Practical Questions on Babri Masjid Verdict

[arihant]

---

---

First of this thread is only for practical questions that could be raised out of verdict.

Kindly no flame, no disrespect and no wrong language use. If you want to debate on other things you are welcome to debate in other threads, but don't derail this thread.

I dedicate this thread for only questions that could raise pratically whether historic, current or verdict.

Anyone flaming will be reported.

---------- Post added at 08:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 AM ----------



First, of this verdict was on the land suit field in 1948 and the subsequent suits were filled in the year 1989. This is not the verdict of 1992 demolition which is still going on. Demolition of any religions place without orders of court or cabinet is illegal.

[arihant]

First of let me start with some answers.

Dispute was actually for 2/3rd of land rather whole land but because Sunni Waqf board file the claim on remaining land also in the year 1989, it got converted into full scale dispute and all claimed the whole land.

1/3rd of land owned by Nirmohi Akhara was at least since 18th century and other minor proof, prove it to be as old as Akbar's time. This was accepted by whole party but Sunni Waqf board told that this land was given on temporary basis rather the permanently. Sunni Waqf could not prove anything in this case.

Now case was of 1949 vs 1961, where court accepted both party has joint owner. 1949 case was of Hindu while 1961 case of Sunni Waqf Board.

Because none prove the ownership but where able to prove that both use to worship at the same place, inside the doom. This is the actual fact since 18th century.

Now, because both use to worship, land was divided in two parts while the third was kept with Nirmohi Akhara.

[StingRoy]

@arihant... nice to start a thread on this topic. Hopefully a lot of our questions could be answered.

I think almost all of us know that the judgement was not the final one and there are more appeals to follow resulting in dragging the case for a few more years. One question that I have is what happens if the second ruling is in favor of Muslims or lets say Hindus for that matter? Would either side be able to accept the decision of the court? Isn't that why the conflict started at the first place.

This is a controversy which didn't start on 6th Dec 92, but can be traced back to a few centuries and there are not enough concrete evidences in favor of either party to rule a judgement in overwhelming favor of either party. So where do we end up after all this?

I believe although however controversial the judgement might have been, this seems to be the best compromise between both sides and hope some sense prevails to accept this and move on.

[kallu_be]

Yesterday seetaram yechury reading a gazzette published in 1853 stating that Hindus used to worship at mosque believing it as birthplace of Ram from time immemorial till they were barred from worshiping after 1857 mutiny. Given that there is no exclusivity for muslims till 1857, Hindus are entitled to have half of the place where original mosque stood and the court verdict reflects that.

[StingRoy]

Does any one have access to the summary evidences presented before the court for this case from either sides?

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well 2 natin theory is fully justified today

[gubbi]

First of let me start with some answers.

Dispute was actually for 2/3rd of land rather whole land but because Sunni Waqf board file the claim on remaining land also in the year 1989, it got converted into full scale dispute and all claimed the whole land.

1/3rd of land owned by Nirmohi Akhara was at least since 18th century and other minor proof, prove it to be as old as Akbar's time. This was accepted by whole party but Sunni Waqf board told that this land was given on temporary basis rather the permanently. Sunni Waqf could not prove anything in this case.

Now case was of 1949 vs 1961, where court accepted both party has joint owner. 1949 case was of Hindu while 1961 case of Sunni Waqf Board.

Because none prove the ownership but where able to prove that both use to worship at the same place, inside the doom. This is the actual fact since 18th century.

Now, because both use to worship, land was divided in two parts while the third was kept with Nirmohi Akhara.

I could not find whether the Mosque was used as a place of worship before it was demolished. Did people still visit that mosque for prayers? Or was the practice stopped long before it was demolished? I remember reading somewhere that it was no longer used for prayers (cant get the source though). True?

ps: ^^ Ignore the troll. Reported.

