Siddharth Varadarajan

Journalist | Writer | Analyst

Force of faith trumps law and reason in Ayodhya case

Legal, social and political repercussions likely to be damaging …

1 October 2010
The Hindu


Force of faith trumps law and reason in Ayodhya case
Legal, social and political repercussions likely to be damaging

Siddharth Varadarajan

New Delhi: The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has made judicial history by deciding a long pending legal dispute over a piece of property in Ayodhya on the basis of an unverified and unsubstantiated reference to the “faith and belief of Hindus”.

The irony is that in doing so, the court has inadvertently provided a shot in the arm to a political movement that cited the very same “faith” and “belief” to justify its open defiance of the law and the Indian Constitution. That defiance reached its apogee in 1992, when a 500-year old mosque which stood at the disputed site was destroyed. The legal and political system in India stood silent witness to that crime of trespass, vandalism and expropriation. Eighteen years later, the country has compounded that sin by legitimising the “faith” and “belief” of those who took the law into their own hands.

The three learned judges of the Allahabad High Court may have rendered separate judgments on the title suit in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi case but Justices Sudhir Agarwal, S.U. Khan and Dharam Veer Sharma all seem to agree on one central point: that the Hindu plaintiffs in the case have a claim to the disputed site because “as per [the] faith and belief of the Hindus” the place under the central dome of the Babri Masjid where the idols of Ram Lalla were placed surreptitiously in 1949 is indeed the “birthplace” of Lord Ram.

For every Hindu who believes the spot under the central dome of the Babri Masjid is the precise spot where Lord Ram was born there is another who believes something else. But leaving aside the question of who “the Hindus” referred to by the court really are and how their actual faith and belief was ascertained and measured, it is odd that a court of law should give such weight to theological considerations and constructs rather than legal reasoning and facts. Tulsidas wrote his Ramcharitmanas in 16th century Ayodhya but made no reference to the birthplace of Lord Rama that the court has now identified with such exacting precision five centuries later.

The “faith and belief” that the court speaks about today acquired salience only after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bharatiya Janata Party launched a political campaign in the 1980s to “liberate” the “janmasthan”.

Collectives in India have faith in all sorts of things but “faith” cannot become the arbiter for what is right and wrong in law. Nor can the righting of supposed historical wrongs become the basis for dispensing justice today. In 1993, the Supreme Court wisely refused to answer a Presidential Reference made to it by the Narasimha Rao government seeking its opinion on whether a Hindu temple once existed at the Babri Masjid site. Yet, the High Court saw fit to frame a number of questions that ought to have had absolutely no bearing on the title suit which was before it.

One of the questions the court framed was “whether the building has been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same”. Pursuant to this question, it asked the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a dig at the site. This was done in 2003, during the time when the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government was in power at the Centre. Not surprisingly, the ASI concluded that there was a “massive Hindu religious structure” below, a finding that was disputed by many archaeologists and historians.

The territory of India – as of many countries with a settled civilisation as old as ours – is full of buildings that were constructed after pre-existing structures were demolished to make for them. Buddhist shrines made way for Hindu temples. Temples have made way for mosques. Mosques have made way for temples. So even if a temple was demolished in the 16th century to make way for the Babri Masjid, what legal relevance can that have in the 21st century? And if such demolition is to serve as the basis for settling property disputes today, where do we draw the line? On the walls of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi can be seen the remnants of a Hindu temple, perhaps even of the original Vishwanath mandir. Certainly many “Hindus” believe the mosque is built on land that is especially sacred to them. The denouement of the Babri case from agitation and demolition to possession might easily serve as a precedent for politicians looking to come to power on the basis of heightening religious tensions.

Even assuming the tainted ASI report is correct in its assessment that a Hindu temple lay below the ruins of Babri Masjid, neither the ASI nor any other expert has any scientific basis for claiming the architects of the mosque were the ones who did the demolishing. And yet two of the three High Court judges have concluded that the mosque was built after a temple was demolished.

