Showing posts with label Ayodhya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ayodhya. Show all posts

Monday, 11 November 2019

Ayodhya verdict is cue for PM Modi to focus on fixing India's economy

Over the weekend, India’s Supreme Court pronounced on a title dispute in Ayodhya, a small town in India’s northern state of Uttar Pradesh. Like many other property cases in India, this one had been working its way through the judicial system for decades. But it may be the most consequential such dispute in Indian history.
Millions of Hindus believe Ayodhya was the capital of Ram, an avatar of Vishnu and hero of the epic Ramayana, and the dispute was over rights to the site where Hindus say a 16th century mosque was built over Ram’s birthplace. Reversing a lower court’s order that the area be divided between the two sides, judges awarded it entirely to the Hindu applicants, while saying Muslims must be compensated with land elsewhere.
The dispute is inextricably entwined with national politics and the status of Indian secularism. It exploded into the national consciousness in the 1980s and early 1990s, when both the then-ruling Indian National Congress party and today’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party laid claim to Ram’s heritage. Congress Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had the locks on the mosque broken open and began an election campaign from the town.
ALSO READ: Indian economy currently facing challenges, says FM Nirmala Sitharaman
Meanwhile, BJP leaders launched a nationwide “rath yatra” -- a pilgrimage in a bus decked out to look like a chariot -- intending to gather support for replacing the mosque with a Hindu temple. (One of the local organizers of the rath yatra was a young man named Narendra Modi.) Finally, amid the escalating tensions, a mob of Hindu activists physically demolished the medieval mosque in 1992 as the state police -- controlled by the local BJP administration -- stood by or ran away. That defiant act of violence marked the beginning of the long rise of the BJP to absolute power in India.
Today, after the Supreme Court awarded the BJP-run central government the right to set up a trust to administer the process of Hindu worship at this long-disputed site, it is worth noting how effectively and efficiently Modi’s party has moved forward on the core aspects of its ideological agenda. For decades, the Hindu nationalist wing of Indian politics has mobilized around certain key issues: the banning of cow slaughter, the building of a temple at Ayodhya, combating the perceived demographic threat to Hindus from migration or conversion, and denying autonomy to India’s Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir.
On each of these, in just the few months since Modi was reelected as prime minister with an enhanced majority earlier this year, there has been significant progress. A temple will be built at Ayodhya; Kashmir has had its special status revoked; a project to disenfranchise all “foreigners” in the border state of Assam has been concluded and may be extended to the rest of India. A national law effectively banning religious conversion may not be far off, while violence from self-styled “cow protectors” has also been widely publicized.
The speed and energy with which the BJP’s social agenda has been implemented stands in sharp contrast to the dilatory and timid approach the government has taken to structural economic reform. When Modi was first elected in 2014, many hoped that he would instead focus on the economy over social issues, as the BJP had done during its previous stint in power in New Delhi (remember the slogan, “build toilets before temples?”).

ALSO READ: Darkening clouds: Govt denial, inadequate response are not helping economy
But the Modi government has clearly prioritized foreign affairs and domestic social change. While some major reforms have been introduced, including a new bankruptcy code and a nationwide goods-and-services tax, other long-pending measures that would improve Indian competitiveness have been postponed or avoided. Loss-making or unproductive state-owned companies have not been shut down or sold, for fear of the political fallout. This reluctance to reform has persisted in spite of a dramatic and self-inflicted economic slowdown, reflected last week in Moody’s decision to downgrade the outlook for India to negative.
The question is what Modi chooses to do after this victory. With so much progress to tout on the Hindu nationalist agenda, will he now feel he has the political space for bold economic reform? This is what many of those who continue to be optimistic about his tenure argue. And Modi himself continues to frame the government’s social program carefully, as part of the natural and impartial settling of long-pending issues rather than as the beginning of a new radical agenda.
But such hopes have been continually raised since 2014 and mostly been disappointed. The only rational conclusion is that Modi and his party feel that remaking Indian society is more important than remaking the economy. Perhaps they have been elected more on the basis of the social issues the BJP has espoused since its founding decades ago than on nebulous hopes of economic progress. Or perhaps they’re just true believers themselves.

