The Supreme Court said it had no objection to extending the mediation process in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute if the mediators were optimistic about the result.
Seer Adhokshajanand Deo Tirtha Maharaj said he didn't hold a grudge against Sri Sri Ravi Shankar but cited his earlier failure in settling the Ayodhya dispute.
Sardar Patel wrote that Ayodhya issue can be resolved peacefully with ‘willing consent’ of Muslims, and was clear against giving advantage to any group.
Research paper, however, finds lowest indebtedness level among Muslims at 12.3% & highest among Hindus at 14.9%. Overall national financial inclusion level at 87.2%, indebtedness at 14.7%.
Fresh details of operation conducted by IAF, Army have come out in gazette notification giving citations of those who were awarded Vir Chakra for their bravery.
On 21 Oct, a buzz went up that the govt had released full list of gallantry award recipients along with Op Sindoor citations. I put an AI caddy on the job. It took me into a never-ending rabbit hole.
If one steps back from dry legalese, the contesting parties that are before the apex court, to the larger societal issue. This is a dispute between two dominant communities. For some / many Hindus, it is an article of faith that the contested site is the exact spot where Lord Ram was born. It should be commemorated by the construction of a temple in his honour. No other outcome is acceptable. If a mosque that had stood on the site for more than 450 years had to be demolished, accompanied by riots and loss of life, that is a price worth paying. For the Muslim community – notwithstanding the fact that the mosque may have fallen into disuse and there are several contemporary instances of a mosque being relocated, to subserve a political purpose – the movement leading upto demolition and the manner in which this issue has been kept alive represent an assault and a continuing threat to their security. All the more in light of what has happened over the last five years. 2. For the Muslim community – or the Sunni Waqf Board, as lawful owner of the land – to “ show magnanimity “, give up their “ claim “ would be seen by many of their members as an act of abject surrender, almost cowardice. Keep turning the other cheek. Promising them another site, even the funding to construct a grand mosque, would be no more than thirty pieces of silver. Both Muslims and Hindus understand in their hearts that it is not about constructing one more religious structure. It is like a tiger scent marking his territory. An act of ownership, dominion, exclusion. Either or. 3. After so much political capital has been expended on this issue by the Right, where is the question of accepting anything less than the unencumbered site, for construction to start. The arbitrators would be smoking hashish borrowed from the sadhus if they believe any award other than in favour of the temple would ever be accepted, not flung contemptuously out of the window. 4. Also the question of representation. How do either the arbitrators, or the contesting parties believe for a moment that anything agreed to them would be accepted by all of India’s Hindus and Muslims. On objective, scientific issues like sharing of river waters, the apex court’s awards are often received poorly on the ground, leading to violence and civil strife. On as emotive an issue as this, a “ compromise “ brokered by the apex court would be dead on arrival. It may be pleased to rule, judicially, judiciously on the well defined legal issues before it.
Why Muslims should be magnamoniuos, let this time big brother show courage and follow the truth and construct grand mosque.
If one steps back from dry legalese, the contesting parties that are before the apex court, to the larger societal issue. This is a dispute between two dominant communities. For some / many Hindus, it is an article of faith that the contested site is the exact spot where Lord Ram was born. It should be commemorated by the construction of a temple in his honour. No other outcome is acceptable. If a mosque that had stood on the site for more than 450 years had to be demolished, accompanied by riots and loss of life, that is a price worth paying. For the Muslim community – notwithstanding the fact that the mosque may have fallen into disuse and there are several contemporary instances of a mosque being relocated, to subserve a political purpose – the movement leading upto demolition and the manner in which this issue has been kept alive represent an assault and a continuing threat to their security. All the more in light of what has happened over the last five years. 2. For the Muslim community – or the Sunni Waqf Board, as lawful owner of the land – to “ show magnanimity “, give up their “ claim “ would be seen by many of their members as an act of abject surrender, almost cowardice. Keep turning the other cheek. Promising them another site, even the funding to construct a grand mosque, would be no more than thirty pieces of silver. Both Muslims and Hindus understand in their hearts that it is not about constructing one more religious structure. It is like a tiger scent marking his territory. An act of ownership, dominion, exclusion. Either or. 3. After so much political capital has been expended on this issue by the Right, where is the question of accepting anything less than the unencumbered site, for construction to start. The arbitrators would be smoking hashish borrowed from the sadhus if they believe any award other than in favour of the temple would ever be accepted, not flung contemptuously out of the window. 4. Also the question of representation. How do either the arbitrators, or the contesting parties believe for a moment that anything agreed to them would be accepted by all of India’s Hindus and Muslims. On objective, scientific issues like sharing of river waters, the apex court’s awards are often received poorly on the ground, leading to violence and civil strife. On as emotive an issue as this, a “ compromise “ brokered by the apex court would be dead on arrival. It may be pleased to rule, judicially, judiciously on the well defined legal issues before it.
Wonderful. One way or another, this issue had to be pushed beyond the general election. A hardy staple on the menu, every five years.