http://expressbuzz.com/nation/hindus-muslims-to-share-ayodhya-site/211296.html

Hindus, Muslims to share Ayodhya site

AgenciesFirst Published : 30 Sep 2010 05:26:16 PM ISTLast Updated : 30 Sep 2010 06:00:01 PM IST

LUCKNOW: The majority judgement by the Allahabad High Court ordered the disputed land to be distributed among the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party for 'Ram Lalla', say lawyers.


Justice D V Sharma decreed the title suit in favour of Hindus , said lawyer K N Bhatt, who represented the party on behalf of 'Ram Lalla'.

Status quo will be maintained at the disputed site in Ayodhya for three months, claimed lawyers Ravi Shanker Prasad and K N Bhatt.

Justice S U Khan ruled that the disputed land belongs to both the communities, say lawyers.

Further details of the split judgment by the Allahabad High Court on the Ayodhya title case are awaited

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Leone a true Canadian DESI now back in India !.

All of you guys who went to town talking about India Shining/Super power please respond to this judgement.

May be some of us are kissing the firangis butt and not supportive of India.

But what do you say for this?.

Ayodhyapathi Ram has no place in his own town.

It is just like a NRI who has a flat in Worli suddenly finds that his flat has been taken over by Shiv Sena because he was away in foreign land.


The Sri Ram Raksha Stotra has to be narrated by Shri Ram himself to save his property.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6423917/Sri-Rama-Raksha-StotraEnglish-Translation

Thus begins the hymn of Lord Ram for protection
OM, Salutations to Lord Ganesh.
(Note - Every mantra has a deity, shakti and central point in addition to its author,

meter and type of usage.) The author of this hymn is Buddhakaushika. The deity is Sri Sita-Ramachandra. The
metre is anushtup. The power is Sita, central point is Hanuman, and the usage is
recitation.

Thus begins the dhyana (meditation) of this mantra. One should meditate on Rama who has arms reaching his knees, who is holding a bow and arrow, who is seated in a lotus position, who is wearing yellow clothes, whose eyes compete with petals of a fresh lotus, who looks satisfied, whose eyes are fixed on the lotus-like face of Sita sitting in his left lap, whose color is like that of rain cloud, who has adorned different jewelery, who is wearing hair reaching up to his thighs.
The life story of Sri Rama has a vast expanse and each and every letter of it is cLet us meditate on the lotus-eyed, dark-complexioned Rama who is well-adorned with a crown of hair and has Sita and Lakshmana by his side. Let us meditate on Rama who has a sword in a receptacle and bow and arrows, who destroyed the demons, who is not born but is incarnated to protect the world with his actions.
May the learned read the Rama Raksha Stotram, which destroys all sins and grants all desires. (Begin listing details of the body to be protected)
May Rama who is Raghu's descendant protect my head. May Rama who is
Dasharatha's son protect my forehead.

May the lord Rama who is Kausalya's son, protect my eyes. May Rama who is the
favorite of Vishvamitra protect my ears. May Rama who is the savior of yagya
protect my nose. May Rama who is affectionate to Lakshmana protect my mouth.
May the Rama who is a sea of knowledge protect my tongue. May Rama who is
saluted by Bharata protect my neck. May Rama who holds divine weapons protect
my two shoulders. May Rama who broke Shiva's bow protect my two upper arms.

May the Rama who is the husband of Sita protect my two hands. May Rama who conquered Parashurama protect my heart. May Rama who killed the rakshasa named Khara protect my abdomen. May Rama who gave refuge to Jambavad protect my navel. May Rama who is master of SugrIva protect my waist. May Rama who is master of
Hanuman protect my two hips. May Rama who is the best of Raghus and who
destroyed the lineage of Rakshasas (demons) protect my two thighs.

May Rama who built the bridge protect my two knees. May Rama who killed the ten
faced demons protect my two shins. May Rama who gave wealth to Vibhishan
protect my two feet. Thus may Rama protect my entire body.

