Loitering with Intent in Ayodhya

Amir Khan,

Thanks for your excellent analysis. The Babri Masjid is indeed a political problem. Whether the disputed land changes hand, stays put or is frozen by the courts, the common people have little to lose or gain as a result. The only losers would be politicians from both sides that have made it a cash-cow for their respective vote banks.

The distruction of the temple was a violation of the Court order. Though the then local government was sacked as a result for either their ``involvement`` or ``inaction``, I feel they were not held accountable. In the very least be jailed for contempt of court or make a plea to apologize unconditionally for their inaction, if charges of actual involvement are difficult to substantiate. It also sends a message to politicians that they have an obligation to the oath they took and protect the rights of ALL citizens as well as the meaning of rule of the law.

As for the real problem of what happens to the structure, I think the local muslim and hindu populations should be allowed to decide how to handle the situation. Both might benefit if the spot as a tourist spot generates jobs for the local economy. Anyone not from Ayodhya really needs to stay put. As for other disputed sites, the majority of hindus need to understand, that status-quo must be maintained. This might put fire-brands on both sides out of business and politicians focused on focusing on the economy.

As for the Supreme Court, it needs to re-read the definition of statuatory limitations. It should not change ownership based on events that took place beyond the statutory limitations. As Vir Sanghvi put it very poignantly, every house in the world be in dispute if people came forward to stake a claim on the land once occupied by their ancestors.

Satire

``And if the local temple committee agrees to buy out the land, the Muslims sell it (and they will get a huge premium if they bargain well) and open a school, a mosque, a film club, children`s park and an old age centre somewhere close by - there is enough land in Faizabad and it is cheap.``

Amir,
It is a wonderful suggestion. Judiciary is trying its best to be impartial. But it appears that for almost all problems Indian public and legislature is abdicating its responsibility and judiciary is being forced to intervene.
I doubt if original temple will be found below mosque`s structure. But it has become an emotional issue. Exchange rights to mosque structure for a payment will certainly a no-loss solution to both parties. Muslims can claim that by paying money, hindus acknowledged their (muslim`s) right on the land. Hindu`s will be happy to create their temple.

(I would be disgusted though - by thought of people spending billions of Rupees on a stone building which will perhaps be a waste for common folk)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Amir Khan

I donot agree that Muslims can withdraw their claim to the Babri Masjid with conditions or

without conditions. Firstly, conditions mean nothing unless someone enforces them, and the

Indian Constitution itself has trouble being enforced, then what to speak of these conditions.


Secondly, such a withdrawal of claim will be an official invitation to the VHP to go and demolish another mosque, something they did on their own steam with impunity recently with many mosques and dargahs in Gujarat, actions from which even the Indian Constitution couldnot stop them or punish them.

My solution is this:
Irrespective of Supreme Court order, the central government must acquire for posterity in the name of all Indians for public good, all the land in the vicinity, including Nyas/VHP`s undisputed land and the Wakf board`s Babri Masjid land.

The Central government should then build a mosque on the site of the original mosque, a Ram temple on the land adjacent and also a gurudwara and a church. In the same campus there must be an orphanage and school, a medical hospital as well as University emphasizing religious studies which will be run with the earnings of the mosque, mandir, gurudwara and Church(and synagogue), all administered by public trust with govt appointees like all Hindu temples are.

End of story.

Sadna #4
``The Central government should then build a mosque on the site of the original mosque, a Ram temple on the land adjacent and also a gurudwara and a church``

Why not also a Pagoda, a Jain temple, a sai baba`s shrine, a monastry and so on? This hindu, muslim, sikh, Issai type of secularism is what is killing us. Best solution will be to not build anything on that piece of land, make it a hospital, park, garbage dump - anything but a religious place.

friend #5
``Why not also a Pagoda, a Jain temple, a sai baba`s shrine, a monastry``

Why not? I remember the_happy_one talking on chowk about a multi-religious shrine in Baroda, all in the same building.

Adding one more set of religious structures to the millions already existing in India willnot turn us away from secularism.

