#Muslim parties hope for justice in Ayodhya title suit

[onetimetwotimesthreetimess]

There will never be anything more despicable than building and celebrating, and forcing a nation to celebrate on the taxpayers money, a temple build on the mass graves of Muslims. The Hindu nationalist state, has proved again that this nation belongs to only Hindus.

Babri Masjid, 1992

Ram Temple, 2024

A bit of context for those who don’t know about the issue:

Babri Masjid, was a mosque in Ayodhya, India. It was built in the 16th century by the Mughal Empire. Babri Masjid was a holy place for the Muslims in the country. There’s a history of communalism (created by the British Empire) between Hindus (the majority religion) and Muslims (the minority) in the country.

In 1992, Babri Masjid was attacked and demolished by Hindu extremists who believed that the mosque was built on the site of birthplace of Ram (Hindu god). Thousands of people lost their lives. Thousands of Muslims were killed in cold blood by a hyper-nationalist state.

In 2010, after decades of Muslims fighting for justice, the Allahabad High Court upheld the claim that the mosque was built on Ram’s birth place. Muslims were also awarded one-third area of the site for the construction of a mosque. However, thr decision was subsequently appealed by all parties to the Indian Supreme Court, wherein a five judge bench heard a title suit from August to October 2019. On 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court quashed the lower court's judgement and ordered the entire site to be handed over to a trust to build the Hindu temple.

Today, 22nd January, 2024, marks the inaugural of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. On a site that is so deeply entrenched within a community’s blood, pain and trauma. While these Hindu nationalists celebrate, every Muslim in the country feels more scared. Muslims in India have always been unlawfully detained, persecuted, punished and killed throughout the past seven decades but it has only worsened ever since BJP, the ruling party came in power. Celebrities, sportsperson, politicians and millions of people travelled to Ayodhya to celebrate this tremendous failure of the state.

Today, the Indian constitution lies under those thousands grave.

If any one of you celebrated, I hope you understand the gravity of your actions. I hope you understand what you all set in motion. I hope that one day, you understand and that there is no redemption for you after that.

I hope you all rot in hell.

Here’s a short poem by Rabindranath Tagore about an old god, a new temple, an arrogant king and many hungry and homeless ordinary people.

[bhaskarlive]

Muslim parties hope for ‘justice’ in Ayodhya title suit

With the Ayodhya title suit entering the last phase of hearing in the Supreme Court, the Muslim parties in the dispute say they hope that “justice will be delivered”.

“We aren’t astrologers, so can’t predict the verdict but I can say that our case is really strong on the documentary evidence. We’re hopeful and confident that justice would be delivered,” Shakil Ahmed from Sunni Waqf Board told IANS. Ayodhya

[todaybharatnews]