From at least the 19th century if not earlier, we know that both Hindus and Muslims worshipped within the 2.77 acre site, the latter within the Babri Masjid building and the former at the Ram Chhabutra built within the mosque compound. This practice came to an end in 1949 when politically motivated individuals broke into the mosque and placed idols of Ram Lalla within. After 1949, both communities were denied access though Hindus have been allowed to offer darshan since 1986. In suggesting a three way partition of the site, the High Court has taken a small step towards the restoration of the religious status quo ante which prevailed before politicians got into the act. But its reasoning is flawed and even dangerous. If left unamended by the Supreme Court, the legal, social and political repercussions of the judgment are likely to be extremely damaging.

50 comments on “Force of faith trumps law and reason in Ayodhya case

  1. Anonymous
    October 12, 2010

    First of all, Ramlalla was supposedly born 1700,000 years ago.That was 1300,000 years before humans even EXISTED, since scientists say that humans evolved on earth around 400,000 years ago.Some claims have been made that the birth took place around 5000 BC. If that was the case then Lord Ram would still be ruling as an emperor today in Ayodhya because according to hindu mythology after his exile of 15 years and after defeating the armies of Ravana Ram returned to Ayodhya and ruled as an emperor for eleven thousand years. Which would make the year 2000AD the 7th thousand year! and he should still be visibly alive and ruling for the next four thousand years…Non of this birth business therefore makes any sense to me and if the hindu majority want to come up intellectually on par with the global community they will have to give up their attachment to irrational beliefs. Otherwise they will be IT savvy but still with the mindset of stone age homo sapiens.

  2. powerslave
    October 11, 2010

    The very fact that you put forth arguments like BJP government was in place in 2003 when ASI did the excavation show that you have already put a question mark over the whole judicial system.

    Secondly it is amusing to see how you describe SC's decision to not answer a pointed question i.e. whether or not the temple existed at the disputed site; how is it wise ? Because it causes discomfort ? You cannot talk about 'justice' and 'truth' and at the same time support 'politically correct' posturing in the name of suppressing facts.

    Finally this verdict has nothing to do with the demolition of the mosque itself , you are trying to associate the two for obvious reasons.

  3. chandrabose
    October 7, 2010

    the comments are on the expected lines
    keep on the good work siddharth
    the nation needs people like you

  4. Abbas
    October 6, 2010

    anyone still doubting that the ASI faked evidence, here is an article from the Outlook Magazine stating the same

  5. Nachiketh
    October 5, 2010

    Well Mr Varadarajan, Mir Baqi demolished the Ram temple and built a mosque. Why don't you talk about that ? Are you supporting Mir Baqi and Babar ? Are you supported an invader who humiliated this nation ? What if I demolish your house and build my house on top of it. How would you react ? Answer my questions Mr Varadarajan.

  6. Anonymous
    October 4, 2010

    Ganesh, Please read through the relevant parts of the judgement to get answers to your questions. Specifically, read through volume 18 of the judgement of Justice Agarwal. The testimony of people opposed to the ASI report is discussed in detail. Upon cross examination, judges found that the objections to the ASI report are unfounded and contradictory. For example, in their affidavits witness claimed to know which animal the bones found belonged to. However, upon cross examination they backed off from their claims and could not substantiate their affidavit. Upon cross examination, these witnesses also confirmed that animal remains have been found during excavation at many other sites of Hindu temples and therefore animal remains do not preclude existence of any Hindu temple per se.

    Similary, they claimed that the glazed pottery remains indicate that no non-Islamic structure stood at the disputed site. However, on cross examination it was established that glazed pottery re-entered North India after Islamic invasion in the 10th and 11th century. Therefore, existence of glazed pottery in a structure built during 12th century is not surprising.