May the good man who reads this 'stotra', which has all the power of Rama, be blessed with long life, happiness, children, success and humility. No one who is wandering below the earth or on the earth or above the earth or those
who wander surreptitiously changing their forms, will even be able to see the man capable of destroying even the greatest sins of mankind.

and it goes on.


The location of the small temple or Ram Janmabhoomi is to be built into a temple the rest of the place to be measured and given away.

Lord Ram now has to find a small shack in settle in the basement.

Very curious that they did not have an Anthony as a judge. This would have finished the Amar Akbar Anthony trio and Anthony could have also said they could build a church there to keep balance.

Banana Republic of India.

My verdict this is the first sign about the shift in power equation in India.

India Gone Baby Gone.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Leone a true Canadian DESI now back in India !.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article804632.ece?homepage=true
Court orders 3-way division of disputed Ayodhya land
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday ruled by a majority verdict that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided equally into three parts among Hindus and Muslims and that the place where the makeshift temple of Lord Ram exists belongs to Hindus.

In their separate judgements on the sensitive 60-year-old title dispute on Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid structure, Justices S.U. Khan and Sudhir Agarwal said that the area under the central dome of the three-domed structure where Lord Ram’s idol exists belongs to Hindus.

The majority in the three-judge Lucknow bench also ruled that status quo should be maintained at the disputed place for three months.

Justices Khan and Agarwal decreed that the 2.7-acre land comprising the disputed site should be divided into three equal parts and be given to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party representing ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’ (the Ram deity).

However, the third judge Justice D.V. Sharma ruled that that the disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram and that the disputed building constructed by Mughal emperor Babar was built against the tenets of Islam and did not have the character of the mosque.

"Joint title owners"

Justice Khan said “all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F in the map Plan—I prepared by Shri Shiv Shankar Lal, Pleader/Commissioner appointed by court in Suit No. 1 to the extent of 1/3rd share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.”

However, the judge observed that it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.

He also said that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words ‘Ram Chabutra’ and ‘Sita Rasoi’ in the said map.

Justice Khan said even though all the three parties are declared to have one-third share each, “however, if while allotting exact portions, some minor adjustments in the share is to be made, then the same will be made and the adversely-affected party may be compensated by some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the central government.”

Mosque built on temple's ruins, not by demolishing temple: Justice Khan

In his gist of findings, Justice Khan observed that the disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under the orders of Babar but it is not proved by direct evidence that the premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who built it.

He also said that no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque as it was built over the ruins of temple which was lying for a very long time.

Idol shall not be obstructed: Justice Agarwal

In his judgement, Justice Agarwal said “it is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus belong to plaintiffs (party on behalf of Lord Rama) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants.”

He also observed that the area within the inner courtyard excepting some portion belongs to members of both the communities, Hindus and Muslims, since it was being used by both since decades and centuries.

“It is, however, made clear that the for the purpose of share of plaintiffs (parties on behalf of Lord Rama) under this direction”, the area which is covered by central dome of the three-domed structure, shall also be included, he said.

Justice Agarwal said the area covered by structures Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi Akhara and they shall be entitled to possession thereof, in the absence of any person with better title.

Wakf Board reaction

The U.P. Sunni Wakf Board will appeal against the division of disputed land among three parties, its lawyer Zafaryab Jilani said.

Chaos at media centre after verdict

Pandemonium broke out at the special media room set up in Lucknow shortly after the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute was pronounced.

As soon as the three-judge bench comprising Justices D.V. Sharma, Sudhir Agarwal and S.U. Khan, delivered their verdict, lawyers of the litigants rushed to the media centre and began giving their interpretations on the verdict.

At least 20 lawyers were on the dais giving their versions of the verdict in the 60-year-old title suit on the ownership of the piece of land where the Babri Masjid built in 1528 once stood.

Lawyers from both sides showed the victory sign. The media jostled hard to hear them but with many speaking at the same time, there was utter confusion.

With synopsis of the judgements not being made available immediately, the scribes had to go by what the lawyers said.

Over 600 journalists from across the country had gathered at the District Magistrate’s office in Qaiserbagh area in Lucknow to report on the High Court verdict.

