domes of the mosque; it was later repaired at government cost. Thereafter, all was quiet until the night of December 22, 1949, when the idol of Lord Ram was placed in the mosque, following which hundreds of Hindus arrived and started offering prayers.And thus it was the most grievous blow! During a riot!Even though the crowds were pushed back and the mosque's gates were padlocked, the deity remained inside.No one dared to move it, despite a directive to do so from then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Gobind Ballabh Pant.Then district magistrate K K K Nayyar expressed his inability to get the idol removed; he said he would prefer to be relieved of the charge rather than carry out the orders.Then Faizabad division commissioner S S L Dar wrote to the government, 'I have studied the situation and cautiously sounded public opinion. I am satisfied that, in view of the grave risk of riots on a large scale, it would not be desirable to attempt the removal of the idol through a government agency.' He also said, 'It would not be wise to stop the bhog and aarti at the spot where the deity was placed,' and added, 'I think that, with the lapse of time, the present excitement will wear off and it would then be possible to evolve some satisfactory and enduring plan to end this dilemma.' For some time, it seemed everyone was satisfied with the status quo and, by December 29, 1949, the additional city magistrate ordered attachment of the property. Then local municipal board chairman Priya Dutt Ram was appointed the receiver.Then started the next round of legal battles...
On January 16, 1950, a suit was filed by a local resident, Gopal Singh Visharad, before Faizabad's civil judge, seeking permission to offer prayers inside the mosque where the deity of Lord Ram had been placed.
Civil judge N N Chadha passed an interim injunction, with the rider that the public could not be allowed to freely offer puja or receive darshan. But the local priest was allowed to perform the daily bhog.However, in a written statement filed before the judge on April 24, 1950, the new district magistrate J N Ugra stated clearly: 'It has been used for a long period by the Muslims as a mosque for the purpose of worship. It has not been in use as a temple of Shri Ram Chanderji.'
He also confirmed that the 'idols of Shri Ram were surreptitiously and wrongly put inside.'
How did the Muslim community respond?
The following year, five Muslims from Ayodhya led by Mohammad Hashim moved a petition before the high court, seeking a vacation of the injunction.
In 1955, a division bench of the Allahabad high court ruled that the status quo needed to be maintained, but expressed the need for a final decision to be taken within six months, 'in view of the seriousness of the matter.' But nothing happened.
Six years later, in 1961, Mohammad Hashim filed another suit pleading for restoration of the property to the Muslims. By 1964, the peripheral cases were settled and a date was fixed for the final hearing of this case.To this end, a new receiver was appointed in 1968. However, his role became redundant as yet another appeal was filed before the Allahabad high court in 1971.The 1971 case was not taken up until 1983, when the VHP launched its temple movement in a big way.
Even as the tempo of the temple movement increased, then Faizabad district judge K M Pandey ordered the gates of the disputed site to be unlocked late in the afternoon of February 1, 1986.
This was done on an application moved by local lawyer U C Pandey, who sought permission to offer prayers.
Simultaneously, VHP leaders S N Katju, Deoki Nandan Agarwal, both of whom were former Allahabad high court judges, and Shirish Chandra Dikshit, former UP director general of police, met the district magistrate, seeking permission for Lord Ram's darshan.
Judge Pandey observed, 'After having heard the parties, it is clear that the members of the other community, namely the Muslims, are not going to be affected by any stretch of imagination if the locks of the gates were opened and idols inside the premises are allowed to be seen and worshipped by the pilgrims and devotees.'
He also added that the 'heavens will not fall if the locks of the gates are removed.' (because number of muslims around the mosque is meagre!)But that did not hold true; the order sparked off communal clashes. Following this, the Sunni Waqf Board and the Babri Masjid Action Committee moved the Allahabad high court against the district judge's order.However, the order was not stayed. Meanwhile, all cases pertaining to the Ayodhya dispute were referred to the court's Lucknow bench.
The shilanyas in 1989 further aggravated the issue. The police firing ordered by then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav's government on the kar sevaks in 1990 polarised Hindu votes in favour of the Bharatiya Janata Party and brought Kalyan Singh to power in 1991.
Kalyan Singh ordered the acquisition of 2.75 acres of land around the mosque in a bid to show his party's seriousness towards building the temple. Babri Masjid Action Committee convener Zafaryab Jilani filed yet another writ petition to prevent any kind of construction on the acquired land.