    I have just given snippets of how the secular lies got unravelled during the hearings. Please read through the judgement to understand more, you will get a good grasp on how these secular fanatics work in tandem.

  7. Sid,
    I used to think that there is less bigotry out there in Indian English blogosphere than Hindi. But looking
    at the comments (anonymous and otherwise) on your post, it seems there is no difference.

  8. Anonymous
    October 3, 2010

    Pathetic Muslim ranting & a lousy propaganda piece without any regard for truth & veracity. Clearly the writer is either a Muslim a la Sanjay Dutt/Rahul Bhatt or a Christian with Hindu name a la Prannoy James Roy/Arundhati Roy or just another loser sore over Hindus' legal victory in Ayodhya.The article can be best described as POS. The writer qualifies to be tried for contempt of court.

  9. Anonymous
    October 2, 2010

    The trouble with such pseudo-secularist columnists /writers is that they have been taught from childhood(a distorted version of History) that everything is hunky dory and historical wrongs never occurred and that to QUOTE”Temples made way for Mosques and Vice Versa” is passe and they don't have the courage to write the Truth because some fundamentalist will threaten them over phone or email.That all of this was normal and the fault lies with the natives(aka Hindus)of India .I request that we should boycott and resist attempts of such people who denigrate their culture and ancient ethos and impose their Leftist views on us.India was and is still being invaded and those who dont learn from history are going to see history repeating itself.I find it really humiliating that a minority ruled us throughout history under army rule under the pain of sword pillaged us and when the majority wants to correct these wrongs in the 21st century by dialogue first and then court these pseudo secularists without reading a 8000 page report and how the judges came to this verdict/conclusion are passing judgement.Do not sit in judgement without facts and figures.

  10. Nazia Mallick
    October 2, 2010

    I agree with @ Charakan’s query.
    However, in my opinion the verdict was the victory of myth over reality. They raze a historical, cultural monument (a crime against heritage) over a faith for which they still do not have “substantial proof”!
    Seriously, we were under the impression that laws are based on evidence; and not faith or some wishy washy beliefs!
    Moreover, if this was the kind verdict they had in mind then why did they wait for 18 years? The demolition was already done on the basis of faith” and “belief”. Why look for “evidence” for all these years and then come up with a ridiculously fake verdict, which would only create a precedent to claim “birthplaces” all over the country and acquire the license to demolish, vandalize and kill.

    On the personal front, if you ask for a Muslim voice, I would say, “Frankly my dear”, I don’t care whether you make a mosque or a temple! I don’t need to go to a mosque to pray, because I carry my faith in my heart and it would never be touched by you …
    But I would surely say, ‘Take your piece of land, make a temple, but for Ram’s sake, punish the criminals who demolished a visibly historical mosque over a “supposed” temple!
    And for once act like a mature, modern, progressive and adult nation. The world is watching you.’

  11. Anonymous
    October 2, 2010

    Now, what should have been the judgement. I think anything against the majority community would have been the great secular judgement.If the two communities could not settle their differences,judicial system did it.
    Now, this system is also not correct.What do we want?
    I think a settlement of this nature will always be an irritant to those who do not want peace.
    I think we should not over react and take it in the best of its spirit.
    I cngratulate all my fellow countrymen, who have shown a great maturity and god bless everyone.

  12. Ganesh
    October 2, 2010

    SV, you seem to join forces with the Marxist fake-historian claims that simply because bones are found, it cannot be a Hindu site. Aren't these same 'historians' alleging/accusing the Hindus of being routine beef eaters in ancient times when it suits their argument that cow slaughter is not to be banned? (BTW I agree that in a secular society we cannot ban food items whether or not anyone agrees with it. Indonesia has not banned pork nor has Malaysia so we should follow that kind of example not that of barbaric societies )

    Could the bones not be from construction worker activities in later ages? Are there not temples that sacrifice animals on premises?