At least 40 outdoor broadcast (OB) vans of various television channels were stationed in the compound to beam live the developments.

Several shops and business establishments, which were open earlier in the day, downed their shutters as the day progressed.

Inside the court premises, the passage leading to Court No. 21, where the verdict in the six-decade-old case was pronounced, was cordoned off and entry allowed only to the parties to the dispute and their lawyers.

Heavy presence of police personnel was seen on the way near Court Nos. 18, 19 and 20 and the special Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid section near Court No. 21.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Leone a true Canadian DESI now back in India !.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vandematram









http://expressbuzz.com/nation/hindus-muslims-to-share-ayodhya-site/211296.html

Hindus, Muslims to share Ayodhya site

AgenciesFirst Published : 30 Sep 2010 05:26:16 PM ISTLast Updated : 30 Sep 2010 06:00:01 PM IST

LUCKNOW: The majority judgement by the Allahabad High Court ordered the disputed land to be distributed among the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party for 'Ram Lalla', say lawyers.


Justice D V Sharma decreed the title suit in favour of Hindus , said lawyer K N Bhatt, who represented the party on behalf of 'Ram Lalla'.

Status quo will be maintained at the disputed site in Ayodhya for three months, claimed lawyers Ravi Shanker Prasad and K N Bhatt.

Justice S U Khan ruled that the disputed land belongs to both the communities, say lawyers.

Further details of the split judgment by the Allahabad High Court on the Ayodhya title case are awaited

---

OMG !.

This verdict is really something fishy.

Why are the three judges contradicting themselves?.

PC-Police Constable of the Kangress Party also the Kitchen minister of India says that status quo will exist until Supreme Court decides and he will still hold the Babri Demolition as a criminal act.

This is a total Kangress Engineered verdict.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/columnists/verdict-���-a-prologue/211591.html

Verdict — a prologue

S GurumurthyFirst Published : 02 Oct 2010 11:52:00 PM ISTLast Updated : 02 Oct 2010 01:07:54 AM IST

My judgment is short, very short”, writes a relieved and happy Justice S U Khan who delivered the Ayodhya judgment along with Justice S Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma. But that “short, very short” judgment itself runs to 285 pages. The order of Justice S Agarwal, with annexes, runs to over, believe it, 5,200 pages; that of Justice D V Sharma tops over 1,700 pages including annexes. It means this: to get a basic idea of the Ayodhya judgment one has to wade through some 8,000 pages. This may well enter the Guinness book as the longest judgment ever written! But what the visual media and participants in debates had in their hands when they enlightened the nation for almost four hours on the judgment was a one-page summary of Justice Khan’s order; a two-page summary of Justice Sharma’s, and a 12-page summary of Justice Agarwal’s. Yet, in a couple of hours they settled the national opinion on the long judgment of 8,000 pages!


The “quality” of their discourse was self-evident, even self-serving. The visual media continuously ran headlines like “no temple was demolished to build mosque”, when the majority finding on the issue, by Justices Agarwal (p5083) and Sharma (p28-104 in Waqf Board Suit) was that the mosque “had been constructed on the site of Hindu temple after demolishing the same”; the judges had found that the Hindus had for long worshipped the place where the mosque stood as Ram Janma Bhoomi (Sharma p172 Hindu Suit and Agarwal p5085). Most media projected Justice Sharma’s views as minority view. Actually it is Justice Khan’s that turns out to be that way, except on the division of the disputed area where Justice Agarwal partly agrees with him. But on the issue of the broken temple predating the mosque and on the belief of the Hindus about the birthplace of Rama, Justice Agarwal and Justice Sharma constitute a majority. Even Justice Khan does not deny the existence of the broken temple but says the mosque was built on temple ruins.

Again, the media did not highlight that the two judges have dismissed the suits of the Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara (believed to be the proxy for the Congress party), and also that the two judges have decreed only the two suits filed by the Hindu parties. The consequence of this is immense, as will be unveiled in the next part of this article.

