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

[Arvind]

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.

Thanks for adding so many different angles to the topic sir, I have few questions and some of the opinions which I will post in due time.

 

[Shajida Khan]

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

Baabri Masjid is not on Radar of any middle eastern country. It is a very very local issue of India. They certainly are aware of Kashmir dispute however.

 

[Shajida Khan]

The biggest issue, IMHO, faced by a body like supreme court is that they work under strict legal framework. The time lines of this entire issue can be stretched back in history of India all the way to Mughal invasion and even before. How do you apply laws written mostly after british conquest to settle an issue which has so much of history? And if you settle it in anyway possible what kind of precedence will it set?

Honestly, this matter cannot be settled in court. What can be done is to have a bunch of reasonable proposals of solutions and then they should be put to a referendum. It will be costly but that can be only solution.

 

[RATHORE]

One group or another is going to constantly create problems to prevent a proper out of court settlement (AIMPLB, AIMIM etc etc), so there's no point wasting time in that attempt. And there is no question there was a temple there. So that's it, either the Supreme Court delivers the correct verdict or this Government must step up to the plate and do what it was put in power to do. Ayodhya today, Kashi and Mathura tomorrow.

 

[Guynextdoor]

One group or another is going to constantly create problems to prevent a proper out of court settlement (AIMPLB, AIMIM etc etc), so there's no point wasting time in that attempt. And there is no question there was a temple there. So that's it, either the Supreme Court delivers the correct verdict or this Government must step up to the plate and do what it was put in power to do. Ayodhya today, Kashi and Mathura tomorrow.

Why should they not prevent any settlement unfavorable to them? The government does not have the power to go against court.

 

[RATHORE]

Why should they not prevent any settlement unfavorable to them? The government does not have the power to go against court.

1. They can try, but they do not have a legitimate case and the days when they could bully the majority thanks to the support of an anti-Hindu Central Government are gone. They can try what they want - but justice will be done, either by the Supreme Court, or by the BJP.

2. Ever heard of Shah Bano? Anything is possible in India. And in this case, the BJP has the people behind it. They don't just support BJP to act, they expect it to act. Justice will be done now; in spite of Congress, in spite of various Muslim interest groups, and either with the Supreme court or without it.

 

[Guynextdoor]

1. They can try, but they do not have a legitimate case and the days when they could bully the majority thanks to the support of an anti-Hindu Central Government are gone. They can try what they want - but justice will be done, either by the Supreme Court, or by the BJP.

2. Ever heard of Shah Bano? Anything is possible in India. And in this case, the BJP has the people behind it. They don't just support BJP to act, they expect it to act. Justice will be done now; in spite of Congress, in spite of various Muslim interest groups, and either with the Supreme court or without it.

1) if Rajputs hadn’t lost the wars this problem would not have come
2) now that Muslims have become part of Indian fAbric work out an accommodation with them instead of victimizing them

 

[RATHORE]

1) if Rajputs hadn’t lost the wars this problem would not have come
2) now that Muslims have become part of Indian fAbric work out an accommodation with them instead of victimizing them

1. Poor attempt to wind me up/continued trolling. Rajputs don't owe explanations to cowards like you whose ancestors were busy hiding somewhere in a remote corner of the subcontinent while these conflicts were being fought.

2. The only victimization was the victimization of the Ram Mandir. Rightfully restoring the Ram Mandir is not victimization of Muslims, and if there is a portion of Muslims who want to continue living in that sort of delusional victim complex, aided by subversive elements like you, that's their bloody problem. Hindus have shown that they know how to deal with Owaisi types. There is no question of any accommodation, the Mandir was there first, and the Mandir will be there last.

 

[Guynextdoor]

1. Poor attempt to wind me up/continued trolling. Rajputs don't owe explanations to nutless *censored*ing cowards like you whose ancestors were busy hiding somewhere in a remote corner of the subcontinent while these conflicts were being fought.

2. The only victimization was the victimization of the Ram Mandir. Rightfully restoring the Ram Mandir is not victimization of Muslims, and if there is a portion of Muslims who want to continue living in that sort of delusional victim complex, aided by subversive elements like you, that's their bloody problem. Hindus have shown that they know how to deal with Owaisi types. There is no question of any accommodation, the Mandir was there first, and the Mandir will be there last.

A) if you couldn’t win the war why did you take leadership and push out others who could have won them
B) big talk of valor doesn’t change the fact that wars were lost and entire history of country changed course
C) you are making things worse by talking sissy revenge on those hapless Muslims for losses that happened 300 years ago

 

[RATHORE]

@Aashish @Ashwin @nair You people said you wanted a different blog this time around, a place without trolling and where discourse is of higher quality; so I've been taking Guy Next Door here quite lightly so far; but you guys are going to have to make a decision quickly now regarding his antics.

Your goal for this forum will not be achieved with a troll like him running rampant, and if he is not handled soon Do this forum a favor and deal with him soon now, because even repeated thread bans don't seem to have any effect on him.

 

[Guynextdoor]

@Aashish @Ashwin @nair Y

I’m raising what is called historical points. Any history book will back me up including your own.This is 2018. Get used to it.

 

[RATHORE]

A) if you couldn’t win the war why did you take leadership and push out others who could have won them
B) big talk of valor doesn’t change the fact that wars were lost and entire history of country changed course
C) you are making things worse by talking sissy revenge on those hapless Muslims for losses that happened 300 years ago

A) Nonsensical babbling. Refer to Previous point about not owing explanations to people who were nowhere to be seen in the vicinity of battlefields.
B) Wars are lost in history sometimes, especially when someone has subversive elements on their side.
C) Rebuilding the Mandir isn't revenge, it's justice, it's correcting a historical wrong.

