NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/culture/indian/45315

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 12.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!psuvax1!psuvm!dxa4
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:56:24 EST
From: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: RJB-BM Dispute (Re: Jakhan's comments)
Lines: 215

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Javed Ahmed Khan)
says:
>In reply to <[e-mail]>:
>
>Its possible that the BMAC "walas" are lying and taking the entire country fora
>ride. Its also possible that the BJP-RSS-VHP "walas" are also doing
>the same. I have no idea who is right and who is wrong. That is precisely what
>the court is supposed to do.

If you have do not have any idea about the facts of the dispute, then please
do not make baseless comments or misleading ramarks. Let the court or whatever
other means acceptable to the parties involved decide the issue. I and I'm sure
many other netters do get distinct impression of a strong bias in your postings
on this subject. Though you claim yourself as a neutral just like those Marxist
historians claim themselves as 'independent and neutral'. And let me tell you
this RJB-BM issue will never be solved amicably in the courts, does not matter
how the courts decide, one side will always reject the verdict and resort to
other means to get its opinion implemented, and hence the strife will continue.
Congress party only is trying to pass the responsibility on the court, because
it does not have courage and gutts to admit the truth in public and make moves
accordingly, though in private most of them admit that there can be no other
solution except allowing the Ram temple construction on the disputed site.
They will also allow this to happen if they are sure that they will get politi-
cal benefit for the temple construction and not the BJP, right now they are
not sure of this, and that is why resort to the courts, where it will hang on
for years. Further by issuing the ordinance on January 7, donot you think that
the court's role has been minimised, to provide only an opinion and not the
verdict (as would have been under article 138).

>Contrary to your insinuation, I'm no supporter of the BMAC (I'm certainly no
>"Babari wala") or for that matter any party in the dispute. So desist from
>making wild claims.

I did not indulge in any insinuation. Your comments clearly indicate that
you were espousing Babri cause. I leave it on the more perceptive readers to
make their own judgement.

>Notice that I'm not trying to support/refute claims of any side. Indeed I have
>little knowledge of the specifics of the "evidence" each side is presenting

Well, if that is true then how come it is not reflected in your sweeping
remarks which you have been making on this issue as though you are an expert
on this subject.

>simply because I don't work for any side. As far as I'm concerned, as a
>citizen I'm interested in trying to ensure that disputes such as these are
>settled without violence and in a court of law. Its obvious that political
>solutions are proving unworkable and will result in the type of violence seen n
>recent months.
>The BMAC and the RSS-VHP-BJP may have irreconciliable differences. But they
>cannot be allowed to hold the country to ransom. That is precisely why I am
>strongly in favour of a court arbitrating in this matter whose decision would
>be
>binding on all. The BMAC or the RSS combine may very well be trying to
>disallow
>a court to mediate. But seeing the seriousness ofthe issue, the govt./court
>must penalize the party which is doing so. The court has the power to throw
>out
>the case of a petitioner if it feels that the party is commiting contempt of
>due process of law. If the RSS "wallahs" feel that the BMAC is shirking from
>its
>commitment to refer the dispute to a court of law, they can get a court to
>pass
>strictures against them and can even bring a charge of contempt of court.
>

All are very noble gestures and suggestions. Let us see if under present condi-
tion anybody is going to listen to them. I am not going into the history of
the movement that who politicized this movement and who to be blamed for the
present situation. Perhaps everybody and that is why everybody is suffering.

><[e-mail]> writes:
>==============================================================================
> Dont you know that
>the cases on these issues have been their in the court for the past four
>decades, and almost all the interim judgements have gone in their favor. Does
>that not prove that they have stronger evidence than their opponents. The only
>thing they donot want the court to sit in the judgement on the issue of Ram's
>birthplace which is a matter of faith.
>==============================================================================
>
>Thats what I'm saying. Since they believe that all the interim judgements have
>gone in the favour of the RSS combine, why don't they follow it through its
>logical conclusion and wait till the courts dispose off the matter. Then no
>power can stop the demolition of the mosque.

Though, I have partially responded to this comment in my previous post. But to
add few more points: The Hindus are not going to wait for eternity for courts
to decide on this issue, as it is said justice delayed justice denied. Second,
now since one point reference has been made to the court, let us see how it
goes there, there are already petitions in the court to challenge this. And on
this VHP has opposed such a move at this stage on the plea that SC judges are
not capable of making subjective analysis of material pertaining to the archaeo
logists and hence the matter should be decided by the Archaeological Survey of
India, BJP's opinion is that now it is all too late, though it was originally
their proposal which Rao's government has moved. They wonder that why it was
not done before Dec. 6, now the whole thing is so wishy-washy that it does not
carry any credibility. However, Babari walas have been consistent from the
beginning in opposing such a move for Shariat + Koranic injunctions + supposed-
ly involvement of Wakf's land.

