Babri Masjid Case: Is it more prudent to settle it outside the court?

Arvind

The PoKeMon
Moderator
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
895
Location
India
Reactions
590 240 0
#1
Babri Masjid demolition case hearing begins in supreme court. The honorable court itself suggested to have an out of court settlement if possible. Does that signify reluctance of court in passing the verdict or it see more virtue in litigants coming to a solution themselves? Is it, by this suggestion, court is denying a complete justice to a party with rightful ownership? Why shall true owner of site compromise in any sense?

OR

Supreme court is being far sighted and sensing the consequence of its jurisdiction on a subject people are touchy about? Logic, legalities and laws are counter productive to ones faith. SC can see how the thekedar of religion will en-cash the judgement, no matter whatever the judgement be. Are they looking for a situation where all parties are winner and no one loses?

Please provide your opinion whether SC deciding on the matter is best in interest of public harmony or settling it outside the court. Do not forget, SC can not delegate its sole responsibility of upholding the constitution and laws and must ensure no half justice delivered to anyone.

Please keep religious overtones or biases aside and discuss purely on merit of subject in ambit of legalities, political aspect and social harmony.

@Mods - Please keep a tab on this thread as it has potential to become a pitstop of great ideas or becoming a slug fest. Delete it if it draws only negativity.
 

WhyCry

Reaper Love
Team StratFront
Joined
Dec 5, 2017
Messages
37
Location
NYC, USA
Reactions
52 10 0
#3
Actually I am in favor of settling out of the court as well. Since, the outcome if settled inside court will be more one sided and hardlined thus enforcing the government to take action. Moreover, the sanctity of the judges will be put in question on their faith.

Enforcement of the Court decision will be another problem since it's all based on the pre-independence claims.The court in its judgement can only take in consideration after the constitution of India was formed in 1950. This goes to the muslim trust but that trust was formed after the 1960's and have no lineage or inheritance claims. The government can take over the same and give out a peace settlement but then it becomes a political scenario thus a riot and bloodshed is imminent.

This dispute is the symbol of hate as it stands today for both faiths. I propose (and maybe other liberals) that it can be a symbol of harmony if both parties resolve with both parties solve it amicably; coming to terms that they have to give in order to get. The stark example is Krishna birthplace. Shri Krishna Janmbhoomi is actually connected to Shahi Eid Gah Mosque internally even though the door is closed from the mosque side. I have personally been there in Mathura and there are no ill-will's on either sides.
 

Shashank

Well-Known member
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
906
Location
Ban galore
Reactions
1,057 87 0
#4
Is it prudent to settle Babri Masjid issue out of court ?
Answer is yes.
Are people prudent enough to settle it out of court?
Answer is NO.
So it has to be settled in court.
 

Arvind

The PoKeMon
Moderator
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
895
Location
India
Reactions
590 240 0
#5
Actually I am in favor of settling out of the court as well. Since, the outcome if settled inside court will be more one sided and hardlined thus enforcing the government to take action. Moreover, the sanctity of the judges will be put in question on their faith.

Enforcement of the Court decision will be another problem since it's all based on the pre-independence claims.The court in its judgement can only take in consideration after the constitution of India was formed in 1950. This goes to the muslim trust but that trust was formed after the 1960's and have no lineage or inheritance claims. The government can take over the same and give out a peace settlement but then it becomes a political scenario thus a riot and bloodshed is imminent.

This dispute is the symbol of hate as it stands today for both faiths. I propose (and maybe other liberals) that it can be a symbol of harmony if both parties resolve with both parties solve it amicably; coming to terms that they have to give in order to get. The stark example is Krishna birthplace. Shri Krishna Janmbhoomi is actually connected to Shahi Eid Gah Mosque internally even though the door is closed from the mosque side. I have personally been there in Mathura and there are no ill-will's on either sides.
Another angle - can wisdom of litigants be trusted to settle a case concerning faith of billion people?
 

WhyCry

Reaper Love
Team StratFront
Joined
Dec 5, 2017
Messages
37
Location
NYC, USA
Reactions
52 10 0
#6
Another angle - can wisdom of litigants be trusted to settle a case concerning faith of billion people?
The case in court spans beyond litigants. If SP and congress keep their nose out this would have solved years ago. The case is abducted by the political agendas and point scoring.
 

Kshithij Sharma

Well-Known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
756
Location
India
Reactions
549 25 2
#8
There is no way this can be settled out of court. The judgement must be based on facts - whether there was a temple or not. There is no question of being biased when evidence is on one's side.

The question of harmony never arises as there has never been harmony anytime between hindus and Muslims in the history except for opportunistic alliance. Justice is supreme and must be based on evidence and hence upheld at all cost - even cost of war.
 

Arvind

The PoKeMon
Moderator
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
895
Location
India
Reactions
590 240 0
#9
The case in court spans beyond litigants. If SP and congress keep their nose out this would have solved years ago. The case is abducted by the political agendas and point scoring.
Court knows only the litigants and if litigants files that they want to withdraw, court will be bound to close the case.

However who gave litigants the right to decide upon faith of billion people? Does that need widening of stake holders space? Who can rightly represent the majority and minority sentiments? Definitely not the political parties, but can they be kept aside?
 

Arvind

The PoKeMon
Moderator
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
895
Location
India
Reactions
590 240 0
#14
As of now, babri masjid case should be decided by SC as petroleum oil is flowing from Arabs. But real and final solution will come only via war
So if SC judgement goes in favor of hindus, its all good else wait for petroleum oil dry up in Arabia and then kill all muslims, restore mandir again?
Hindus were never so shrewd.
 