    Isn't it sad to see Marxists masquerading as historians and archaeologists clutching to bits and pieces of vague evidence like a drowning man grabbing a straw, when they should look at the mountain of evidence and acknowledge the truth? That of course, does not mean we should hate Indian Muslims of today, it only means we accept historical realities and pledge not to repeat those mistakes. Just as what Turkey has done. If Romila Thapar and R S Sharma were Turks perhaps Hagia Sophia would have remained a mosque and Turkish govt would have flatly refused to acknowledge anything to the contrary.

  13. Anonymous
    October 2, 2010

    I really don't understand the comments here. The court has given a much-lauded 'Panchayat style' verdict and seeing the sensitivities and checkmate that we've been in for the last 18 years regarding the site, what's wrong with that? There's a saying in a foreign language, the best sailors stand on the dock, we Indians are great at splitting hairs in our living rooms and terrible at taking action.

    Why could we have not resolved the matter together and in so doing pronounce these organizations fighting on our behalf fully irrelevant.

    Secondly, this was a civil suit about titles. I think it might have been much better to have settled the criminal suits over the demolition first. It might have assuaged some very valid griefs. In addition, a public apology by the political parties involved for targeting a place of worship.

  14. Aravind
    October 2, 2010

    The communal lunatics who commented on this page can be classified into 2 categories. One is the anonymus guys that have used common phrases. Possibly a single person who is paid by some foreign agency to be with the anti-nationals trying to break the country on communal lines. The other group consists of named ones but with very poor grammer, probably from the poor hindi belt who are brainwashed enough to be unaware about the reasons for their backwardness.

  15. Sudhir
    October 2, 2010

    Extending you logic of ASI report not being reliable because of the ruling dispensation at that point of time, isn't it safe to say that all our history text books are not reliable too? No?

    – Sudhir

  16. Anonymous
    October 2, 2010

    The court verdict appears to ratify a precedent that legal rights over property can be obtained after illegal entry into the premises.

  17. Charakan
    October 2, 2010

    Good article. But in India faith always trump over logic and reason.A question is whether it is the faith that won or fear.

  18. Anonymous
    October 2, 2010

    Its really nice to see someone talking sense once in a while. That was a good article. Justice should be served no matter what. Just because anti-India elements wish to cause destabilize the situation if their side of the story is not accepted, they should be dealt with separately and in no way should the justice system be affected by their behavior.

  19. Kashmirviews
    October 2, 2010

    Funny…..the judges describe Lord Rama as 'minor' and a litigant through his 'relatives', in the case and some Aggarwal has been given the possession of the property. You see in man's court, lord is a litigant and has legal rights. When a mythological assertion gets a legal stamp backed by spirituality and majority sentiments and not by facts and evidences, one can smell more injustice-sanctioning if similar cases occur in future….

  20. Anonymous
    October 2, 2010

    Well professional secular fundamentalist are the real loser coming out of this judgement and only people like you are sad. You do not sperak for India but but for jnu type jholawalas.
    “For every Hindu who believes the spot under the central dome of the Babri Masjid is the precise spot where Lord Ram was born there is another who believes something else. “
    When did you do this great act of data generation?

  21. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    People at large have welcomed this judgement because it gives legal recognition to some facts that everyone knows– that Hindus consider Ayodhya the birthplace of Ram, that the place where the Babri Masjid existed had a temple, that the masjid was constructed on ruins of the temple and that Hindus have been worshipping on the site for time immemorial. People also like this judgement because it does not decide the issue in absolute terms but gives both sides something, and therefore is a conciliatory judgement.

    I am loving the fact that frothing at the mouth seculars find themselves out of touch with aspirations of the new India. The fact is that these people are fundamentalists, it is just that they have monopolized the discourse at the top.

  22. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    Brilliantly incisive and thought provoking.

  23. saurabh
    October 1, 2010

    or if you are really a good journalist then publish something about CWG corruption that let us down in front of whole world.