The religious aspect of the solution is very important because its a site with religious significance to more than one community, hence the dispute(and let me bet there is a Jain temple directly beneath) and the problem will not go away without restoring the religious significances associated with the site.

The multiplicity of religious shrines and other structures(the orphanage + school being the most important, IMO) will mean that its a solution for all Indians on behalf of all Indians.

The fact that these shrines will earn money which will all be used for good nonreligious secular causes like a orphanage, school, hospital and/or university will send the right message that religion means nothing without benefiting society. :)

`` Muslims sell it (and they will get a huge premium if they bargain well) and open a school, a mosque, a film club, children`s park and an old age centre ``

What about a Disothek as well???

Oh..let there be some final verdict on this matter.

Let us all move on. Let us all now think about the betterment of our country and not just our religions.

Many centuries back, the great Punjabi Sufi poet Baba Bulley Shah said:

``Destroy mosque, Destroy Manadar, Destroy anything. But do not destroy a human heart because the God lives in the human heart.``

I think Amir Khan misses an important point - it is not a local dispute for the Hindus. For the muslims, the babri masjid was of no special ``religious`` significance - it was not Mecca or Medina. No prayers were offered there for around 45 years before it was pulled down in Dec 1992. But, for the Hindus, it is of utmost significance due to the belief that the place where Babri masjid stood was the place where Lord Rama was born and a temple on the spot was destroyed to build the babri masjid.
One can ask for legal proof that Lord Rama actually existed and was born in the specific area where the babri masjid stood. Unfortunately, faith does not lend itself to legal proof - it is a matter of faith. It is however a documented fact that muslim invaders/rulers did pull down important (and unimportant) hindu temples and built mosques in their place - be it in kashi or mathura or ayodhya or other places.
I doubt if it is a local issue for indian muslims either. Even though the babri masjid had little religious significance for them, it is a significant test of India`s commitment to secularism and equality of all citizens.
India over the past decade has failed to preserve its secular features, by allowing hindu fundamentalists such as those belonging to the vhp, bajrang dal and shiv sena to break laws without being prosecuted.
My solution for the problem:
1. The Indian govt and all the state govts demonstrate their commitment to secularism by legally prosecuting all fundamentalists (of any religion) for infringing the law. This they do for a prolonged period of time (five years at least) to reassure the law abiding majority (of all religions) and strengthen India`s weakened commitment to secularism.
2. The courts punish those who planned, led or participated in the demolition of the babri masjid.
3. The Indian parliament passes legislation permitting a Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Rama to be constructed at the place of his birth.
However, I am not really sure what should be done to Hindu claims to reclaim other important temples, in Kashi and Mathura and other places.

sadna #6

``Why not? I remember the_happy_one talking on chowk about a multi-religious shrine in Baroda, all in the same building. ``

Sadna,
Because a so-called multi-religious shrine will be just another timebomb. What if dates of muharam and some hindu festival concide. Troublemakes of both communities will use that occasion to show their strength at shrine. Both parties will just try to outdo each other.

BTW, Dehradoon city is named after ``dera`` of Sikh guru Ram Rai who made peace with Mugals. Guru Ram rai was declared ``tankhaiya`` from faith due by priests of that time. He made his ``dera`` at Dehradoon and a very large ``gurudwara`` is in the center of city. Till about 25 years ago that was most prominent sikh temple in the city and all communities used to visit that gurudwara. About 15 years ago, at height of Khalistani movement, somebody decided to make a ``higher`` and ``bigger`` true sikh gurudwara about 1/2 mile from old gurudwara. Now old gurudwara is visited only by local non-sikhs.
So much for multi-religious shrines ...

I dont know Mr. Khan what is the use of reason in a nuthouse. In a country where one prime minister drinks his own urine and another pm promotes that the cows have more basic cow rights than humans have basic human rights and a president who has never washed his head, you cannot argue much. The best we the outsider can do at this moment is to collect chanda to buy a carton of shampoos, and a neelibar cow from sahiwal to send as a gift to these nuts.

friend #11

Look at it this way, all over India temples and mosques operate cheek-by-jowl. That muharram and holi and other public festivals go off relatively peacefully at multiple locations is not just by accident, there are surely deliberate efforts like civic adminstrative measures and intercommunity cooperation which ensure this.