The opinion about the Ayodhya judgment has been sealed by the television discourse very much like it happens in the case of budget papers. The discourse was less about the judgment and more about politics like whether the court was right on deciding religious issues such as whether it was Rama Janmasthan or there was a temple under the mosque. The media also wailed about why the nation should be wasting time on the temple issue when developmental issues are crying for attention. Each of these comments is valid in itself; but they are no substitute for a rigorous analysis of the verdict. Almost all commentators recalled the 1992 demolition, but did not say that Justice Agarwal (page 586) had concluded that that did not affect the rights of the Muslims in their suit. Thus the millions who witnessed TV channels did not get the right idea about the judgment.

And most of those who commented on the judgment were elated by how the court had showed great “statesmanship” in giving a third of the disputed place to Muslims. They also gloated over how that gesture could promote secularism in India. But they did not stop a minute to ask (unlike legal experts Rajeev Dhawan, regarded as a secular icon, and P P Rao did) how, after saying that the Muslims and Nirmohi Akhara had no right to sue, the two judges could give any share of the property to them.

Political parties need votes; so they would speak only with that in view. But should these experts and intellectuals not call a spade a spade? Also point out what the court has actually found as facts? They didn’t. Therefore, the start of a national discourse on such a critical legal issue, with huge political and communal implications, could not have been shallower. For the last 20 years all political parties and secular intellectuals had told those who were for the Ram temple and those against to wait for the judicial verdict for resolving the dispute.

There were four suits in all before the judges — two by Hindu parties; one by Muslims (Sunni Waqf Board), and the fourth, widely believed to be the proxy of the Congress (Nirmohi Akhara) . Some 121 issues were framed in the suits — like whether the mosque was constructed on a temple demolished or in ruins; whether the Hindus had a long held belief that the disputed place was the birthplace of Rama; whether the four suits were within the period of limitation set by law; whether and how long the Hindus were worshipping at the disputed place; whether the Muslims were also worshipping in that place and from when to when; who owns the disputed land, the Waqf, Nirmohi Akhara, or the deity Rama. While the Hindus’ suit had claimed the Janmasthan as exclusively that of the deity Rama, the Sunni Waqf Board suit had claimed it as exclusively its own, the Nirmohi Akhara suit had claimed it again as its exclusive property. In law, this mutually exclusive claim of the three contenders meant that, if the suit of any one was allowed that would destroy the suit of the other two. This was how the cases, three of which were filed in 1989, the first one by the Hindus having been filed in 1950, began — with the parties letting in oral and documentary evidence first and then arguing the case later.

The principal issue in the case was: whether the disputed place belonged to the deity Rama, or the mosque or the Nirmohi Akhara. The critical fact to be found was whether a Hindu temple predating the disputed mosque existed. To unravel that the Allahabad High Court had directed the Archeological Survey of India to find out “whether there was any temple/structure which was demolished and mosque constructed on the disputed site” first by Ground Penetrating Radar (GRP) survey and, thereafter, by excavation. The ASI conducted the GRP survey and submitted a report in February 2003; after that it excavated the disputed area and submitted a further report of 574 pages. What was ASI’s answer to the all-important question of temple under the mosque? How have the three judges have decided the cases? What are the legal, political implications of the decision? A clinical dissection will reveal whether the verdict solves the dispute, or escalates it. Await the next part.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Leone a true Canadian DESI now back in India !.

I apologize to the non tamil readers of CD for this posting.

I was requested by Rajcanada - Moderator not to post in tamil in this website.

This article is of outmost importance and hence I could not resist posting this here.

Hope tamil readers will get a gist of what this Ayodhya verdict has been engineered by the government and also this opens up more questions than solving some.


The question raised by the following editorial in a leading tamil newspaper is that if there is a property whose title is with owner and his property is taken over by another and then he leases it another. Now the third party pays all the taxes and maintains that property.

When the property ownership comes under question then the real owner of the property is the title owner. But the persons deciding it say it belongs equally to the title owner, the guy who took over possession and also to the tenant.