    Do you have any national pride the try to find out

    Where is Sonia Gandhi & Rahul Gandhi this time….

  24. Vetrimagal
    October 1, 2010

    Very clearly put forward, for lay people like me. It might open up more problems? This thought flashed in my mind , as I heard the analysis of the verdict on English TV Channels.

  25. saurabh
    October 1, 2010

    What do you think, that you are Indian Version of 'Dan Brown'

  26. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    why u want to create unnecessary problems. When everything is calm why you want to ignite people's feelings.
    May be your narrow leftist mentality or to gain polularity in between monirities.

    for your knowledge the ASI findings were done in presence of both HIndu Group & Muslim groups.

    Your type of people let India to become slave in anciet time.

    you should be banished from India. I think you can do good work in pakistan.

  27. Nazia Mallick
    October 1, 2010

    Mr. Varadarajan, thank you for this article. It comes as the lone sane voice in the insanity that we are witnessing regarding the ‘good judgment’ of evening past.
    Some say it is complex, some say it is good, some are ecstatic, some say they are indifferent.
    No one (read the common man, not the journalists or politician who enjoys certain immunity) has yet said what they truly feel, because they do not wish to appear incorrect, biased, “anti-national” or are scared to stir up the “Hindu wrath”. Obviously no Muslim would dare to speak up openly that they are unhappy with this judgment, which in all means lacks “justice”, because they are vulnerable to the aforementioned “wrath”

    When Uma Bharti said “ek dhakka aur” in 1992, while watching the demolition of the mosque, little did she know that she was uncannily predicting the future of a day- 30th September 2010!
    The verdict indeed is “ek dhakka aur” for those who believed in justice and were waiting too long for it.
    That day on 6th December 1992, when the unmentionable happened, when the stalwarts of this country stood and watched and gleefully applauded the desecration of a 500 year old monument then perhaps they were confident that this day would be the “Vijay Diwas” in true sense for them. They would get away. And they did get away.

  28. sushant jha
    October 1, 2010

    Mr Varadrajan, i agree with most of what you have written. But to say that Tulsidas has not hinted about the Mosque made on the ruins of Ram's birthplace is not perhaps correct. In one of his poems he has written ( तुलसी सरनाम गुलामु है राम को, जाको रुचै सो कहै कछु कोऊ.
    मांगि के खैबो, मसीत को सोइबो, लैबो एकू न दैबो को दोऊ..”)..( Tulsi is the slave of Lord Rama…people may say whatever they want…i may even get food by betting to people and sleeping at Mosque)..Tulsidas has hinted for Babri Mosque as Hindus believed that a place devoted to his Lord is always his whether it is a temple or Mosque. And in those days, Tulsi could not write so openly, so he chose the symbol, otherwise a Hindu saint like Tulsi never needed or wished to have a shelter in a Mosque. It was a special Mosque for him.

  29. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    Dear Siddarth,

    the real threat that this country is facing is from the pseudo secular opinions and people who for the sake of putting forward an opinion for want of some appreciation pollute the environment by diluting the religious sentiment and traditions… i am sorry to say when you make a comparison of this sort how Buddhist temples paved way for the Hindu temples and vice versa.. It is actually the same shallow self centered argument that created division between Hinduism and Buddhism and Jainism for that matter…it has been a common practice in every hindu home to worship the jain saints, the Buddhist deities like other Hindu Gods are worshiped.. and if you have little understanding of the practices and wisdom of these faiths.. you would know very clearly that they talk and point towards the same using the same technique… though in a different language….

    I wonder why the people of this country glorify historical building and monuments that should have been treated with shame the same way the concentration camps of Hitler are treated in Germany and Austria today….

    I feel sorry. I feel sorry when any religious sentiment is hurt. I feel lot of pain for what happened in dec 1992. I feel even more pain what happened to various historical temples and educational institutions of India that were demolished by the invaders… It is the same pain…

    if you want to go back… then go back to that point in time that is known to mankind… that would the spirit to see this matter the right way..