>As for asking courts to sit in judgement on the issue of Ram's
>birthplace, I would oppose such a move. Such calls IMO will be rejected by
>any court of law itself. Its obvious that the issue is not the event of the
>birth of Ram but whether the mosque was built after demolishing a temple
>there.

Agree with you. But such a issue was raised at the first place by BMCC and
their supporters. This has not only hardened the VHP's attitude but posed
challenges to the very Hindu culture and its basis. And people started asking
questions why there is double standard for Hindus, why dont people dare ask
similar queries to other faith-related matters to non-Hindus. And you see this
was how the whole crap of pseudo-secularism started gaining momentum.

>He further writes:
>==============================================================================
>they are again opposing
>now when such an ordinance has been issued on January 7, 1993 with the
>pre-cond
>tion of one point reference to the SC's opinion under article 143. In fact
>they
>have threatened to challenge the whole package in the court, in their opinion
>it is against Shariat. Even Muslim Personal Law Board has also opposed the
>court's opinion. Also Imam Bukhari is on the records that if a court judgement
>goes against Muslims, they will not accept it since such a judgement will be
>against Koran.
>==============================================================================
>=
>Care to furnish some evidence for such claims.

Well, if you read the Indian news papers you would be able to verify yourself
all the above claims, if you do not have access to the Indian news papers I
would be glad to send you some paper cuttings, though some of them have been
occasionally posted on MNS and SCI.

>As I said above any such individual who is active in the negotiations must
>be penalized if he/she threatens the process of law. It didn't matter what an
>individual party felt about any order passed by the court, it was always      d
>carrie
>out as seen in the allowance of "darshan" at the site, or the unlocking of the
>site, the allowance of symbolic kar-seva, performance of shila-puja etc.
>The BMAC may disagree with the ruling and can appeal against such an order
>but the order was carried out. That is what the state is concerned about and
>that is what due process of law entails.

Again, they did not appeal to the higher court neither in the case of unlocking
of the shrine, nor the case of allowing darshan, etc. but expected the govern-
ment to nullify these court orders by executive or parliamentary orders as was
done in the case of Shah Bano, and their argument is again the invoking
Shariat law. Since once it was allowed by RG in the name of secularism and so
can be done again, in their view courts can not over-rule shariat as though we
are living in an Islamic State. So my friend this issue now has developed into
an ideological issue, not a fight between temple and mosque. You cannot settle
such issues in the court, it has to be settled on the ideological plane through
discussion, dialogue, respecting each others sentiments, give and take. Since
this did not happen, it was one way traffic all the time in the name of secular
ism and muslim appeasement and political expediancy, that is why we are where
we are!

><[e-mail]> writes:
>=============================================================================
>As I said in my earlier post that for these Babari walas (which includes you
>too, Mr. Javed), even if Badashah Babar resurrects from his grave and annonces
>that he really did order the destruction of a temple and building of the
>mosque on its ruins, he would be asked to shut up and be accused of having
>gotten brain washed by RSS/VHP/BJP propaganda machinery.
>==============================================================================
>
>Well I'm really not interested in your analogies. I'm sure I don't fall into
>that category.

Well, I am glad that you do not include yourself in this category. I withdraw
my personal remarks.

>By the way Shahabuddin, Bukhari and gang in the BMMAC were sidelined in the
>final stages and the BMAC led by Jawed Habib who are considered moderates
>were holding center stage.

Well, did Jawed Habib not resign  from BMAC on Dec.8 after the demolition of
BS? And both Babari outfits have now merged into one. In fact now many muslims
question the validity of Babari Committee when there is no Babari mosque and
have demanded it should be disbanded, all these so called Babari committee
members have let muslims down and are equally responsible for the downfall of
Babari Structure by their faulty approach on the whole issue.

>I must again point out that as far as the muslims are concerned, they wouldn't
>have bothered so much about the entire issue of legality or otherwise  of
>rebuilding the temple if there was no mosque at the site. Even if the law had
>to
>be changed to enabe the building the temple, I don't think muslims would have
>tried to throw a spanner in the wheels of BJP bandwagon as far as building
>the temple was concerned. Unfortunately a mosque existed there and resulted in
>such a crazy problem.

Well, you are partially right. There was mosque before 1937,which was abandoned
by local muslims for good, but national muslim leadership and the British govt.
did not show interest in solving the problem, and so did our new leaders after
the independence. And that is why a local and religious issue has taken such a
monumental shape that it would now decide the future course of India.

>If any one can suggest a feasible method of resolving the issue other than
>taking recourse to the courts, the country would be indebted.

The only solution now is to allow the formal construction of the Ram temple at
His birth place. Sooner it is done better for every body. And eventually that
is what is going to happen: there is already a temple at the birthplace only
thing remaining is to make it magnificent.

(I am going to stop this thread of discussion here. Mr. Javed and other netters
are free to continue the discussion further.)

Dinesh Agrawal...

>
>--Javed.