Saturday, 9 November 2019

Temple at disputed site; Babri razing illegal: Ayodhya verdict highlights

In a unanimous verdict, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Saturday gave the ownership of the disputed 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya to a group representing Hindus, marking another chapter in the centuries-old religious dispute that has been one of the country’s most politically sensitive issues.
Even as the Bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, delivered its verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid land dispute, states across the country had stepped up security and were closely monitoring the social media.
Here are the key points from the court judgment:
Supreme Court gives the disputed 2.77 acres to the Ram Janmabhoomi trust. It orders that an alternative piece of land, which lies in a "suitable" and "prominent" place in Ayodhya be given to the Muslims to build a mosque.
Court asks government to frame a plan within three months and set up a trust for construction of a temple in Ayodhya.
Supreme Court asks Central and UP governments to allot 5 acres to Muslims at a prominent place for a building mosque in Ayodhya.
ALSO READ: Ayodhya verdict LIVE: Disputed site for temple, alternative land for mosque
Court says the Muslim side in the dispute has been unable to prove its right to the disputed property. It says the underlying structure below the disputed site at Ayodhya was not an Islamic structure, but the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has not established whether a temple was demolished to build a mosque.
The court says the extensive nature of Hindus worshipping at outer courtyard at the disputed site has been there. Evidence suggests the Muslims offered Friday prayers at mosque, indicating they had not lost possession of the site. It said that despite obstruction caused in offering prayers at mosque, the evidences suggest that there was no abandonment in offering prayers.
Supreme Court says the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 was violation of law. Thousands of Hindu activists tore down the mosque that year, leading to riots in many parts of the country.

ALSO READ: Disputed Ayodhya site goes to temple, Muslims to get alternative land: SC
The court says the Allahabad High Court's decision in 2010 to give share in the land to Sunni Wakf Board and Nirmohi Akhara—Muslim and Hindu groups--even after dismissing their suits "defies logic". It says the entire land has to be considered as a whole, reports The Indian Express.
The Supreme Court says the faith and belief of Hindus that Ram was born in Ayodhya is "indisputable". It says, "Faith is a matter of individual believer... No evidence has come on record to discount the belief of Hindus in the place."
Chief Justice Gogoi says five judges of the constitution bench are pronouncing a unanimous judgment.
(With inputs from PTI)

PM Modi equates SC verdict on Ayodhya with Berlin wall demolition on Nov 9

India's credo of unity in diversity was visible in its totality after the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya land dispute as all sections of the society accepted it with an open heart, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Saturday, urging people to shun bitterness and negativity for the sake of a new India.
PM reminded the citizens that it was on this day almost three decades ago, that the Berlin Wall fell and united East Germany and West Germany. And now the day would also be remembered in history for two key developments -- the Supreme Court ruling in the Ayodhya land dispute, and the opening of the Kartarpur corridor. PM Modi also gave credit to Pakistan for Kartapur.

ALSO READ: Ayodhya case: Kar sevaks from MP recall frenzy of 1990s, welcome verdict
Addressing the nation hours after the top court gave its judgment, Modi said the way each section of the society welcomed the verdict reflects India's ancient traditions of amity and harmony.
He said India's credo of unity in diversity is today visible in its totality.
What is Ayodhya case?
He also expressed happiness that the five-judge bench of the top court was unanimous in its order.
He said peace, unity and amity are essential for development of India and described November 9 as a day to forget any bitterness one may have. He said there is no place for fear, bitterness and negativity in new India.
Settling a fractious issue that goes back more than a century, the Supreme Court in a historic verdict on Saturday backed the construction of a Ram temple by a trust at the disputed site in Ayodhya, and ruled that an alternative five-acre plot must be found for a mosque in the Hindu holy town.

Lord Ram's abode Ayodhya breathes easy after SC ruling in land dispute case

The temple town of Ayodhya, about 140 km from the Uttar Pradesh capital, breathed easy on the day when the constitution bench of Supreme Court delivered its much awaited verdict on the vexed title suit of the disputed land.
The town, which had virtually been turned into a garrison over the past few weeks in the anticipation of the long pending case, largely remained normal with shops in the main markets of Sahabganj, Devkalli, Fatehganj and Subhashnagar open and catering to customers.