via Today Bharat After marathon arguments over 40 days, the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a batch of cross-appeals filed by the Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara, Sunni Waqf Board and others against 2010 Allahabad High court judgment trifurcating the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya. The High Court judgment had given two parts to Hindus mdash; for the idol of Ram Lalla and for Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect mdash; and one to Muslims. However, it was allocated such that the area under the dome of the now-demolished Babri Mosque went to the Hindu side. After senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan concluded his arguments, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said: ldquo;Hearing concluded. Judgment reserved. Parties to file written submissions on moulding of relief in three days.rdquo; The bench also comprised Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandra-chud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer. They have 32 days to write and pronounce their judgment. The deadline is November 17, the day CJI Gogoi retires. At the outset, Gogoi made it clear the hearing had to conclude on Wednesday. ldquo;Enough is enough,rdquo; Gogoi said, adding that the hearing would conclude at 5 pm when they rose for the day.nbsp; It ended 50 minutes earlier after Dhavan concluded his arguments reciting a couplet from the poet Iqbal. At one stage, Gogoi exclaimed, ldquo;I can go out, if it is goinghellip;,rdquo; when a number of lawyers urged the bench to give them an opportunity to address the court on the issue. Declining their request, the CJI said that at the very outset on August 6 the bench had made it clear that the parties had to adhere to the time schedule, leaving to them how they would share the time. His warning came as a number of lawyers persisted with their request. Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan tore a map submitted by senior counsel Vikas Singh appearing for the All India Hindu Mahasabha. It was from the 1985 book Ayodhya by Hans Baker. Dhavan said the map could not be relied upon as all case material was from 1950 to 1961, invoking the doctrine of lsquo;Post Motim Utinrsquo; (barring the use of material beyond the case documents). ldquo;You do what you want,rdquo; Gogoi said. No sooner had Dhavan torn the maps, there was commotion, angering the judges. ldquo;Decorum has been spoiled, decorum is not maintained. If proceedings continue in this manner, we would just get up and walk out,rdquo; said the Chief Justice. When bench assembled post-lunch, Justice Nazeer said the tearing of the map went viral on social media. It was clarified that it was with the consent of the CJI, and Gogoi said that even this would go viral. The hearing also saw Dhavan chiding senior lawyer P.N.Mishra, appearing for a Hindu litigant, for his lack of knowledge of revenue laws during the Mughal period and described his arguments as ldquo;foolishrdquo;. Mishra countered that he had written books on the laws of that period, and that people got PhDs based on his work. ldquo;I pity those PhDs,rdquo; Dhavan said. The overall hearing saw the idol of Ram Lalla asserting claim to the title of the disputed site, contending that in 1528 Babri Masjid was constructed by demolishing the existing Ram temple, and cited objects that had surfaced in the excavation ordered by the Allahabad High Court and undertaken by the ASI. It was contended that this pointed to the existence of a huge structure supported by pillars and described as a temple. Besides this, the proponents of the Ram temple have relied on oral evidence and accounts of European and Chinese travelers who visited Ayodhya over the centuries. They also cited the gazetteer of the East India Company in support of their claim. Lawyers appearing for the idol of Ram Lalla asserted that Ram Janmasthan itself was a Swayambhunbsp; mdash; a manifestation of God on the lines of Kedarnath and Badrinath temples. They also referred to Hindu law that once a temple, always a temple, notwithstanding whether at some point it was destroyed and a mosque built over it. Similarly, the Sunni Waqf Board relied on oral and documentary evidence in support of its claim to the title. They interpreted the archaeological findings at the disputed site as that of an idgah. Furthermore, the Babri Mosque stood at the disputed site ever since its construction in 1528 by Emperor Baburrsquo;s commander Mir Baqi, till it was razed on December 6, 1992. The Sunni Waqf Board pointed to the grants they received from Babur and later from the British administration in India. As Dhavan concluded his arguments citing Iqbalrsquo;s couplet, Justice Nazeer noted that senior counsel K. Parasaran commenced his arguments reciting Janani Janma-bhoomi-scha Swargadapi Gariyasi. VHP international president Vishnu Sadashiv Kokje hoped for a ldquo;favourablerdquo; verdict in the Ayodhya title suit case, hours after the supreme court reserved its order on the protracted litigation. Muslim religious scholars and leaders said that the Supreme Courtrsquo;s decision whatever it may be, should be accepted by both sides of the dispute. Maulana Mehboob Daryadi, general secretary of All India Ulema Council, said, ldquo;We are happy that hearing is over, we want the court to take a final call on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of religious sentiments. From the very beginning we have been saying that we will accept whatever the court's decision will be, but people on the opposite side should also accept the court's decision,rdquo; he said. nbsp;

[arunangur]

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has reconstituted the Constitution bench to hear the Ayodhya case, by adding two new judges to it. The case will be heard on January 29. The two new judges are Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice Ashok Bhushan. These two judges were earlier part of the Ayodhya bench when it was headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra. Justice UU Lalit had earlier this month recused himself from the bench saying he had been a lawyer in a related case. The bench led by Chief Justice will on Tuesday decide on a schedule and the frequency of hearings in the case. The other judges on the Constitution Bench are Justice SA Bobde and Justice DY Chandrachud. The decision on the title suit, pending for six decades and at the heart of India's most politically divisive row, comes amid demands to speed up the plan to build a Ram temple at the site where the 16th-century Babri mosque stood before it was razed by Hindu right wing activists in 1992. Members of the ruling BJP, some of its allies and right-wing groups want a special executive order or ordinance to enable the start of construction before the general elections are announced. Last year, the Supreme Court refused an early hearing in the case. If the Supreme Court, however, decides on daily or frequent hearings in the case, it will be seen as a shot in the arm for those demanding a resolution to the issue before the Lok Sabha polls. For the BJP, early hearing in the case would mean good news politically. In the last two years that the party has been in power in Uttar Pradesh, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, a Hindu priest as well, has made Ayodhya a showcase when it comes to development and tourism projects. Part of the plan is to build a massive Ram statue in the temple town that will be the world's tallest. The BJP hopes these moves will attract votes in the general elections, especially from those among the majority Hindus who believe that a Ram temple should be constructed in Ayodhya at the earliest. In an interview to news agency ANI at the start of the year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made it clear that any decision on passing an executive order on the Ram temple issue cannot be made unless the judicial process is over. Muslim stakeholders in the case say an early resolution is what they want too. The dispute in Ayodhya is over 2.7 acres of land on which the Babri Masjid stood before it was demolished on December 6, 1992. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court allotted two-thirds of the land to the Hindus and one third to the Sunni Waqf Board. Both Hindu and Muslim organisations appealed against it in the Supreme Court, which in 2011, stayed the High Court order. In October, the Supreme Court rejected the Uttar Pradesh government's appeal for an early hearing of the 14 petitions in the case. "We have our own priorities. Whether hearing would take place in January, March or April would be decided by an appropriate bench," the court said.