Please think if tomorrow if I forcibly take over your home in Mississauga and then rent it out and the matter goes to litigation and the court says that it has three owners that you, me and the tenant and will you accept the verdict?.

Two judges have said that the title of the property is a hindu temple. Hence the rightfull owner is the hindu temple and NOT to be shared with Wakf board or the other Kangress group.

This verdict is a very dangerour verdict and the each of the judges have supported their own community.

Isn't the law above the community and is also supposed to be blind?.

Think before we go to town saying that the temple belongs to Ram. The whole property belongs to Ram.

A guy named Mohammad raised the same question on the Voice Radio yesterday. He said that eventhough he is a Muslim he felt that this verdict was a hosh-posh and they should have awarded this to the Hindus. He further asked what will people do when on Ram Navami if the temple is doing a Mangal Aarti while the mosque gives out a call for prayers and then people perform namaaz on the next site?.

What will happen when a kid throws a stone into the mosque from the temple side?.

People have not thought through the consequence of these questions.

It happens only in India.
http://www.dinamani.com/edition/story.aspx?&SectionName=Editorial&artid=311421&SectionID=132&MainSectionID=132&SEO=&Title=

தலையங்கம்: அரசியல்தனமான தீர்ப்பு!

First Published : 01 Oct 2010 03:12:45 AM IST

Last Updated : 01 Oct 2010 03:15:36 AM IST

ஒருவரின் வம்சாவளியாக வந்த இடத்தை இன்னொருவர் ஆக்கிரமித்துக் கொள்கிறார். அதில் வேறொருவர் வாடகைக்கு இருக்கிறார். அவர்தான் வீட்டுவரி உள்பட அந்த இடத்துக்கான எல்லா பங்களிப்பையும் ஏற்றுக்கொண்டிருக்கிறார். பல ஆண்டுகளுக்குப் பிறகு அந்த இடம் யாருக்குச் சொந்தம் என்று பிரச்னை எழுகிறது. அந்தப் பகுதியின் முக்கியஸ்தர் முன்னிலையில் பஞ்சாயத்து நடக்கிறது. மூன்று தரப்பினரிடமும் பட்டாவோ, பத்திரமோ இல்லாத நிலையில், அந்த இடத்தை மூன்றாகப் பிரித்துக் கொள்ளக் கட்டைப் பஞ்சாயத்தில் முடிவாகிறது.


கட்டைப் பஞ்சாயத்துக்கு இது சரி. ஆனால், நீதிமன்றத்திலும் இப்படியெல்லாம் ஒரு தீர்ப்பு எழுதப்பட முடியுமா? முடியும் என்பதை அயோத்திப் பிரச்னையில் அலாகாபாத் உயர் நீதிமன்றம் வழங்கியிருக்கும் தீர்ப்பு தெளிவுபடுத்துகிறது.


இப்படி ஒரு தீர்ப்புக்காகவா இத்தனை முன்னேற்பாடுகளும், ஏகப்பட்ட பந்தோபஸ்துகளும் என்று கேள்வி எழுப்பாமல் இருக்க முடியவில்லை. அதுமட்டுமல்ல, இந்தத் தீர்ப்பை எதிர்த்து உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தில் மேல் முறையீடு செய்யப்படும் என்பதை உணர்ந்தே தீர்ப்பு வழங்கப்பட்டிருப்பதுபோல இருக்கிறது.


நீதித்துறை வரம்பு மீறுகிறது, நிர்வாக முடிவுகளை நீதித்துறை எடுக்க எத்தனிக்கிறது என்றெல்லாம் அரசியல்வாதிகள் குரலெழுப்பி வந்தனர். இப்போது, அரசியல்வாதிகள் செய்திருக்க வேண்டிய விஷயத்தை, நீதிமன்றம் அவர்கள் சார்பில் செய்து முடித்திருக்கிறது, யாரும் மூச்சுவிடவில்லையே, ஏன்?