Last night, the state government had declared a holiday across educational institutions in UP for three days starting Saturday as a precautionary measure with the SC slated to deliver its verdict around 10:30 this morning.
In its judgement, the SC paved way for the construction of a Lord Ram Temple at the disputed site, while directing the Centre to provide 5 acres land to the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque in lieu of the razing of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992.
Since there was barricading throughout the main thoroughfare of the city, the famous ghats of Ayodhya, including Nayaghat and Jhunkighat wore a deserted look, since the devotees faced numerous frisking and checks by the police.
Meanwhile, Ayodhya district magistrate Anuj Jha told Business Standard adequate security forces had been deployed in the city to maintain peace and to thwart any possible threat to the law and order situation.
“The city remains calm and there is absolutely normal movement of people. The police and security forces are alert to deal with any situation,” he said and underlined the prohibitory orders would remain in force for more some time.
City resident Samu Gupta, who runs a tea and general merchant shop near Naya ghat, welcomed the SC decision, saying at last the matter had been resolved and there would be lasting peace in Ayodhya now.
Onkar Nath Shastri, a priest at the famous Tirumati temple dedicated to Lord Ram, hailed the SC verdict and observed the people were happy that a grand temple would now be built.
However, a section of the Muslim community expressed disappointment with the court’s decision saying the case which basically pertained to the settlement of the title suit did not serve justice to the Sunni Waqf Board, which was party to the case.
“We are disappointed with the decision and feel that the Waqf Board should file a review petition in the SC. Nonetheless, the harmony between Hindus and Muslims would remain as unblemished as ever in Ayodhya,” Mohd Shafiq, a government teacher, observed.
Similarly, Mohd Gufran lamented that all political parties had now shunned Muslims’ issues and were now only working for the gratification of the majority community for vested interests.

Friday, 8 November 2019

SC's Ayodhya verdict today: All you need to know about Babri Masjid case

On December 6, 1992, Babri Masjid in Ayodhya  was demolished, changing India's political fabric forever. After almost 27 years, the Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute today.
A five-judge Constitution Bench will pronounce its judgment on petitions challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that had divided the disputed 2.77-acre plot in Ayodhya among the Nirmohi Akhara, a religious denomination, the Sunni Central Waqf Board, and representatives of Ram Lalla, the child deity. Arguments in the case ended on October 16 after a marathon hearing of 40 days.

Historical evidence shows that in 1528 a commander in first Mughal emperor Babur's army, Mir Baqi, had constructed the mosque in Ayodhya which had come to be known as Babri Mosque. Let's take a look at the timeline of events as they unfolded in the case over the decades leading up to today.
1885: One Mahant Raghubar Das files a suit seeking permission to construct a Ram Temple at the disputed site. A trial court rejects the petition fearing such a permission would lead to riots. Appeals are also rejected.
1934: A mob damages parts of the disputed structure. The British repair it. Muslims continue to offer prayers at the mosque and Hindus worship at Ram-Chabutra and Kaushalya Rasoi.
1949-1959: Lord Ram's idols are planted inside the central dome of Babri masjid. Both sides file court cases; the site is locked. Ten years after that, Nirmohi Akhara files a suit seeking possession of the site and claims to be the custodian of the disputed land.
December 18, 1961: The Sunni Central Board of Waqf files a suit claiming ownership of the site.
1984: Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) launches a campaign for the construction of a Ram temple at what it claims to be the birthplace (Janmabhoomi) of Lord Ram. Two years after, the Faizabad district court orders that gates of the mosque be opened and Hindus be allowed to worship there. Muslims protest the move and form the Babri Mosque Action Committee.
November 9, 1989: VHP lays the foundation of a Ram temple on the land next to the Babri Masjid after receiving permission to do so from the Rajiv Gandhi government of the day.
September 25, 1990: Then BJP President L K Advani launches a Rath Yatra from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya, demanding the construction of a Ram temple. However, he is arrested in Bihar’s Samastipur in November.
December 6, 1992: The Babri Mosque is razed to the ground by hundreds of kar sevaks.
April 2002: A three-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court begins hearing to determine the ownership of the disputed land in Ayodhya. The HC orders the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to excavate the site and determine if it was a temple earlier.
2003: ASI finds evidence of the presence of a temple under the mosque. Muslim organisations dispute these findings.
September 30, 2010: The HC rules that the disputed land should be divided into three parts — a third should go to Ram Lalla Virajman, represented by the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha; one-third to the Sunni Waqf Board; and the remaining to the Nirmohi Akhara. In December, the parties move the Supreme Court.
May 2011: The Supreme Court stays the Allahabad HC order.
March 2017: The Supreme Court says charges against Advani and other leaders in the Babri Masjid demolition case cannot be dropped. The apex court adds that the matter is sensitive and must be settled out of court.
May 30, 2017: Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharati and Vinay Katiyar are charged with criminal conspiracy in the Babri Masjid demolition case.
December 5, 2017: The SC says it will hear the civil appeals filed by various parties challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict on February 8.
September 2018: The Supreme Court rejects the plea for a review of the 1994 Farooqui judgment but then clarifies that this would have no bearing on pending title suits.
October 2018: The Supreme Court decides that the land dispute case will only be listed before an “appropriate Bench” in January 2019. A Bench consisting of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph says: “The appropriate Bench will fix the schedule with regard to the hearing of appeals in the case.”
January 8, 2019: The Supreme Court sets up a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the land dispute case.
January 10, 2019: A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court hears the Ayodhya land title dispute case, sets January 29 as the next date for hearing in the case.
March 8, 2019: The SC refers the Ayodhya land dispute case for mediation, asks the panel to complete proceedings within 8 weeks.
August 1, 2019: The mediation panel submits its report to the apex court. The SC says the mediation panel failed to find a solution.
August 6, 2019: The top court begins day-to-day hearing in the case.
October 16, 2019: After a marathon 40-day daily hearing, the SC concludes hearing in the case. It says that a verdict will be delivered by CJI Gogoin before his retirement on November 17, 2019.
November 8, 2019: The Supreme Court lists Ayodhya title suit judgment for November 9.