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

I could not find whether the Mosque was used as a place of worship before it was demolished. Did people still visit that mosque for prayers? Or was the practice stopped long before it was demolished? I remember reading somewhere that it was no longer used for prayers (cant get the source though). True?

ps: ^^ Ignore the troll. Reported.

Well I could put armed men outside the mundir and prevent the temple from being used as temple , that does not means I can go and demolish it

Common sense - but this is a indian muslim matter if their own gov does not protects them it will just radicalise more muslims in India

I would be interested to know if tomorrow few muslim indians decide to act on a mundir and how the courts would react would those ppl be given 2/3 of mundir

[Prometheus]

Well 2 natin theory is fully justified today

[Syama Ayas]

First, of this verdict was on the land suit field in 1948 and the subsequent suits were filled in the year 1989. This is not the verdict of 1992 demolition which is still going on. Demolition of any religions place without orders of court or cabinet is illegal.

For those here with Indophobic,Anti-Hinduism vision the above para is invisible.

For them 2 things are stuck in their heads.
1)1992 the Mosque was demolished by fanatics who claimed it to be the birth spot of their Lord.
2)2010 verdict was made as a compromise

None will pay attention to the fact that this is the verdict for the pre- partition case.

This dispute predates the British rule.

[arihant]

I think almost all of us know that the judgement was not the final one and there are more appeals to follow resulting in dragging the case for a few more years. One question that I have is what happens if the second ruling is in favor of Muslims or lets say Hindus for that matter? Would either side be able to accept the decision of the court? Isn't that why the conflict started at the first place.

@dezi

The controversy is at least 125 years old legally. First official case was filed in the year 1885.

Even after Supreme court rules the verdict, any party can ask for reconsideration. But this is not beginning of whole story. Supreme Court can neglect it without hearing it. Other thing is creation of law which is not possibility because of secularism.

Court did took the belief in account but verdict of dividing the land was within constitution. No party was able to prove the ownership of the land although all were able to prove possession of the same at the time of 1947.

Yesterday seetaram yechury reading a gazzette published in 1853 stating that Hindus used to worship at mosque believing it as birthplace of Ram from time immemorial till they were barred from worshiping after 1857 mutiny. Given that there is no exclusivity for muslims till 1857, Hindus are entitled to have half of the place where original mosque stood and the court verdict reflects that.

What concrete evidence that court has, is that Magistrate of British himself visited the site and rejected the appeal of Saint Maharaja to place a idols in the Center Dome where they regularly do the puja. Magistrate in his final wordings did said that this is scared place of hindus and it is unfortunate, at the same place masjid was constructed.

The court Justice followed all the laws. Nirmohi Akhara was in possession of land even before 18th century as noted by Foreign travelers. Hindus were doing puja in the masjid at least in 18th century. Now, Sunni Waqf wanted to possession of whole disputed land but they himself admitted that Nirmohi Akhara owned the 1/3rd part. But their argument was that Hindus forcefully were doing puja at the disputed site.

I could not find whether the Mosque was used as a place of worship before it was demolished. Did people still visit that mosque for prayers? Or was the practice stopped long before it was demolished? I remember reading somewhere that it was no longer used for prayers (cant get the source though). True?

Actually Mosque site was used for prayers not only Muslims but also Hindus. Actual construction of Temple could not begin as British didn't gave permission because of fear of riots. According to the District Gazetteer Faizabad 1905, "up to this time (1855), both the Hindus and Muslims used to worship in the same building. But since the Mutiny (1857), an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the Masjid and the Hindus forbidden access to the inner yard, make the offerings on a platform (chabootra), which they have raised in the outer one." So actually till 1855, mosque itself was used for worshiping by both groups Hindus and Muslims but British divided the land in two parts. There was platform (now called Chabootra) from where Hindus were allowed to worship and they were barred in Mosque because of Riots that broke in 1857. Earlier, because Mosque was small, only few people could enter it and there fore large people use to stand outside yard, i.e. Chabootra.