  30. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    Do you have a copy of the ASI report? Some members of the team from the ASI doing this study and his views seem to be closer to this sorry that obscure link is all I could find.

  31. Shriya Mohan
    October 1, 2010

    Brilliant piece.

  32. HDB
    October 1, 2010

    Yes, this was on much expected lines from you.

    What all three judges agreed on was: 1. A temple existed there before mosque, 2. A mosque cant be raise on a razed temple, 3. Material used for building mosque was that of a razed temple. 4. Hindus are using it as a place of worship since time immemorial, 5. Muslims are not using it as a mosque since time immemorial. But, siddharth, what ever you are made of, you say the mosque is 500 years old, what makes you say that when judgement itself is not conclusive about it?

    I am sure, for every finding that ASI does, you will have 10s of historians and archeologists in your brethren that will dispute it. For journalism standard that you strive for, it would have been good if you could have given link to ASI disputes and reputation of the disputers.

    When you say “So even if a temple was demolished in the 16th century to make way for the Babri Masjid, what legal relevance can that have in the 21st century?” you miss one very important point. This case is not about legality, it is more about justice. That the site is very important for Hindus (not your paper who is using “The Hindu”) and only token for Muslims. So, drawing line is very easy, how important the structure is for the religion in historical and current context. Though it may open a few more issues, it may bring in communal harmony that is at premium in our land.

  33. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    Sir why don't you tell us your real name ????? or why don't you convert to Islam ????

  34. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    Hi Siddharth,

    I thoroughly agree with your opinion. Though in it's own self it'll still be considered a piece of writing by the bureaucrats. You see the legal & ethical state of a country can only be examined by the no. of crimes in a country. I don't think despite of being in such an advanced state of civilization our country still has achieved the state of mind to be there. This issue was not only about a mosque or a temple. It was about the legitimate state and moral values of a country. In few words Indian Political Structure has failed it's own self in proving to be an ethical society. To every boom there is a recession. This day will mark to be a turning point in the downfall of this country and the generations to come. Thanks!!

  35. Deepa
    October 1, 2010


    You have rightly pointed out that “faith” cannot become the arbiter for what is right and wrong in law. Going by they typical definition of what law is and how law operates, words like “belief” and “faith” are abstract words that cannot serve as sound evidence or proof for proving something. And yet, that has been the case in the verdict.
    It seems like a perfect compromise theory to shush the nation in some ways (though the matter can still be taken up by the apex court, thankfully).
    The ASI's surveys serve no purpose as they are influenced by political motives.
    The entire 'issue' has been politicized by various political parties to suit their needs. Poor Lord Rama or Allah must be sighing in pain. And, the verdict has probably added to it

    Deepa Ranganathan
    Trainee Journalist

  36. Inquisitive
    October 1, 2010


    Can you please provide a list of some of the archeologists and historians who claim that there was no structure.

    Also did ASI present any corroborating evidence? You know, like items that were excavated?

    I would like to ascertain just how biased and blind our court of law is to reality… and how easy it is for the Indian government to manipulate an autonomous body like ASI.

    If that is so then I would certainly like to discover under whose was this spineless system created, and the last thing I would like to know is… Is the power being misused in the same way today when Bee jaay pee is nowhere near it?

    Please do tell

  37. S. Sridhar
    October 1, 2010


    In the maze of articles on the judgment, yours was the lone dissenting voice and with profound logic. I strongly agree that this could open up a Pandoras box with respect to a lot of similar such places of worship..

    I am also amazed that there is absolutely no mention of the so called “disputed structure” being razed down by fanatics / kar sevaks.

    While everyone expected this to be “please-all” soft judgment, no one is able to specifically point to what the inference is and hence how is the judgment associated to that.

    Thank you for a well written article.