Kshithij Sharma

Well-Known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
756
Location
India
Reactions
549 25 2
#15
So if SC judgement goes in favor of hindus, its all good else wait for petroleum oil dry up in Arabia and then kill all muslims, restore mandir again?
Hindus were never so shrewd.
The war is bigger than mandir-masjid. Mandir is symbolic. I am a vehement opposer of mandirs. I support gurukul - the real dharma. Even if Mandir is built, it is not necessarily permanent. Until the war is settled, there are bound to be uncertainty

Chanakya was shrewd too. But he was not a hindu. He was a dharmic. So am I.
 

Golden_Rule

Boundless Seeker
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
244
Location
SFO, USA
Reactions
207 53 0
#16
On a simplistic note, since time immemorial, Hindus have believed that Ayodhya is birthplace of Shri Ram and hence sacred to the Hindus from ancient times. Recent archeological investigations has also revealed existence of structure or remains of a structure under the present tomb.

In the interest of keeping peace across the birthplace of Hindus - India, the SC should offer complete ownership of Ayodhya site to the Hindus, including area surrounding it, and in exchange a new site at a distance can be provisioned to Muslims to build a Mosque. Anything deviated from above will cause massive nation wide revolt from Hindus and SC will be solely responsible for it.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2017
Messages
1,133
Location
Badacow7
Reactions
1,325 316 0
#17
Why only Ayodhya we want Kashi, Mathura too these are our holiest places and there will be no compromise.Period.

Its ok as long as SC or out of court settlement is in total favor of Ram Mandir,no sharing space please we are Intolerant Hindus.
Congress has shown a way by overturning shah banos SC verdict. If SC verdict goes against Ram Mandir it will be overturned by brute majority in Assembly. So keep it in mind verdict against Ram Mandir will only strengthen the resolve to build a temple by any blood means. Fair warning i can say.
 

Vicky

Rajaraja Chola
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
251
Location
Canada
Reactions
312 6 0
#18
Well let's wait for SC Judgement. It has been proved by ASI beyond doubt that an temple structure exists to this day in the mosque and beneath it. The case should be given on facts. If the ASI have no evidence of any temple before I am ready to accept that too. But in this case ASI have given its report.

We had waited 50 years for the case to get settle out of court. Nothing can happen now. Even if Sunni Waqf board accepts, AIMPLB will go to court contesting it. Even if they agree to it, AIMIM will go to court contesting it. Even if they agree to a temple any random muslim with political backing will go to court and contest it on the basis of being a Muslim. Its his right to approach a court.

I sincerely believe Harmony can be won in UP/ North Indian belt if Muslims give up the mosque. Forcing it through court decision will increase the stretch even bigger. But my wishes are horses. Lets wait for SC Judgement and no partition should be awarded. Either to them or us based on facts.
 

bonobashi

Well-Known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
921
Reactions
407 86 0
#19
@bonobashi Sir, please provide an academic point of view. I am sure your opinion would be religion neutral, I hope it will not have a political baggage either.
I'm so sorry, I hadn't noticed this before; why, I cannot say.

Certainly, it should be settled out of court. Regrettably, the entire matter is full of controversy. While members have quoted the ASI as having found remnants of Hindu temples under the foundation of the old mosque, there was nothing to show what temple that was, and there is little physical evidence to show that it was, in fact, a physical temple to Ram Lala. The responsible court dodged the issue last time it came up for partial judgement by concentrating on the question of ownership of land in that plot, and emerged with an elaborate scheme for partition.

At this point of time, if the Muslims in Ayodhya can be persuaded to accept an alternative plot of land to substitute this, it should meet all demands. The justification is that in Islamic law, the school prevalent in India, Hanafi school, is supportive, a murderer can compound his crime by paying sacrificial money to the relative of the dead person. Here, the mosque is deemed to have been killed; the phrase used is to have been martyred, to have become 'shaheed'. It is therefore a practical proposition to offer the kinfolk of the murdered, the nearest legal legatee of the mosque, diyya, as acknowledgement of the murderer's sin, and as an act of seeking redemption for a wrong committed.

The difficulty is that Sharia law does not apply to actions in the jurisdiction of the constitution. Only the IPC and the CrPC apply. If this measure of conciliation is taken up, it may open up unforeseeable consequences; some extremist/fundamentalist, another Zakir Naik, for instance, might argue that a precedent has been set, and that it should now be available to the Muslim citizens of the country to seek sharia law judgements replacing our common law judgements.

This too can be circumvented by taking the adjudication up not as a murder trial, but as an act of arbitration in a commercial property dispute, and it can be treated as compensation to the legatee for trespass and forcible occupation of his/their property. In this case, the complication will be to get an empowered segment of the Hindu community to accept that they have indeed trespassed, and not merely resumed possession of another older trespass by the Muslims. Admittedly it can be ruled out of consideration by an application of the statute of limitations, and declaring that we cannot go back so far in time and apply the present laws by retrogression.

This, incidentally, will have the fringe benefit of shutting up the bhakt once and for all, by the court decreeing that matters relating to alienation of property dating back to a period of conquest and supercession of civil law by military law will not be entertained in the courts.While it cannot affect the true fundamentalist bhakt, it will cool off the ardent spirits of fence-sitters.

In summary, an arbitration proceeding, treating the matter as a property dispute, and isolating criminal matters from the proceedings to be dealt with separately, and a proceeding in which a price is to be discovered for the land seized, and a legatee found should be the format.

This is already in progress; all that is needed is for the two disputing parties to agree to arbitration, and for the arbitration board to be convened swiftly, and for the matter to be devolved to this board by the Supreme Court.

While the qisas/diyya method is sounder, its larger political, sociological and legal complications rule it out; we are better off by transferring the matter out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, leaving them free to concentrate on other judgments, and ensuring that neither party is hereafter entitled to claim a judgement in full court in their favour.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
T
National Politics 1