U r right somewhere and grossly wrong in other statements and comparisons.
1. Yes all seem to be in panic except communal adamant leaders of both side.
2. Secularism was chosen because there were jativad in Bharat and not for giving equal rights to foreign religions.
3.Even if our country has chosen secularism yet in any compromise formula both parties should be winners for long term amity but :
A. No implementation of family planning
B. No implemntation of law to curtail heavy criminal and illegal activiteis by a particular group of people ( IT officers to civic officers can not enter Kashmir to Dharavi/ Bharat Nagar/ Kurla/ Mustafa Bazar to Bhivandi etc etc ) ( from Dawood to most mafias have been ruling the country).
C. No implementation of Sahabano to many court orders like not using public address system in particular timing but we still hear loud noises on Mic in those hours so many dont respoect law and police cant stop them for bribe or fear.Govt has changed the route of many rath yatras with a fear of law and order going out of control . Indeed many rath yatras have in past been stoned etc.. etc..Kashmiri pandit have been routed.
Two churches recently were burnt in India for some mad Americans tearing a holy book. We r bearing the cost of 25 crores inspit of giving Pakistan. So is sacrifice, respecting law, brotherhood only to eminate from Gandhi and has people and not from Jinnah and his people?
U have cited an example of gurudwara and mosque. They were both normal religious places. Ram janm bhoomi is no normal, ordinary place. 150 crores Hindus, Sikhs, jains, Budhas etc have their emotions and sentiments attached to it. ( by the way I have not visited any Ram temple in my memory but of course paid my respects at Gurudwara when in Nanded, Church when in Goa and Shani mandir ( as they say I have Shani ) and ofcourse Ajmer sharif when in Ajmer) and some time sidhivinay / mahalaxmi like most do.I am writing this in favour of Ram mandir ?? No. I am writing this as sane person who wants other sane to come forward and show kindness towards 150 crores worshippers of Ram. Or else this issue we will be encashed by fanatics.
D. The name itself suggests Babari masjid. Who was babar?? An aggressor, the one who was brutal,killer, rapists, and all that. It was not built by great people like Akbar, Shahid hamid, Abdul Kalam, etc etc. or by any peace loving like we normaly find bohris/ aga khans etc etc..
E. Every thing can not be settled by court and sensetive issues should not be. Either warring factions have to find peaceful way out or govt has to step in in long term interest of law and order, democracy and secularism. If any thing worst happens then out of fear groupism will happen there will be clear two sides and one side can say bye bye to secularism.
F. Your following para was correct but u lost courage to harp on it and again made a u tern by attacking for political willingness. We all have to evoke in govt a feeling to find out of court settlement in favor of Ram worshippers and in turn give a very good signal of brotherhood and safety with all and for all. And that no other monument and worshipping place be it mosque, church or temple in Kashmir ( two months back only jaintemple in Jammu was destroyed by muslim fanatics) will be put in dispute or will be insecure.
Alok Tholiya (S.E.O) M:9324225699
RAJINDAR SACHAR A-19, New Friends Colony,
Chief Justice (Retd.) New Delhi 110065(India)
High Court of Delhi, New Delhi Tel : 091-11-26847786,26830194
Chairperson Prime Minister's High Level Committee E-Mail:rsachar1@vsnl.net
On Statusof Muslims (Ex.) rsachar23@bol.net.in
UN Special Rappoetuer on Housing Fax: 091-011-26313393
Member, U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Mobile : 9810009644
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (Ex.) Pan No. AATPS 1177M
President, Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) India (Ex.)
Dated: 13/09/2010
Published in the Tribune on 17/09/2010
AYODHYA VERDICT
Both government and opposition and the public in general are rightly
in panic awaiting the verdict on Babri Masjid by Allahabad High Court – a
situation brought about by the faltering non secular stand by all the
concerned governments. The High Court is to give verdict t on the following
points;
1. Was the place under Babri Majid the birth place of Lord Ram.
2. Was there or not a temple on the land on which Babri Masjid was
built.
Now it is obvious to the meanest intelligence that it is impossible to
prove that birth place of Lord Ram was under the Masjid – it may be a
matter of faith, genuine or contrived or otherwise, but that is no proof, nor
can it ever be put forward as a legal ground to take away the land from the
Mosque.
- 2 -
If the finding is that Masjid was not built on a temple, then the
Muslims get the land back and free to use it in any way including the
building of Mosque.
In the alternative it may be held that there was a temple on the land of
Babri Mosque. But even with this finding the suit by VHP/RSS has to be
dismissed. Admittedly Babri Masjid has been in existence for over 400 years
till it was demolished by goons of VHP/RSS in 1992. Legally, speaking the
Sangh Parivar would have no right even if a temple had been demolished to
build the Babri Masjid.
I say this in view of the precedent of the case of Masjid Shahid Ganj
in Lahore decided by the Privy Council in (1940). In that case there was
admittedly a Mosque existing since 1722 A.D. But by 1762, the building
came under Sikh rule and was being used as a Gurdawara. It was only in
1935 that a suit was filed claiming the building was a Mosque and should be
returned to Muslims.
- 3 -
The Privy Council while observing "their Lordship have every
sympathy with a religious sentiment which would ascribe sanctity and in
violability to a place of worship, they cannot under the Limitation Act accept
the contentions that such a building cannot be possessed adversely" and then
went on to hold "The Property now in question having been possessed by
Sikhs adversely to the waqf and to all interests thereunder for more than 12
years, the right of the mutawali to possession for the purposes of the waqf
came to an end under Limitation Act. "On the same parity of reasoning even
if temple existed prior to the building of Masjid 400 years ago, suit by VHP
etc has to fail".
There is another reason why in such a situation, suit would fail
because in common law, even a rightful heir if he kills his ancestor, forfeits
his right of inheritance. In the Masjid case too, there was „murder most foul‟
and hence the murderer cannot be allowed to take the benefit of his own
dastardly deeds, whatever the legal position may be.
- 4 -
It is true that sometime some Muslims groups in a spirit of large
heartedness and as a measure of mutual accommodation, suggest that if it
was found that the Masjid was built on the site of a temple, they would not
like to now build a Mosque on the said site because the Koran forbids
Muslims to build a mosque by demolishing any other religious place. But
even them, if Muslims choose not to build a Masjid on this site, the
ownership and use of the land remains with them. Hindu cannot under any
circumstances lay a claim to this site which was under Babri Masjid.
Some well intentioned persons come out with apparently neutral
suggestion of building a multi Religious complex on the site. To me this
would be surrender to rabid Hindu Communal sentiment - whatever
explanation you may give, a Muslim then would feel less equal citizen if
even after he has won, he is asked to share this site with the goons who
destroyed the Holy Mosque. This would be a defeat of secularism and
against our constitution which mandates that all citizens, whether Hindus,
Muslims have equal Rights and are equal before law.
- 5 -
A multi Religious Complex or multi culture Centre or a hospital can
obviously be built by the joint free will efforts of both Hindus and Muslims.
But such a complex if it is to be built necessarily must be on the land away
and outside the Masjid complex, and that too only if the Muslims give their
consent - obviously as vacant land belongs to the Muslims. But under all
circumstances, the site under Babri Masjid must remain in the exclusive
possession of Muslims who will be free to use it in any way the community
decides.
I feel that the government should start doing an exercise of
consultation, preparation on these lines – to await helplessly trying to
anticipate what the verdict would be is like a pigeon who on seeing a cat
closes its eyes with the delusion that cat will go away – the result is obvious.
Equally I feel that leaders of all communities, political parties, social
workers should start planning to meet the situation, because this matter
requires the involvement of people at grass root level and the matter does not
brook any delay.
- 6 -
The legal position is clear. It is only the weakness of political will that
is responsible for the Ayodhya imbroglio to continue as one of the most
bitter disputes within the country. By keeping the Ayodhya issue alive, the
country has been kept away from addressing it‟s most urgent task – how to
meet the challenge of the growing pauperization of the masses. And that
includes both Hindus and Muslims.
Rajindar Sachar
Dated : 13-09-2010
New Delhi.
No comments:
Post a Comment