  38. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    >”Force of faith trumps law “

    Please give us a break. The judges know more about law than you I guess!

  39. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    Can you please substantiate, following piece of article with proofs or guide me to the related documents/news article etc.

    is full of buildings that were constructed after pre-existing structures were demolished to make for them. Buddhist shrines made way for Hindu temples. Temples have made way for mosques. Mosques have made way for temples.

    Since all the three sentences use plural reference to give more one instance.


  40. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    Dear Sid,

    My first reading of the judgment summary was similar to what you have stated, a controversial judgment where the honorable judges have gone not by hard evidence but matters of faith. But seriously, could any other judgment other than status quo ante have been expected?

    Having said that, shouldn't we wait for the 8000 pages full judgment to understand rationale and basis?

    Also your suggestion on the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi is inappropriate. The Places of Worship Act 1991 does not apply to only the Ramjanmabhoomi dispute. Bringing Varanasi into your argument is according to me a clear example of your prejudiced position (or shall we say well-known opinionanted view of the Sangh Parivar coming in front of impartial analysis).

    We can always go back and argue that the rule of the law, commitment to Supreme Court etc were trampled upon in 1992 but then that does not mean it will happen again. We have not had a declaration of Internal Emergency since Indira Gandhi's misadventure. Have we?


  41. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    People like you will sell your souls to please the minority, the so called sudeo secular forget that its only in india that the all kind of religions are given the freedom of their faith, but the muslim dominated countries never allow any other faith to flourish and neither any kind of building is allowed to be consutructed other than a mosque. Hindus have faced the barbarism of the invaders because of people like you, as you dont have the balls to stand for your own community and will sell your soul to aplease those who are in power. You never raise your voice for the number of kashmiri pandits who have been killed, and neither you will raise your voice on the riots of 84 where thousands of sikhs were slautred. But you will only see what you want to see, you will keep on barking about ghodra not cause you care about the minority, but cause you get funded by the congress. I hope people like you rot in hell till the end of time for your deeds as you are the people who divide the sociecty who insigate and show that the hindus have always been communal, but will never do any kind of introspection about the atrocities that hindus have endured across the millenia. Now go service your masters.

  42. kiki
    October 1, 2010


  43. अफ़लातून
    October 1, 2010

    अयोध्या में1949 के पहले जो समाधान चला आ रहा था उसको दूसरी बार तोड़ने में साम्प्रदायिक ताकतों को 60 साल लग गये। उसी प्रकार मौजूदा काशी विश्वनाथ मंदिर के बारे में अहिल्याबाई के समय से काशी की विद्वत परिषद और मुसलमानों ने एक समाधान निकाला जो अब तक लागू है और सिर्फ़ अशोक सिंघल सरीखे तत्वों को आपत्तिजनक लगता है। कथित ऐतिहासिक तथ्यों में अंग्रेजों की भूमिका भी गौरतलब है।
    तुलसी कहते थे ,’मांग के खईबो,मसीद(मस्जिद) में सोईबो’तथा परहित सरिस धरम नहीं भाई,परपीड़ा सम नहि अधमाई’!

  44. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    the allahabad high court had to go with asi which is another govt body findings whether you like it or not. the supreme court didnt have this report available during 1993

    while you say that

    The “faith and belief” that the court speaks about today acquired salience only after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bharatiya Janata Party launched a political campaign in the 1980s to “liberate” the “janmasthan”.

    another fellow historian who doesnt believe ayodhya temple existed(mukul kesavan) thinks 1949 installaition of idols was what caused it to acquire salience? who among you is right? please decide amongst yourself

    if you do not want the righting of historical wrongs, then why are you in favour building mosque which was destroyed on dec 6 which is another wrong according to you? you cannot apply your rules selectively.

    if you feel that asi in 2003 was biased by bjp, the rest of the history as written which argues against the existence of temple was not written during bjp rule. so are you saying that even that is a lie as the non bjp govts deny the existence of temple.