அயோத்திப் பிரச்னையில், இரண்டு முக்கியமான கேள்விகள். ஒன்று, \"ராமஜென்மபூமி' என்கிற இடத்தில் ராமர் கோயில் இருந்ததா என்கிற இந்துக்களின் நம்பிக்கை சம்பந்தப்பட்ட கேள்வி. இந்தக் கேள்விக்கு அலாகாபாத் நீதிமன்றம், தொல்லியல் ஆய்வுத்துறையின் அறிக்கையின் அடிப்படையில் ஒரு தெளிவான தீர்ப்பை வழங்கி இருக்கிறது. அதிலும் குறிப்பாக, நீதிபதி எஸ்.யு. கானும், நீதிபதி சுதிர் அகர்வாலும் வழங்கி இருக்கும் தீர்ப்பு மிகவும் தெளிவாகவே இருக்கிறது.


தொல்லியல் ஆய்வுத்துறையின் அறிக்கையின்படி, அந்தப் பகுதியில் ஒரு புராதனக் கோயில் இருந்ததற்கான அடையாளங்கள் காணப்படுகின்றன என்றும், அது ராமர் கோயில்தானா என்பது தெரியாது என்றும் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டிருக்கிறது. கோயிலை இடித்துத்தான் மசூதி எழுப்பப்பட்டது என்பதற்கான சான்றுகள் எதுவும் இல்லை. பாழடைந்து கிடந்த கோயிலின் மீதுகூட மசூதி கட்டப்பட்டிருக்கலாம் என்று தொல்லியல் ஆய்வுத்துறை அறிக்கை குறிப்பிடுகிறது.


அதன் அடிப்படையிலும், \"நம்பிக்கை'யின் அடிப்படையிலும் மூன்று நீதிபதிகளுமே, இடிக்கப்பட்ட பாபர் மசூதியில் மத்திய வளைவுகோபுரத்தினடியில் ராமர் விக்கிரகங்கள் இருந்த இடம், ராமர் வழிபாட்டுத்தலமாகவே தொடர வேண்டும் என்று தீர்ப்பு வழங்கி இருக்கிறார்கள். அதாவது, மத நம்பிக்கையின் அடிப்படையில் எழுப்பப்பட்ட, \"இது ராமர் ஜென்மபூமிதானா?' என்கிற கேள்விக்கு, தெளிவாகவே பதில் அளிக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறது. அதன்படி அங்கே ராமர் கோயில் எழுப்புவதைத் தீர்ப்பு உறுதி செய்திருக்கிறது.


நம்பிக்கையின் அடிப்படையில் தீர்ப்பு வழங்க வேண்டியது அரசியல் தலைவர்கள்தான். அது, சமரச முயற்சியாக இருக்க வேண்டுமே தவிர, நீதிமன்றத் தீர்ப்பாக இருக்க முடியாது. இருக்கக் கூடாது என்பதுதான் நியாயமான எதிர்பார்ப்பு! ஆனால் என்ன செய்வது? அரசியல் தலைமையின் கையாலாகாத்தனம், நீதிமன்றம் நம்பிக்கைப் பிரச்னைகளில் தீர்ப்பெழுத வேண்டியிருக்கிறது.


அடுத்த கேள்வி, ராமர் ஜென்மபூமி என்று இந்துக்களாலும், பாப்ரி மஸ்ஜித் என்று இஸ்லாமியர்களாலும் சொந்தம் கொண்டாடப்படும் அந்த இடம் யாருக்குச் சொந்தம் என்பது. ஒரு நீதிமன்றத்தின் பணி நம்பிக்கைக்குத் தீர்ப்புக் கூறுவதல்ல. சட்டப்படி, இடம் யாருக்குச் சொந்தம் என்று தீர்மானிப்பதுதான்.


அலாகாபாத் உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தின் முன்னால் இருந்த கேள்வி, பாபர் மசூதி அல்லது ராம ஜென்மபூமி என்று கருதப்படும் இடம் யாருக்குச் சொந்தம் என்பதுதானேதவிர, அங்கே இருப்பது, இருக்க வேண்டியது ராமர் கோயிலா அல்லது மசூதியா என்பது அல்ல.