Meanwhile, Delhi-based Aslam Bhure moved the Supreme Court against the acquisition of land.
But the apex court transferred the case to the Lucknow bench, with the directive that the status quo be maintained until the high court decided on the five writs that were, by then, pending there.And by then, what was the meaning of the status quo?All hell broke loose on December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya, with violent Hindu mobs storming the 16th century mosque.
Even as security personnel stood by that fateful day the mosque was torn down by kar sevaks even as the top BJP leadership -- including L K Advani -- watched. Advani later expressed sorrow at the demolition -- but it was clear to all that the forces unleashed by his rath yatra in favour of the temple in 1990 would be satisfied with nothing else.The demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992, led to a contempt of court petition against the UP government. Then chief minister Kalyan Singh had given the court an undertaking that the mosque would be protected. Kalyan Singh was later awarded a day's imprisonment. His government had been dismissed hours after the demolition.
A few days after the demolition, the central government headed by then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao issued an ordinance acquiring 67 acres of land in and around the disputed site.
In 1994, the Supreme Court ordered the abatement of all pending suits and nullified all interim orders issued by various courts in the Ayodhya-related cases.The Supreme Court ordered that the land remain in the central government's custody and the status quo be maintained until the Lucknow bench disposed of the writ petition.THIS PETITION AIMED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A HINDU TEMPLE HAD EXISTED ON THE DISPUTED SITE PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BABRI MASJID AND WHETHER THE MOSQUE WAS BUILT ON THE DEBRIS OF A TEMPLE!Now came the great turn. Thought considered in all the cases till date, never ever this was the pivotal factor!Among those charge-sheeted were leaders from the BJP, VHP, Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal. Prominent among them were L K Advani, Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray.
The M S Liberhan Commision was set up 10 days after the demolition and took 17 years and 48 extensions before it submitted the report on June 30, 2009.
Negating the theory handed out by Hindu groups that the Babri Masjid demolition was mob-driven, the Liberhan Commission said it had been 'established beyond doubt' that the events of December 6, 1992, in Ayodhya were 'neither spontaneous nor unplanned.'
The Commission blamed the entire temple construction movement on the Sangh Parivar.
A former high court judge, Justice Liberhan called former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Advani and Dr Joshi 'pseudo-moderates' and condemned them for their role in the demolition.
'It stands established beyond doubt that the events of the day were neither spontaneous nor unplanned nor an unforeseen overflowing of the people's emotion, nor the result of a foreign conspiracy as some overly imaginative people have tried to suggest,'.'While the structure or the methods of the Sangh Parivar for aggregating a substantial public base may neither be illegal nor strictly objectionable,' Justice Liberhan noted, 'the use of this gargantuan whole for the purpose of the Ayodhya campaign was clearly against the letter and spirit of Indian law and ethos.' About Vajpayee, Advani and Dr Joshi, the Liberhan report said: 'These leaders have violated the trust of the people and have allowed their actions to be dictated not by the voters but by a small group of individuals who have used them to implement agendas unsanctioned by the will of the common person.The special full bench of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court, comprising Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice Dharmveer Sharma, was slated to deliver the verdict at 3.30 pm on September 24.
However, the Supreme Court on September 23 put off by a week its hearing into a plea to defer the Ayodhya title verdict by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court.
Supreme Court judge, Justice R V Raveendran, gave this order while hearing the petition filed by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi to defer the title suit verdict.
In the petition filed through advocate Sunil Jain, Tripathi had cited several reasons for deferment of the verdict, which he said would be in "public interest" in view of the apprehension of communal flareup, upcoming Commonwealth Games, elections in Bihar and violence in Kashmir Valley and Naxal-hit states. All he was trying was to buy time for a deal. As we all know that we have not yet decided to revert back to the condition of 500 years ago. Neither have we made a policy to undo all the works done by the rulers before any particular time. At the same time, we done have a definition of the extent of legal binding to consider a fixed date to which we have to maintain the status quo!But in the middle of all this I would like to again appreciate the wisdom and openness and magnanimous heart of the Muslim cleric who had allowed to Hindus to offer the prayer! I can’t imagine what would have been the case if he would have shown his total authority on the mosque!I also appreciate the violence and divide unleashed by the division of India in 1947 which has left all of us with multiple wounds. Obviously among all such wounds, Ayodhya issue is the most painful. It is the litmus test for our democracy and secularism.If we look back, out of three decisive junctures (1) when the temple was demolished (2) when the British empire judges decided (3) when the lord ram idol was placed inside the structure; the third one is the most crucial, the most recent and still the most dubious and precarious! Administrators did not do their job! They did not obey the top brass! If the third incident would have been undone, this problem might have been in different shape. But the problem might have been there, I can’t deny that. But then when i try to imagine the situation at that time, the communal tension . . . I just become numb!But why? If at that time, during the riots, if any Hindu might have encroached in to a Muslims house, will the law allow the new occupant to continue as a legal owner? Surly not! Otherwise there is no law!But if the Muslim did not return, like many went to Pakistan! It’s a different issue. Or if he could be pacified by other means . . . like many high handed powerful people grab property of the simple middleclass by giving them compensation of “their” choice that is the settlement at other level. But as we have observed, Muslims are not in mood of any compromise. They know that whole world is watching the secular India! And they are hell bent to make tamasha out of it, if that happens!I am sorry to say, but these Muslim leaders are no way feeling the pain of the country. Or else the fact is that namaz has not been offered at that place for last more than 60 years! As per Islamic law it is no more a mosque! They will have to make it a fresh if at all they got the full right. Also, the tension will continue. They could have easily got into some compromise deal which was eminent when BJP was in power but few political faces did not want the credit to go to the BJP government and so they simply backed out! After that never ever any serious effort was made. Fact is and the sad fact, that our politicians do not want the issue to die! They want it to remain alive so that they can use it on their will, wish and need!If it comes to justice, judges have only little option. Either they have to give the property back to the Muslim community! That is the demand of the secular India. Or, become shameless and say that as the mosque was built on the temple, we are taking the revenge from Babur and reclaiming the property! To me it is just repeating what Babur had done 500 years ago! But will it be all well if the Muslims get the property? That is the most important issue which Muslim leaders have to think of! And we have to think, we want the rule of law or the rule of mob! Hope and wish the wisdom prevails.
So, what will be my verdict?
I have heard, law is blind, no emotions, no relations, it decides on facts.
But "I" amd a Hindu who's small intention is to put an end to this perennial problem.
I wish a judgement which both the parties accept and settle with.
Although it would have been better if both of them might have settles it on their own - like a good samaritan!
But now that the fissure is un manageable, law has to decide.
I wish, judges decide a temple and a mosque side by side with different gates and unconnected walls! Like how it exists at Varanasi now!
Exact locations - as per the law!
But no rally after the verdict - no one is winning, no one is losing.
But I am sure that will not happen.
And the issue will go to the supreme court!
Manish Kumar
'Since the mutiny of 1857, an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the mosque and the Hindus, who are forbidden access to the inner yard, make their offerings on a platform (chabootra) which they have raised in the outer one.'What might have happened is, though mosque was made on the temple and prayers might have been offered, as a local arrangement and as a goodwill gesture, Muslims might have allowed the Hindus to continuing the prayer. Especially because they too might had appreciated the excess done. Also because of less number in the town of ayodhya though they are in good number at Faizabad (greater significance will be clear later), Muslim cleric might have thought it an easy way to strike a peace at local level to live with harmony. Due to the contemporary Muslim rule, Hindus might have accepted the compromise as whatever have got from something which they have lost totally! Any way to me that sounds wonderful. On the part of local Muslims, they had done a great job. No doubt.The first suit in the matter was filed on January 19, 1885. It sought to gain the right over the chabootra (raised platform) for the plaintiff, Raghubar Das.The plaintiff, who described himself as the Janmasthan mahant, sought permission to erect a temple on the chabootra, which was then popularly accepted as the birthplace of Lord Ram. The birth place got shifted out of compromise!
In his order dated February 24, 1885, (within 36 days of filing of the case) the judge declined permission on the ground that, even though the land on which the chabootra stood belonged to the plaintiff, 'it was so close to the existing masjid that it would be contrary to public policy to grant a decree authorising him to build a temple as desired by him.'
The Faizabad sub-judge who came to this decision was Pandit Hari Kishan, a Brahmin. He might have accepted the claim by the mahant on the property keeping the history in view.Das then appealed to Faizabad's district judge, Colonel J E A Chambier, who, after a spot inspection on March 17, 1886, (within one year) dismissed the appeal on the same grounds. The Englishman also struck down the part of the sub-judge's verdict which conceded the property to Das.He might have seen the potential of further litigations and problems by conceding the property to the mahant.Judge Chambier ruled: 'I found that the masjid built by Emperor Babar stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya... It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on the land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as it occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo.' He went on to observe: 'This chabootra is said to indicate the birthplace of Ram Chander... A wall pierced here and there with a railing hide the platform of the masjid from the enclosure in which stands the chabootra.The matter went up to Oudh Judicial Commissioner W Young who, while rejecting Das's plea, observed in his judgment dated November 1, 1886: 'This spot is situated within the precincts of the grounds surrounding a mosque erected some 350 years ago, owing to the bigotry and tyranny of the emperor who purposely chose this holy spot, according to Hindu legend, as the site of his mosque.
'THE HINDUS SEEM TO HAVE GOT VERY LIMITED RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO CERTAIN SPOTS WITHIN THE PRECINCT ADJOINING THE MOSQUE AND THEY HAVE, FOR A SERIES OF YEARS, BEEN PERSISTENTLY TRYING TO INCREASE THOSE RIGHTS AND TO ERECT BUILDINGS on two spots in the enclosure, namely Sita ki rasoi (Sita's kitchen) and Ram Chandra ki janmabhoomi.' What might have happened is, British might have found these controversial issues a good diversion from the mutiny of 1857 and might have encouraged Hindus to up the claims. Or, other way around is also possible that perceiving the neutral attitude of the administration, Hindus might have thought that they will get the land back through the legal gate. Upholding the earlier decisions, the judicial commissioner only disputed the mahant's claim to ownership of the chabootra.With the dismissal of this appeal, the Hindus' first legal battle to gain control over the disputed area came to an end. Obviously, no court can subvert or reverse the encroachment done by any establishment itself! Especially as they were least interested to honour the mass!Nothing significant was reported over the next 48 years until 1934, when a communal flare-up over the slaughter of a cow in a neighbouring village provoked an attack on the Babri Masjid.This was the beginning!Some damage was caused to one of the three domes of the mosque; it was later repaired at government cost. Thereafter, all was quiet until the night of December 22, 1949, when the idol of Lord Ram was placed in the mosque, following which hundreds of Hindus arrived and started offering prayers.And thus it was the most grievous blow! During a riot!Even though the crowds were pushed back and the mosque's gates were padlocked, the deity remained inside.No one dared to move it, despite a directive to do so from then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Gobind Ballabh Pant.Then district magistrate K K K Nayyar expressed his inability to get the idol removed; he said he would prefer to be relieved of the charge rather than carry out the orders.Then Faizabad division commissioner S S L Dar wrote to the government, 'I have studied the situation and cautiously sounded public opinion. I am satisfied that, in view of the grave risk of riots on a large scale, it would not be desirable to attempt the removal of the idol through a government agency.' He also said, 'It would not be wise to stop the bhog and aarti at the spot where the deity was placed,' and added, 'I think that, with the lapse of time, the present excitement will wear off and it would then be possible to evolve some satisfactory and enduring plan to end this dilemma.' For some time, it seemed everyone was satisfied with the status quo and, by December 29, 1949, the additional city magistrate ordered attachment of the property. Then local municipal board chairman Priya Dutt Ram was appointed the receiver.Then started the next round of legal battles...
On January 16, 1950, a suit was filed by a local resident, Gopal Singh Visharad, before Faizabad's civil judge, seeking permission to offer prayers inside the mosque where the deity of Lord Ram had been placed.
Civil judge N N Chadha passed an interim injunction, with the rider that the public could not be allowed to freely offer puja or receive darshan. But the local priest was allowed to perform the daily bhog.However, in a written statement filed before the judge on April 24, 1950, the new district magistrate J N Ugra stated clearly: 'It has been used for a long period by the Muslims as a mosque for the purpose of worship. It has not been in use as a temple of Shri Ram Chanderji.'
He also confirmed that the 'idols of Shri Ram were surreptitiously and wrongly put inside.'
How did the Muslim community respond?
The following year, five Muslims from Ayodhya led by Mohammad Hashim moved a petition before the high court, seeking a vacation of the injunction.
In 1955, a division bench of the Allahabad high court ruled that the status quo needed to be maintained, but expressed the need for a final decision to be taken within six months, 'in view of the seriousness of the matter.' But nothing happened.
Six years later, in 1961, Mohammad Hashim filed another suit pleading for restoration of the property to the Muslims. By 1964, the peripheral cases were settled and a date was fixed for the final hearing of this case.To this end, a new receiver was appointed in 1968. However, his role became redundant as yet another appeal was filed before the Allahabad high court in 1971.The 1971 case was not taken up until 1983, when the VHP launched its temple movement in a big way.
Even as the tempo of the temple movement increased, then Faizabad district judge K M Pandey ordered the gates of the disputed site to be unlocked late in the afternoon of February 1, 1986.
This was done on an application moved by local lawyer U C Pandey, who sought permission to offer prayers.
Simultaneously, VHP leaders S N Katju, Deoki Nandan Agarwal, both of whom were former Allahabad high court judges, and Shirish Chandra Dikshit, former UP director general of police, met the district magistrate, seeking permission for Lord Ram's darshan.
Judge Pandey observed, 'After having heard the parties, it is clear that the members of the other community, namely the Muslims, are not going to be affected by any stretch of imagination if the locks of the gates were opened and idols inside the premises are allowed to be seen and worshipped by the pilgrims and devotees.'
He also added that the 'heavens will not fall if the locks of the gates are removed.' (because number of muslims around the mosque is meagre!)But that did not hold true; the order sparked off communal clashes. Following this, the Sunni Waqf Board and the Babri Masjid Action Committee moved the Allahabad high court against the district judge's order.However, the order was not stayed. Meanwhile, all cases pertaining to the Ayodhya dispute were referred to the court's Lucknow bench.
The shilanyas in 1989 further aggravated the issue. The police firing ordered by then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav's government on the kar sevaks in 1990 polarised Hindu votes in favour of the Bharatiya Janata Party and brought Kalyan Singh to power in 1991.
Kalyan Singh ordered the acquisition of 2.75 acres of land around the mosque in a bid to show his party's seriousness towards building the temple. Babri Masjid Action Committee convener Zafaryab Jilani filed yet another writ petition to prevent any kind of construction on the acquired land.
Meanwhile, Delhi-based Aslam Bhure moved the Supreme Court against the acquisition of land.
But the apex court transferred the case to the Lucknow bench, with the directive that the status quo be maintained until the high court decided on the five writs that were, by then, pending there.And by then, what was the meaning of the status quo?All hell broke loose on December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya, with violent Hindu mobs storming the 16th century mosque.
Even as security personnel stood by that fateful day the mosque was torn down by kar sevaks even as the top BJP leadership -- including L K Advani -- watched. Advani later expressed sorrow at the demolition -- but it was clear to all that the forces unleashed by his rath yatra in favour of the temple in 1990 would be satisfied with nothing else.The demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992, led to a contempt of court petition against the UP government. Then chief minister Kalyan Singh had given the court an undertaking that the mosque would be protected. Kalyan Singh was later awarded a day's imprisonment. His government had been dismissed hours after the demolition.
A few days after the demolition, the central government headed by then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao issued an ordinance acquiring 67 acres of land in and around the disputed site.
In 1994, the Supreme Court ordered the abatement of all pending suits and nullified all interim orders issued by various courts in the Ayodhya-related cases.The Supreme Court ordered that the land remain in the central government's custody and the status quo be maintained until the Lucknow bench disposed of the writ petition.THIS PETITION AIMED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A HINDU TEMPLE HAD EXISTED ON THE DISPUTED SITE PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BABRI MASJID AND WHETHER THE MOSQUE WAS BUILT ON THE DEBRIS OF A TEMPLE!Now came the great turn. Thought considered in all the cases till date, never ever this was the pivotal factor!Among those charge-sheeted were leaders from the BJP, VHP, Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal. Prominent among them were L K Advani, Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray.
The M S Liberhan Commision was set up 10 days after the demolition and took 17 years and 48 extensions before it submitted the report on June 30, 2009.
Negating the theory handed out by Hindu groups that the Babri Masjid demolition was mob-driven, the Liberhan Commission said it had been 'established beyond doubt' that the events of December 6, 1992, in Ayodhya were 'neither spontaneous nor unplanned.'
The Commission blamed the entire temple construction movement on the Sangh Parivar.
A former high court judge, Justice Liberhan called former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Advani and Dr Joshi 'pseudo-moderates' and condemned them for their role in the demolition.
'It stands established beyond doubt that the events of the day were neither spontaneous nor unplanned nor an unforeseen overflowing of the people's emotion, nor the result of a foreign conspiracy as some overly imaginative people have tried to suggest,'.'While the structure or the methods of the Sangh Parivar for aggregating a substantial public base may neither be illegal nor strictly objectionable,' Justice Liberhan noted, 'the use of this gargantuan whole for the purpose of the Ayodhya campaign was clearly against the letter and spirit of Indian law and ethos.' About Vajpayee, Advani and Dr Joshi, the Liberhan report said: 'These leaders have violated the trust of the people and have allowed their actions to be dictated not by the voters but by a small group of individuals who have used them to implement agendas unsanctioned by the will of the common person.The special full bench of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court, comprising Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice Dharmveer Sharma, was slated to deliver the verdict at 3.30 pm on September 24.
However, the Supreme Court on September 23 put off by a week its hearing into a plea to defer the Ayodhya title verdict by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court.
Supreme Court judge, Justice R V Raveendran, gave this order while hearing the petition filed by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi to defer the title suit verdict.
In the petition filed through advocate Sunil Jain, Tripathi had cited several reasons for deferment of the verdict, which he said would be in "public interest" in view of the apprehension of communal flareup, upcoming Commonwealth Games, elections in Bihar and violence in Kashmir Valley and Naxal-hit states. All he was trying was to buy time for a deal. As we all know that we have not yet decided to revert back to the condition of 500 years ago. Neither have we made a policy to undo all the works done by the rulers before any particular time. At the same time, we done have a definition of the extent of legal binding to consider a fixed date to which we have to maintain the status quo!But in the middle of all this I would like to again appreciate the wisdom and openness and magnanimous heart of the Muslim cleric who had allowed to Hindus to offer the prayer! I can’t imagine what would have been the case if he would have shown his total authority on the mosque!I also appreciate the violence and divide unleashed by the division of India in 1947 which has left all of us with multiple wounds. Obviously among all such wounds, Ayodhya issue is the most painful. It is the litmus test for our democracy and secularism.If we look back, out of three decisive junctures (1) when the temple was demolished (2) when the British empire judges decided (3) when the lord ram idol was placed inside the structure; the third one is the most crucial, the most recent and still the most dubious and precarious! Administrators did not do their job! They did not obey the top brass! If the third incident would have been undone, this problem might have been in different shape. But the problem might have been there, I can’t deny that. But then when i try to imagine the situation at that time, the communal tension . . . I just become numb!But why? If at that time, during the riots, if any Hindu might have encroached in to a Muslims house, will the law allow the new occupant to continue as a legal owner? Surly not! Otherwise there is no law!But if the Muslim did not return, like many went to Pakistan! It’s a different issue. Or if he could be pacified by other means . . . like many high handed powerful people grab property of the simple middleclass by giving them compensation of “their” choice that is the settlement at other level. But as we have observed, Muslims are not in mood of any compromise. They know that whole world is watching the secular India! And they are hell bent to make tamasha out of it, if that happens!I am sorry to say, but these Muslim leaders are no way feeling the pain of the country. Or else the fact is that namaz has not been offered at that place for last more than 60 years! As per Islamic law it is no more a mosque! They will have to make it a fresh if at all they got the full right. Also, the tension will continue. They could have easily got into some compromise deal which was eminent when BJP was in power but few political faces did not want the credit to go to the BJP government and so they simply backed out! After that never ever any serious effort was made. Fact is and the sad fact, that our politicians do not want the issue to die! They want it to remain alive so that they can use it on their will, wish and need!If it comes to justice, judges have only little option. Either they have to give the property back to the Muslim community! That is the demand of the secular India. Or, become shameless and say that as the mosque was built on the temple, we are taking the revenge from Babur and reclaiming the property! To me it is just repeating what Babur had done 500 years ago! But will it be all well if the Muslims get the property? That is the most important issue which Muslim leaders have to think of! And we have to think, we want the rule of law or the rule of mob! Hope and wish the wisdom prevails.
So, what will be my verdict?
I have heard, law is blind, no emotions, no relations, it decides on facts.
But "I" amd a Hindu who's small intention is to put an end to this perennial problem.
I wish a judgement which both the parties accept and settle with.
Although it would have been better if both of them might have settles it on their own - like a good samaritan!
But now that the fissure is un manageable, law has to decide.
I wish, judges decide a temple and a mosque side by side with different gates and unconnected walls! Like how it exists at Varanasi now!
Exact locations - as per the law!
But no rally after the verdict - no one is winning, no one is losing.
But I am sure that will not happen.
And the issue will go to the supreme court!
Manish Kumar
Friday, September 10, 2010
Fidel castro
WASHINGTON: Cuban revolutionary icon Fidel Castro has joked that the "Cuban model doesn't even work for us any more," the Atlantic magazine reported on Wednesday. Meeting with a reporter from the US magazine, the 84-year-old former Cuban president who remains head of the ruling Communist Party, appeared well on the mend after his near-fatal gastrointestinal crisis in 2006, the report said. Since then, under President Raul Castro, 79, Cuba's feeble economy has been propped up by subsidized oil from ally Venezuela. The government has launched minor reforms but no major structural change in an economy overwhelmingly controlled by the state. Castro lunched on "small amounts of fish and salad, and quite a bit of bread dipped in olive oil, as well as a glass of red wine," the report said. When asked if he believed Cuba's model was something worth exporting, Castro left his reporter guest slackjawed, the report said. "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us any more," Fidel Castro was quoted as saying in the report. Julia Sweig, a Cuba expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who was present at the meeting was quoted as saying Castro "wasn't rejecting the ideas of the Revolution. I took it to be an acknowledgment that under 'the Cuban model' the state has much too big a role in the economic life of the country." In the same interview, the former Cuban president criticized Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust and said Tehran should acknowledge Israel's fears for its own survival. Castro, who was at the center of the 1962 missile crisis pitting the Soviet Union against the United States, warned, however, that US sanctions and Israeli threats would not cause Iran to change course. "This problem is not going to get resolved, because the Iranians are not going to back down in the face of threats. That's my opinion," he said, observing that religious leaders were less apt to compromise.
Cost of a new Idea
This day I want to keep in mind encrypted as one of the most important day.
Hi,
New ideas give new direction to life . . . when its for more people it becomes more important . . . few of them have changed the world. In our times, one of the most important has been communism. The economic concept has been the basic for communism. In Indian context few people have tried to associate the social concept but only unsuccessfully.
Very important time of our lives for decades were wasted discussing the economic principle of Marxism. I feel laureates are fit at the most for diagnosis of the society. treatment suggestion is not their buiseness. unluckily, Marx who did not recieve nobel prize because it was not existing those days, had suggested a model of economy. For more than one century the world was reeling under the shadow of this idea. Surprisingly people didnot try to understand the difference between Marx, Lenin and Stalin! Ultimately Gorbachyov brought the baloon down! And one after another red flags started coming down.
The last fort was in Cuba. And today I want to remember it for ever-
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Cuban-model-doesnt-even-work-for-us-any-more-Fidel-Castro/articleshow/6522209.cms
This is the statement made by Fidel Castro who kept Cuba under red flag for more than half century. He says that it does not work! I hope now people will understand the unrealistic and impractical - ness of marxism! But more importantly people will understand its cost! millions of lives lost during these struggle - so called revolutions!
No, those were simple struggle for the control of the power and people were made fool on the name of Marx!
Hi,
New ideas give new direction to life . . . when its for more people it becomes more important . . . few of them have changed the world. In our times, one of the most important has been communism. The economic concept has been the basic for communism. In Indian context few people have tried to associate the social concept but only unsuccessfully.
Very important time of our lives for decades were wasted discussing the economic principle of Marxism. I feel laureates are fit at the most for diagnosis of the society. treatment suggestion is not their buiseness. unluckily, Marx who did not recieve nobel prize because it was not existing those days, had suggested a model of economy. For more than one century the world was reeling under the shadow of this idea. Surprisingly people didnot try to understand the difference between Marx, Lenin and Stalin! Ultimately Gorbachyov brought the baloon down! And one after another red flags started coming down.