Ayodhya verdict LIVE: Nyas to get disputed site, Muslims 5 acres elsewhere

Five-judge Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi (centre) and (from left) Justices Ashok Bhushan, D Y Chandrachud, Sharad Arvind Bobde and SA Nazeer
Ayodhya verdict LIVE updates: The Supreme Court is ruling on the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya, marking another chapter in a centuries-old religious dispute that is the country’s most politically divisive row.
The case, which has spanned centuries of religious history and languished in the legal system for almost seven decades, is finally expected to see a closure, as a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi pronounces its verdict.

Thousands of paramilitary force members and police have been deployed in Ayodhya, where the Babri Masjid mosque was razed in 1992 by hardline Hindus who believe the site is the birthplace of Lord Ram.
The government has stepped up security not just in Ayodhya but across the country and security forces have been put on a high alert. A verdict in favour of building a Ram Temple at Ayodhya would be seen as a political victory for Modi, who won a second term in a landslide general election win this year. Section 144 has also been imposed in the state in Uttar Pradesh.
Read our full coverage on Ayodhya case
CATCH ALL THE LIVE UPDATES
Auto Refresh
Read our full coverage on Ayodhya case
READ MORE ONAYODHYAAYODHYA CASESECTION 144BABRI MASJIDRAM JANMABHOOMI DISPUTECURRENT AFFAIRSNATIONAL

LATEST NEWS
IN THIS SECTION
ALL
Seasonal impact: Telecom companies may see flat ARPU growth in Q2
Will review regime for foreign call termination charges, says Trai
Sanjay Gupta
Premium Content Hotstar to YouTube, how Sanjay Gupta stayed in the OTT game and aced it
Air India, Air India headquarters
Premium Content Air India stake sale: EoI for bidders to be issued in first week of January
tax, taxation, taxpayers
OECD weaves net to stop Google, Facebook and Netflix from shifting profit
Telecom, Telecom sector
Premium Content Collateral damage? PSU majors stare at huge AGR bill after SC's judgment
More >
MOST POPULAR
READ
SHARE
COMMENTED
EV push, registration charge hike to dent 2-wheeler segment most: analysts

Sunday, 27 October 2019

Mann Ki Baat: Parties united people after 2010 Ayodhya verdict, says PM

Days before the Supreme Court is to deliver its verdict on the Ayodhya issue, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday recalled how political parties and the civil society played a mature role in uniting people when efforts were made to create fissures ahead of the 2010 Allahabad High Court ruling on the disputed land in Ayodhya.
Addressing the people in his monthly "Mann ki Baat" radio address, the prime minister said he vividly remembers the September of 2010 when several "interest groups" had tried to exploit the situation to their interest.

He said the language that was used was aimed at inflaming the atmosphere.
"Some loud mouths had made irresponsible statements just to hog the limelight ... It continued for five to 10 days," he said.
Thanks to the people of India, social organisations, political parties, saints, seers and leaders of all faiths, it became a day that furthered unity, he said.
The judiciary was also respected by all after the verdict, Modi pointed out.
A Special Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya will be divided into three parts. A two-thirds portion is to be shared by two Hindu plaintiffs and one-third will be given to the Sunni Muslim Waqf Board.
The apex court is likely to deliver its verdict on the Ayodhya issue sometime in the middle of November.

Wednesday, 16 October 2019

Ayodhya dispute: SC concludes hearing; verdict likely by November 17

After hearing arguments from various parties over the past 40 days, the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday reserved its verdict in the Ayodhya land title dispute case. A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, had started daily hearing on the matter from August 6, and midway through the proceedings, requested the advocates to finish their arguments latest by October 18. The judgment in the case is likely to be pronounced by November 17, when CJI Gogoi will demit office.
The five-judge Constitution Bench, which also has Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and Abdul Nazeer, had started hearing the case on August 6 after a court-appointed panel led by SC judge (retired) Justice F M I Kalifulla failed to find a solution through mediation.