  45. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    One can understand the disappointment of our Stalinists and their camp followers wearing the convenient 'secular' mask. They were looking forward to pouring vitriol and abuse on anyone that murmured anything against the verdict, should it go fully against the majority community. They were ready with the usual hate campaign and liberal use of terms like 'fascist'. Perhaps they were also looking forward to riots on the street and chaos which benefits their idols in Alimuddin Street.

    But all that is not happening. The only voices against this judgement are the leftist voices rendered more or less jobless. The Muslims are showing remarkable restraint and so are the Hindus. But that is not the way our anarchists want. Ever heard of Stalinism and mass murderer rapist goon ideologies triumphing in peaceful societies?

    These voices which until yesterday preaching everyone to respect verdict are now shouting 'one sided', biased, panchayat justice and so one. You dont need rich imagination to imagine what these very same people would have said if any Hindu leader said the same thing.

    Both Hindu and Muslim community elders should now put their heads together and resolve this peacefully in a spirit of give and take. And consign the words of trouble makers and fake secular anarchists to the septic tank of history where they have been dumped in much of the civilised world.

  46. LifeObserver
    October 1, 2010


    Seems like your long held campaign against the Hindutvavadis is now unravelling with the Allahabad HC almost giving permission for some sort of Ram temple to be built. If the temple does get built – what would be the credibility of all your campaigns until now ?. Zilch…in front of the common man whose opinions you want to influence. ?

    Now you state
    “Pursuant to this question, it asked the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a dig at the site. This was done in 2003, during the time when the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government was in power at the Centre. Not surprisingly, the ASI concluded that there was a “massive Hindu religious structure” below, a finding that was disputed by many archaeologists and historians.”

    What conclusive proof do you or the people claiming 'archaeological fraud' have – to establish that the NDA influenced ASI to doctor its excavation evidence reports. The excavation itself was done under videography and extensive photography recording, in presence of both groups of people fighting this case. But still the process and its scientific output is deemed unacceptable ….why is it because it clearly displays that there did exist Hindu temples (not one but actually two, built in separate times and violated upon the same number of times) upon which the Masjid-i-Janmasthan had been built ?.

    Also this judgement has been given in the period of Congress Majority led UPA-2's governance , particularly in a juncture when Rahul Gandhi is successfully wooing muslim voters back into the party's fold. So do you mean to say Congress has also influenced the outcome of this decision…. because all political parties are to selfishly twist and corrupt events to their favour…isnt it ?

    There was a Muslim judge involved in the decision making process too . Suprisingly and in a fear inducing way – he states that he came to his decisions without considering much of the archeological evidences and instead bases the reasons for his decisions on certain historical islamic events & concepts rather than the Indian law code under which he is supposed to function.

    But i suppose all the above points might be too jarring to be considered when you compile your posts on the events. Of course this is your posting abode and you are one more of the proverbial yarn spinners who need to do it to keep yourself under the illusion that you are ethically analysing and writing on a subject/event.

  47. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    ” Temples have made way for mosques. Mosques have made way for temples.”

    Really, how many mosques have made way for temples?
    Freaking liar…

  48. Max
    October 1, 2010

    Of course all religions are based on faith and beliefs.

    It was the same 'Force of faith trumps law and reason' case when the film Da Vinci code was released in India and Christians objected to it.

    Since its a religious issue faith and beliefs has got a role to play in it.I don't understand why you have to criticize the judgement so much

  49. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010

    these “historic” judgments will tantamount to distorted history, wherein ram will be taught in history books..!! aptly pointed by you, this will set a precedence for “politicians looking to come to power on the basis of heightening religious tensions”…

  50. sanjay
    October 1, 2010

    Where did you get the precise '500' number for the age of the structure that stands there ? An approximation rounded to the highest whole number ?

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on October 1, 2010 by in Communal Violence, Indian Politics.



%d bloggers like this: