The Ayodhya Treachery

“Hindu Temples – What happened” to them is a two-volume book about thousands of Hindu temples destroyed to build mosques. It was written by Sitaram Goel, Arun Shourie & Co. Even to this day, temples are being destroyed in Kashmir. Around 208 of 438 temples left in Kashmir were reported destroyed in two decades till 2012. Temples are also being destroyed in other states like TN. The GOI has consistently overlooked these incidents because Hindus have not been militant about their places of worship or gone about destroying those of others. Out of the blue, the GOI is going out of its way in building the Kartarpur corridor to please the Sikhs. In the face of our battles against terrorists and bombing of certain terror-camp sites in Pakistan, the GOI is going to hold a meeting with Pak officials on March 14 over Kartarpur:

The Kartarpur shrine is said to be just within 3-4 kms from our borders.  That should tell one how stupid our leaders were at Partition. The incomplete Partition has ravaged this country and the same nuisance has been hovering over the Ram Mandir and Ayodhya case. But this cannot be undone. The least that could have been done was to have settled the issue and build a Ram temple in 1949 itself when idols of Ram and proof of a temple being there was noticed. Instead, the govt locked up the temple and let the wound fester. Nehru was against rebuilding Somnath too. In yet another twist to the delay, the SC finally handed over the case to mediation on March 8. The SC has constantly avoided attending to the case on some pretext or the other. Sometime in 2018 the SC stated there will be “regular hearings” on the case, then one judge had to recuse, then Congress wanted to postpone the hearing till after May 2019 and it been dragging on for 8 years now. A timeline of the case from TOI makes sorry reading:

There is a serious problem on this with the ModiSarkar too. It has constantly dodged the Ram Mandir issue; letting it linger. Only towards the end of 2018 the GOI made a feeble attempt to free the undisputed land in Ayodhya from the SC hearings or rulings. Former Regional Director of ASI, Dr. KK Muhammad reiterated in his book that there was enough evidence of a Ram temple being there over which the Babri mosque was built. Here are some excerpts:

"We found not one but 14 pillars of a temple at the Babri Masjid site. All these pillars had domes carved on them. The domes resembled those found in temples belonging to 11th and 12th century. In the temple architecture domes are one of the nine symbols of prosperity. It was quite evident that the Masjid was erected on the debris of a temple… The Babri issue would have been settled long ago if the Muslim intelligentsia had not fallen prey to the brain washing by the Leftist historians. A set of historians including Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra and S Gopal argued that there was no mention of the dismantling of the temple before 19th century and Ayodhya is Bhudhist-Jain centre. They were supported by historians Irfan Habib, RS Sharma, DN Jha, Suraj Ben and Akthar Ali… It was they who connived with the extremist Muslim groups to derail all attempts to find an amicable solution to the Masjid issue”.

KK Muhammad also added that there is enough evidence Taj Mahal and Qutub complex was also built by destroying Hindu temples. After many years, the Ayodhya case was heard in the Allahabad HC. I coined the term “Salma quotes Sabrina” based on the quack historians who had no clue what they were blabbering about on the history of Babri masjid. Their statements to the court can only make one laugh:

“Supriya Verma an, “expert” who challenged the excavations done by the ASI, had not read the radar survey report on ground penetration that led to the court order for excavation. Verma and Jaya Menon, another “expert,” were not present at the time of actual excavations but alleged that pillar bases at the excavated sites were planted. Suvira Jaiswal says: “Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to the disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told.” She also confessed that she “prepared a report on the Babri dispute after reading newspaper reports and on the basis of discussion with my medieval history expert in my department”. Jaiswal made an important clarification: “I am not giving (my) statement on oath regarding Babri Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge; rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion.”

All these Commie Sickulars were only peddling opinions to thwart the building of the Ram Mandir. But the SC, which now believes in mediation, also has a story of its own.

In multiple statements the SC has reportedly stated that the Ayodhya case is “politically and religiously sensitive” issue. Well, come to think about it, the case of National Herald involving Sonia and Rahul Gandhi is also politically sensitive, so are we to assume that too will be settled by mediation or allowed to linger? In fact, there are more chances of riots ensuing if the Chinese Gandhis are sent to jail than a verdict favouring the building of Ram Mandir at the Babri site. 

The job of a court is to assess a case, hear the parties, verify the evidence and rule on it. The court is NOT supposed to be worried about what the political or social consequences of their verdicts would be. Any law and order situation is for the govt to handle and not for the courts. Had it been so concerned about “sensitivity” and social consequences then the Sabarimala needs a rethink. It had led to unhappiness among Ayyappa devotees, agitations, misdeeds by the Kerala govt and a stand-off between the devotees and the State as a consequence of the court verdict. As for mediation, the SC itself had to strike down a mediation attempt just before the Allahabad HC pronounced its verdict:

Attempts were made to defer the Allahabad HC verdict and put the matter to mediation. The SC ruled against mediation. The lawyers against mediation were absolutely right in stating “Judicial function cannot be made hostage to consequences… we are 100 percent for the settlement but also hundred percent against the plea the judgement being deferred”. The petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, who demanded mediation to scuttle the HC verdict was also fined 50000/- The SC thought of mediation in 2010 too before the HC verdict but the GOI views strongly endorsed a court verdict and an anti-mediation stand. So, how is it that the SC which thwarted mediation in 2010 now finds mediation to be a great way out?

Mediation or compromises are not the LAST resort. They are the first resort. When a case reaches SC, it implies all avenues are exhausted. And there have been mediations and negotiations in the past over Ayodhya. Take a Family Court. A divorce is instant if adultery or a legal offence can be proven. In normal case, the FC orders a two-year cooling period to allow for reconciliation or even counselling. When the parties can prove they have already lived apart for over 2 years, the court still gives a cooling period of six months before granting mutual divorce. The court doesn’t repeatedly order mediation or counselling once the two-year separation is over and the parties still insist on going through a divorce. The SC was the last resort for justice. The mediation cannot be after a case has reached its last resort.   

The Muslim parties to the case will neither budge nor agree to any compromises. This is not an emotional or religious issue to them, it is merely a big ego issue and nothing more. After all, the Babri was a dilapidated unused structure and Muslims don’t need a mosque to pray. The mediation panel (Former judge Killafullah, SriSri and Sriram Panchu) have very little negotiating and navigating room. They have to stick largely within the confines of the Allahabad HC verdict and the claims in the SC thereafter. This is where ModiSarkar failed to grab the chance. PM Modi should have taken the problem into his hand in 2014 and set up a mediation panel by seeking the SC support. WHY? Because the govt is in a much better position to mediate, to negotiate, offer alternatives and compensations or deals that the SC mediation panel does not possess. For instance, the mediation panel cannot allot 10 acres of land in Kanpur or Lucknow if such a demand were to be made for the mosque. In contrast, GOI and the State govt could have easily considered and executed such a demand.

The GOI is also in a position to dole out large sums of money as “compensatory dole” which the SC or its mediation panel cannot do. The GOI can also pass an Ordinance or a law through Parliamentary that recognises the deals and solutions it makes with the concerned parties. Thus, it is a failure on the part of ModiSarkar too for being absolutely disinterested in the Ayodhya case. Hopefully, political parties will stop whipping the Ram Mandir for mere political purposes and not be treacherous with Hindus. And if the current mediation panel fails, then ModiSarkar, in its second term, must take it on top-priority to settle the issue once and for all. 

 

Subscribe    Buy In INR     Buy in US$