Ayodhya disputed site was exempted from Places of Worship Act passed during Narasimha Rao govt in September 1991, a year before Babri Masjid demolition.
Muslim plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case over Babri Masjid demolition have consistently stayed at Asaduddin Owaisi’s house for the course of hearings.
The Supreme Court last Tuesday urged the parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case to give another shot to an out-of-court settlement.
The reach and impact of influencers are so significant that even politicians such as Prime Minister Narendra Modi have recognised their value—the National Creators Award is proof.
Economists say there are weaknesses in India’s GDP data. But statisticians claim the accusations are based on flawed understanding, saying while GDP has problems, the economists are looking in the wrong places.
Both the governments expressed their commitment to strengthening their maritime cooperation to strengthen the maritime safety and security framework in the region.
In my view, the logic employed in the judgement is sound. Why it is that the Muslim side could not produce any evidence of prayers being offered at the site from 1528 to 1856, where as the Hindus could produce evidence of their belief that this was Ram Janmabhoomi and were offering prayers at the site? This is a clincher. The logic is that the aggrieved party should be compensated to extent to which it has suffered loss and not more. The Muslim lost only right to pray and have been compensated accordingly. The Hindus believed that this place was unique to them, as they considered it as Lord Ram’s birth place and this belief is evidenced consistently throughput the period. Thus they have been compensated accordingly.
If someone claims that SC was built over ruins of some ancient temple revered by Hindus, what happens. We all live above debris and mere recovery of Hindu objects cannot be treated as evidence of faith. Nevertheless, we should move forward and should not allow the verdict to be policalised.
Of course it should be restored to the original. This is the SC has done in this case. There is ample evidence to suggest that Muslim invaders demolished local temples to create religious disturbance. This is being corrected by restoration..
I think you didn’t understand the logic here.
1. Nobody can come out of nowhere and claim supreme court is built over a temple unless there are people who continuously praying inside the Supreme court premise before and after the Supreme court’s construction.
2. In case of Ram janmabhoomi, people were prying at that place before and after the construction of the Masjid. This was established with hard evidence from Guru Nanak’s visit in 1511 A.D. (before construction) and travel documents/book of Joseph Tieffenthaler (after construction) 1766-71 A.D.
3. The above point prove that Hindus were using that piece of land continuously and Muslims in 1528 forcefully occupied the land. Hindus continued using the land even after forceful occupation
4. As per the conditions in adverse possession, if the forceful occupier (Muslims) is not using the land exclusively and continuously, and the actual owner (Hindus) also have used the land during the period of dispute (1528-1949) and staked claim to it, then the land goes back to actual owner(Hindus)
The SC is correcting the same, if somebody claims it then it should be restored.
In my view, the logic employed in the judgement is sound. Why it is that the Muslim side could not produce any evidence of prayers being offered at the site from 1528 to 1856, where as the Hindus could produce evidence of their belief that this was Ram Janmabhoomi and were offering prayers at the site? This is a clincher. The logic is that the aggrieved party should be compensated to extent to which it has suffered loss and not more. The Muslim lost only right to pray and have been compensated accordingly. The Hindus believed that this place was unique to them, as they considered it as Lord Ram’s birth place and this belief is evidenced consistently throughput the period. Thus they have been compensated accordingly.
Sad day for the Print.
If someone claims that SC was built over ruins of some ancient temple revered by Hindus, what happens. We all live above debris and mere recovery of Hindu objects cannot be treated as evidence of faith. Nevertheless, we should move forward and should not allow the verdict to be policalised.
Of course it should be restored to the original. This is the SC has done in this case. There is ample evidence to suggest that Muslim invaders demolished local temples to create religious disturbance. This is being corrected by restoration..
I think you didn’t understand the logic here.
1. Nobody can come out of nowhere and claim supreme court is built over a temple unless there are people who continuously praying inside the Supreme court premise before and after the Supreme court’s construction.
2. In case of Ram janmabhoomi, people were prying at that place before and after the construction of the Masjid. This was established with hard evidence from Guru Nanak’s visit in 1511 A.D. (before construction) and travel documents/book of Joseph Tieffenthaler (after construction) 1766-71 A.D.
3. The above point prove that Hindus were using that piece of land continuously and Muslims in 1528 forcefully occupied the land. Hindus continued using the land even after forceful occupation
4. As per the conditions in adverse possession, if the forceful occupier (Muslims) is not using the land exclusively and continuously, and the actual owner (Hindus) also have used the land during the period of dispute (1528-1949) and staked claim to it, then the land goes back to actual owner(Hindus)