 

[RATHORE]

I’m raising what is called historical points. Any history book will back me up including your own.This is 2018. Get used to it.

You've been trying to provoke me for days, and I'm very well aware of how easily adjustable historical facts are for leftist types like you. Let me guess, Aurangzeb also wasn't an oppressor according to your brand of historical "facts" right?

 

[Guynextdoor]

A) Nonsensical babbling. Refer to Previous point about not owing explanations to cowards who were nowhere to be seen in the vicinity of battlefields.
B) Wars are lost in history sometimes, especially when someone has cowards and subversive elements on their side like you.
C) Rebuilding the Mandir isn't revenge, it's justice, it's correcting a historical wrong.

A) loser talks.
B) But most importantly if you are talking about Muslims history in India then you are automatically Bringing in the history of all other actors
C) we didn’t ask you for your definition of justice. We want to do what I best for the country

 

[Guynextdoor]

You've been trying to provoke me for days, and I'm very well aware of how easily adjustable historical facts are for leftist types like you. Let me guess, Aurangzeb also wasn't an oppressor according to your brand of historical "facts" right?

Stupid man. He was an oppressor as mentioned by himself during his last days. You don’t lose a lefty war or a righty war, you lose a war. After that it’s everyone’s *censored* on the line.

 

[RATHORE]

Stupid man. He was an oppressor as mentioned by himself during his last days. You don’t lose a lefty war or a righty war, you lose a war. After that it’s everyone’s LOOL on the line.

You sure about that? Make sure to check in with the Politburo because the ideological stream you belong to is quite favorably disposed towards him.

 

[Guynextdoor]

A. Hmm, sure. Keep barking Communist scum.
B. ...? Irrelevant.
C. Justice is Justice, either the Supreme Court will deliver it, or the BJP will see that it's done. And nobody cares what subversive elements think is "best" for a country.

No one is interested in extended revenge for your War losses. You don’t feel redeemed not a problem for us. Muslims are a part of this country and its heritage and we aren’t going to burn this country for your psychological satisfaction of giving them a Black eye with out fighting a war. They kicked the crap out of you. Now they’re your brothers. Accept it and move on.

 

[Vicky]

The biggest issue, IMHO, faced by a body like supreme court is that they work under strict legal framework. The time lines of this entire issue can be stretched back in history of India all the way to Mughal invasion and even before. How do you apply laws written mostly after british conquest to settle an issue which has so much of history? And if you settle it in anyway possible what kind of precedence will it set?

Honestly, this matter cannot be settled in court. What can be done is to have a bunch of reasonable proposals of solutions and then they should be put to a referendum. It will be costly but that can be only solution.

Referendrum can never work in India. It might result against minority communities even if there is reasonable benefit to them. Lets go by ASI decision and SC's.

 

[Shajida Khan]

Referendrum can never work in India. It might result against minority communities even if there is reasonable benefit to them. Lets go by ASI decision and SC's.

I will be honest, there is no clear cut solution for this problem. SC works under framework of law. How can you decide for something that was done even before the legal system in India as we know it today was introduced?
Plus what kind of precedence will it set?

Also finding of ASI only proves that an old temple existed on the site. You cann't be sure if that was the alledged Ram's Birth Place temple? Does Ram even has a historical existence or was he a part of subcontinents legend? If he is a legend and a myth then what that temple is all about? IIRC analysis of Ramayan suggest the entire epic was based in modern day Afghanistan. So how can you decide to build a temple in modern Ayodhya, which is not even the suggested birthplace of Ram if you take the epic at face value!

Also, before anyone answers the questions above systematically, lemme put the upshot behind those. I am not seeking the answers for them, it is mainly to drive the point that the entire proposition to establish a temple there is to honor sentiments of majority. Now in the framework of law it is hard to argue base on faith and sentiments and not fact. The only fact are the following:-
1. ASI's analysis suggest existance of an ancient temple but NOT a conclusive proof of birth place of Ram. Existance of Rama and proof of his birth place there is a matter of myth and legends.
2. A Mosque there was existing which was demolished.
3. There were people who were responsible for this and they broke laws.

With this, what decision can any court make under framework of law? Reconstruct a temple which was broken in 16th century or so? And if yes then which temple?

how to distribute land, then on which basis? A claim based on faith? A claim based on a historic event about 4 to 5 century back?

This is why this cann't be decided in SC. ASI has already given their analysis. If its not SC then who can decide? Last resort is to ask people of the country with some moderation in due process. Thats all I am suggesting.

 

[RATHORE]

a battleground is not for a peacock to preen itself and say how exceptional it looks fighting a wolly mammoth.

1. I know you were trying to sound cool and wise; but that was a terrible analogy and sounded *censored*ing stupid (wooly mammoths, really?).
2. Cowards needn't talk about battlefields. Saale tere baap ne bhi kabhi jang ka maidan dekha thha?

But seriously, if Muslim invaders eventually managing to break through Indian defenses gets this much of a rise out of you, you should really give Pakistan a shot. It's a great place for scumbags like you, and it's incredibly "secular" too, you won't have to worry about mandirs being built there because most of the mandirs which were built have been destroyed and the handful of remaining Hindus are being raped and killed until they vanish altogether.

Sounds like your type of scene honestly.