மகந்த் ரகுவர்தாஸ் என்பவர் 1885-லேயே ஃபைசாபாத் கீழமை நீதிமன்றத்தில் பாபர் மசூதிக் கட்டடத்தின் அருகில் ராமர் கோயில் கட்ட அனுமதி கோரி ஒரு மனு தாக்கல் செய்தார். 1949-ல் ராமர் விக்கிரகங்கள் உள்ளே வைக்கப்பட்டு பூஜை தொடங்கியது. நீதிமன்ற உத்தரவின் பேரில் வழக்கு சொத்து ஆளுநர் (ரிசீவர் நியமிக்கப்பட்டு, பிரச்னைக்குரிய இடம் நீதிமன்றக் கட்டுப்பாட்டுக்குள் எடுத்துக்கொள்ளப்பட்டது. இந்த இடத்தைத் தங்களிடம் ஒப்படைக்கச் சொல்லி பூஜை செய்ய உரிமை கோரிய கோபால்சிங் விஷாரத், ராம் சபூத்ரா பகுதிக்குச் சொந்தக்காரர்களான நிர்மோகி அகாராக்காரர்கள், உத்தரப் பிரதேச சுன்னி முஸ்லிம் வக்ஃப் வாரியம் ஆகிய மூவரும் உரிமை கொண்டாடித் தொடர்ந்த வழக்குதான், இப்போது அலாகாபாத் உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் தீர்ப்பாகி இருக்கிறது.


நல்லவேளை, இதேபோல இன்னும் ஐந்தாறு பேர் தங்களுக்குத்தான் இந்த இடம் சொந்தம் என்று வழக்குத் தொடர்ந்திருந்தால் அவர்களுக்கும் ஒரு பங்கை வழங்கி சுமுகமான சமரசத்துக்கு வழிவகுக்கும் தீர்ப்பு வழங்கப்பட்டிருக்குமோ என்னவோ? இடத்துக்குச் சொந்தம் கொண்டாடி வழக்குத் தொடர்ந்த மூன்று தரப்பினரிடமும், முழுமையான ஆதாரங்கள் எதுவும் இல்லை என்பதும், தெளிவாக இடம் இன்னாருக்குச் சொந்தம் என்று தீர்ப்பெழுதி அதன்மூலம் அரசுக்குப் பிரச்னைகள் ஏற்படுத்தக் கூடாது என்று நீதிபதிகள் கருதினார்கள் என்பதும் தெளிவாகிறது.


நீதிமன்றத்தில் நாம் எதிர்பார்ப்பது சமரசமல்ல. சட்டத்தின் அடிப்படையிலான தெளிவான வழிகாட்டுதல். ராமர் கோயில் அப்படியே இருக்கும். 90 சென்ட் இடம் வக்ஃப் வாரியத்துக்கு அளிக்கப்பட்டு அங்கே மசூதி கட்டிக் கொள்ளலாம். இந்த சமரசத்தை ஏற்றுக் கொள்ளாவிட்டால், இருக்கவே இருக்கிறது உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தில் மேல் முறையீடு. பிரச்னை மேலும் 30 ஆண்டுகளுக்கு நீட்டிக்கப்படும். இதற்கு நீதிமன்றமும் தீர்ப்பும் தேவையில்லையே... ராஜீவ் காந்தியோ, வி.பி. சிங்கோ, சந்திரசேகரோ, நரசிம்ம ராவோ பிரதமராக இருந்தபோதே இந்த சமரச முடிவை ஏற்படுத்தி இருக்கலாமே...


அரசியல்தனமான இந்தத் தீர்ப்பைக் கேட்க முன்னாள் பிரதமர் நரசிம்ம ராவ் இல்லாமல் போய்விட்டார். அவரது எதிர்பார்ப்புகள் நிறைவேறுகின்றன... வேறென்ன...!

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Leone a true Canadian DESI now back in India !.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MGupta

BARKHA OWNED BY RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY7YZY1wQB4&feature=player_embedded

---