For those here with Indophobic,Anti-Hinduism vision the above para is invisible.

For them 2 things are stuck in their heads.
1)1992 the Mosque was demolished by fanatics who claimed it to be the birth spot of their Lord.
2)2010 verdict was made as a compromise

None will pay attention to the fact that this is the verdict for the pre- partition case.

This dispute predates the British rule.

@Bombensturm

Verdict is of four cases at different stages. First being 1949 case filed by Hindus and last being filed by Nirmohi Akhara in 1988. Other two cases were filled by Sunni Waqf board and Mr. Ansari.

Although legally case if of 1949, but its roots goes to case of 1885 where Magistrate himself agreed on certain points.

1992 Demolition case if different and verdict will come later when finished. I am sure all will be punished.

2010 verdict is not compromise. It is based on the fact that both Hindus and Muslim were in possession of structure at least before 1857 Mutiny before fencing was created by british.

Yes, Legally Dispute does predates to British rule but in real dispute pre dates to before British rule or predates to Moghul rule of Aurangzeb. The proof is the recorded riots predating 18 century.

[arihant]

One thing that is interesting is that "report on demolition of Hindu Temples" reports that more than 15,000 temples including Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi were destroyed within 500 years and Masjid were built up on the same land. The report is based on the writings of old texts and reports of ministers of Mogul and Sultanate Emperors.

Out of that at least 1000 masjid used the pillars left after destruction which were used by Hindu Temples at that time.

As far as VHP is concern, they have publicly announced that they don't want to indulge in past for all temples but would like to get the scared places of Hindus which are mention in old texts which includes Ram Janssthan (disputed), Krishan Janmsthan (land owned by Hindu but small mosque is there) and Kashi Viswanath (temple and Mosque co-exist but Mosque is built on the original site while temple is on the left side). But recently VHP has shown that they may leave all the claims and will negotiate with Muslims in all aspect rather going out in Public and protesting.


One of the example is Qutub Minar Qutb Minar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which was built on 27 Huge Jain Temples. The whole site was owned by Jain Digambar Sanstha which currently doesn't want to claim the site only to preserve the peace.

[Novice09]

Sorry posted on wrong forum....

[arihant]

---

---

One Interesting thing is that Krishan Janasthan is also shared Hindus and Muslims since Aurenzeb time at least. Now as per land act, this land is owned by Hindus but there is mosque inside the temple which is not allowed to be removed under the notification by govt. since independence.

According to a popular folklore prevalent in Braja, Hindus were being used as slave-labourers during Aurangzeb’s times. Even the destruction of temples were being enforced upon the reluctant labourers. When the temple at the birthplace of Lord Shri Krishna was being destroyed to build the Idgah mosque, one Hindu Sipahsalar advised Aurangzeb thus, “Jahanpanah! Building the Idgah upon the unholy idol room would defile the mosque. Therefore, the Idgah should be built somewhere else.” The clever ploy of the Hindu worked and Aurangzeb ordered the mosque to be built elsewhere. The divine ambience of the sanctum sactorum thrills the hearts of the devotees as soon as they enter the auspicious place, and a sense of conviction surges in their minds that this indeed is the place where Lord Krishna manifested Himself. It is true that Mathura is the holiest, and it is the only place in the universe where Brahma and Shakti have been manifested at the same place. It is in Mathura that Leelapurushottam Shri Krishna and Ashthabhuja Ma Yogmaya manifested.

The Idag mosque is actually on the land of Hindus as per all the records but because its religions worship place and Hindus have not yet filed case as this mosque is not on the particular birth place but at nearby it, it is secured by Hindus themselves. Every Friday Muslim prayer at Igdah mosque coming through the Krishna Janasthan. This is what Hinduism is. Here even court can't do anything as ownership of land is proved from the British time as transfer and purchase records are available with Hindus. One should learn how leave in peace and compromise. The land on which Idag is there is actually part of Krishna Janasthan.