The last fort was in Cuba. And today I want to remember it for ever-
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Cuban-model-doesnt-even-work-for-us-any-more-Fidel-Castro/articleshow/6522209.cms
This is the statement made by Fidel Castro who kept Cuba under red flag for more than half century. He says that it does not work! I hope now people will understand the unrealistic and impractical - ness of marxism! But more importantly people will understand its cost! millions of lives lost during these struggle - so called revolutions!
No, those were simple struggle for the control of the power and people were made fool on the name of Marx!
Kashmir: Can they get out of India
Human civilizations across the world has seen many changes. Some times even called as 'revolutions'. Only few times they have been guided by some principle. The most important ones being Islam and Communism. India or better to say Indian subcontinent or north Himalayan nations, is the only region in this world which has survived all thses changes. We have always selected the good things from every change and left the bad things.
Islam is a religion with maximum devotion and dedication. It teaches to lay the life for the sake of the almighty 'allah'. It says, Allah is the master and we are the servants . . . slaves! Allah commands us. But there are many more impractical and unrealistic issues associated with it. Most of them are not the dictates of Quran, but are the continuation of the mediaval culture of Arabia. Like Jajia Tax, Burqa for women . . . intolerance towards other religions is not exactly the teachings of Quran. Quran was dictated at times when life of the messenger himself was in threat. Basicaly Quran can be understood easily if you consider it as the teachings of a 'successful' and 'principled' army commander rather than a simple religious oration.
In relation to Kashmir, division of India on religious lines has left the whole north Himalayan region with lot of problems. Kashmiris should understand the fact that secular India cant afford any dilution in its Kashmir policy. Blood shed is the rsult of misunderstanding on the part of the Kashmiris (whatever be the %) that India is a weak nation and they can get out of it. . . .
The futility of all these riots and protests should be understood by the mass first. Leaders are as mentaly bankrupt as ever in all over the world. They will not accept or understand till there are people to die for them. But ultimately the innocent people lay their lives for thins which they dont undertand and ultimately they are the losers at every front. People must understand that they are fighting with a state and not with a person. And the perception of the state in general and about the Indian state in particular be clear. And about India, one thing I must tell them, we dont show what we are, we prove it, and will prove it. Kashmiris may feel that if Pakistan attacks, they will be the first ones to get out of India. They should first think whether its possible in present times. I dont think positively until a maverick like OSAMA is at the helm in Pakistan. Till that time they should wait and learn to live like human being in a civilized society which is far better than what they striving for. Or if they are so obcessed, they should go to Pakistan or wherever they want. If they want to live in India, they will have to forget that they can ever take the land out of India. If they dont understand it, its their fault.
Islam is a religion with maximum devotion and dedication. It teaches to lay the life for the sake of the almighty 'allah'. It says, Allah is the master and we are the servants . . . slaves! Allah commands us. But there are many more impractical and unrealistic issues associated with it. Most of them are not the dictates of Quran, but are the continuation of the mediaval culture of Arabia. Like Jajia Tax, Burqa for women . . . intolerance towards other religions is not exactly the teachings of Quran. Quran was dictated at times when life of the messenger himself was in threat. Basicaly Quran can be understood easily if you consider it as the teachings of a 'successful' and 'principled' army commander rather than a simple religious oration.
In relation to Kashmir, division of India on religious lines has left the whole north Himalayan region with lot of problems. Kashmiris should understand the fact that secular India cant afford any dilution in its Kashmir policy. Blood shed is the rsult of misunderstanding on the part of the Kashmiris (whatever be the %) that India is a weak nation and they can get out of it. . . .
The futility of all these riots and protests should be understood by the mass first. Leaders are as mentaly bankrupt as ever in all over the world. They will not accept or understand till there are people to die for them. But ultimately the innocent people lay their lives for thins which they dont undertand and ultimately they are the losers at every front. People must understand that they are fighting with a state and not with a person. And the perception of the state in general and about the Indian state in particular be clear. And about India, one thing I must tell them, we dont show what we are, we prove it, and will prove it. Kashmiris may feel that if Pakistan attacks, they will be the first ones to get out of India. They should first think whether its possible in present times. I dont think positively until a maverick like OSAMA is at the helm in Pakistan. Till that time they should wait and learn to live like human being in a civilized society which is far better than what they striving for. Or if they are so obcessed, they should go to Pakistan or wherever they want. If they want to live in India, they will have to forget that they can ever take the land out of India. If they dont understand it, its their fault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)