It should not be difficult to do the same here, esp as every injured party will be getting most of what they want. And given the other facilities including orphanage and hospital for example, which inhuman people will create danga where the ill or children are involved?

About the site losing significance later, that needn`t be a problem. Ayodhya/Faizabad already have scores of Ram temples and mosques, I believe?

The Babri Masjid site has been given significance NOW: religious significance by two sides and as people keep pointing out, enormous significance for the future of Indian secularism/pluralism.

Which is why taking both types of sting out of the issue ASAP by recognising both types of significance should only be for good.

btw, I might be mistaken, but the Akshardham temple in Gandhinagar is also supposed be built with a multireligious flavor? I am however talking of a separate mosque and separate mandir and the separate gurdwara, church, and perhaps synagogue, Jain and Buddhist shrines is to be more universal, to show that the sacred is not confined, to decisively take the Hindu-Muslim angle out of it, and to signal agreement, inclusion and participation of all in this solution.

IMO, Vajpayee should get a bill with this solution passed in Parliament ASAP and then use this to settle out of court with all parties and litigants. He will henceforth be hailed as a Abraham Lincoln of India.

Looking cynically and politically at benefits to Vajpayee from such a solution, he can nullify the VHP by preempting them on Ram mandir on their own land :), it will improve BJP`s image as more constructive than Cong in handling a key issue wrt India`s pluralism and it will make it easy for him to win next election too. Advani, if he facilitates this, may succeed in washing off the stain of bad man, and may get a better chance to be PM.

But who listens to me :)?

sadna #13
`` it will improve BJP`s image as more constructive than Cong in handling a key issue wrt India`s pluralism ``

The pun in this sentence is wholly unintended, given that the BJP presided over the destruction of the mosquu, hence creating this crisis in the first place.

The most beautiful religious place built in modern India that I have visited is the Bahai Lotus Temple in Delhi. So, my vote is for building another Bahai temple in Ayodhya. Now, who can object to that?:-)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

What people forget is that this entire Babri Masjid issue was caused by the weak-kneed Rajiv Gandhi. He kowtowed to Imam Syed Bukhari & Co on the Shah Bano case whereby he passed the Muslim Women`s Protection act **stripping** Muslim women of alimony granted to Shah Bano by the Indian Supreme Court and to assuage cries of special treatment for minorities, allowed Hindus to install idols of Ram and Sita in the mosque and worship there. The entire place was locked up since 1947 and nobody bothered about it in a serious manner until the idiot Rajiv Gandhi opened the Pandora`s box.

Muslims of India want the rule of law? Where was THAT demand when the Shah Bano judgment was rendered? Then you guys wanted the Shariat. Now you want the Rule of Law.

Make up your minds, guys.

Re: # 17

I know I am very late in replying to this comment. But unfortunately this is the first time I have read this interact comment, reaching here while doing research on articles about Babri Masjid and related events in India.

To answer your question harimau I would like to point out the fact that Indian Law has always been receptive to foreign laws and laws from different segments and different cultures that embed to form one Indian culture. Indian Law itself draws on various sources including English Law, Hindu Law and the Muslim Law. As you mention the Shariat that we ‘guys’ wanted is a system of Law. Being a religion that affects all aspects of life, Islam has regulations that effect personal, social, financial, economic, political and all other aspects of human existence. This is the reason that Scholars including several non-muslim scholars have referred to Islam as a way of Life rather than a religion.

India is a secular country and being secular means accepting people from all faith and none. Thus the Indian Law system upholds this key feature of India by accommodating regulations from not just Muslim but also Hindu Law and Law from other segments that have influenced Indian society. May be you would better understand this by reading the article on following link. ( http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9042284 )

Further more I would like to add that the Shah Bano judgment constituted a judgement pertaining to personal Law, which is different for Hindus, Muslims and Christians in India, and not criminal Law. In case some one tries to rip apart the secular fabric of our country we the Muslims of India would definitely demand the same punishment as any Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, or a person from any other faith or no faith would demand.