There are 14 cases in total which have been heard by the apex court. Among the 14 cases is also a challenge to a 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, which had ruled that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya should be partitioned equally between the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara, and Ram Lalla. The first case was filed as early as 1950, when Gopal Singh Visharad, a devotee of ‘Ram Lalla’, sought enforcement of the right to worship for Hindus at the disputed site.
The hearing on Wednesday also saw major courtroom drama as senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for one of the Muslim parties, tore up certain documents, including a map, that were handed over by a Hindu party. The map, a part of the book Ayodhya Revisited, allegedly shows the spot which is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. The map was handed by the Hindu party to the court and the opposing counsels to buttress their claim about the birthplace.
chart
The courtroom drama on the last day was not the sole incident to happen over the past 40 hearings in the contentious Ram Temple-Babri Masjid hearing. The very first day of hearing on August 6 saw a clash between Dhavan and CJI Gogoi, when the former got up to object to the submissions made by Nirmohi Akhara. CJI Gogoi objected to the same and asked him to make his submissions when his turn to speak came.
“Mr Dhavan, please maintain the dignity of the court,” CJI Gogoi had then told him, adding there was a way to answer questions asked by the court.
Among other notable incidents during these 40 hearings was also a letter written to Dhavan by Chennai-based 88-year-old Professor Shanmugham, in which the latter had cursed him with physical harm for appearing for Muslim parties and betraying his faith. A contempt-of-court case was started against the professor, but was later dropped after he apologised to the court.
On September 20, fearing paucity of time, the SC had decided to sit an hour more each day and rise at 5 pm instead of the scheduled time. Earlier in August, the five-judge Bench had already decided to hear the case on all five days (Monday through Friday) instead of just the ‘non-miscellaneous’ days (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday).
On Wednesday, the five-judge Bench also granted all the parties three days to file written notes on ‘moulding of relief’ or narrowing down the issues on which the court is required to adjudicate.

Saturday, 29 June 2019

SC to hear, decide sensitive cases like Ayodhya, Rafale on reopening

Upon reopening on July 1 after a six-week summer vacation, the Supreme Court will deal with very sensitive issues, including the Ayodhya land dispute, review pleas in Rafale case and the contempt case against Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing to the court his "chowkidar chor hai" slogan.
The top court, which would function with its full judicial strength of 31 judges under the stewardship of Chief Justice (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, is likely to deliver its verdict in the review pleas in Rafale case.

The petitions, including the one filed by ex-Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, and lawyer Prashant Bhushan, seek review of the apex court's December 14, 2018, judgment dismissing all pleas challenging procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.
Also, a three-judge bench headed by the CJI would decide the fate of BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi's contempt plea against Gandhi for wrongly attributing to the top court his "chowkidar chor hai" jibe against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Gandhi, however, has already tendered unconditional apology for it and sought closure of the case.
The outcome of the in-camera mediation proceedings, undertaken by a three-member panel headed by former apex court judge Justice F M I Kallifulla, to find an amicable solution to the politically-sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute, would be watched with bated breath.
The mediation committee, which also comprises spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, is "optimistic" about finding an amicable solution to the vexatious dispute. It has been granted time till August 15 by a five-judge bench headed by the CJI.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the SC against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be divided equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
Besides these, the SC will have to deal with a PIL seeking a probe and lodging of an FIR against activist lawyers Indira Jaising, Anand Grover and their NGO 'Lawyers Collective' for allegedly violating rules relating to receipt and utilisation of foreign funds.
The PIL has been filed by 'Lawyers' Voice', a voluntary organisation of advocates.
The top court would also dealing with the PIL of lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay challenging the constitutional validity of Article 370, which grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir and limits Parliament's power to make laws for the state.
The top court would also be dealing a host of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A, which provides special rights and privileges to natives of Jammu and Kashmir.
On February 11, the Jammu and Kashmir government had sought permission from the Supreme Court to circulate a letter to parties for adjourning the hearing on pleas saying that there was no "elected government" in the state.

Friday, 25 January 2019

SC reconstitutes 5-member Constitution Bench to hear Ayodhya dispute case

A new five-judge Constitution Bench was constituted in the Supreme Court on Friday to hear the politically sensitive Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute in Ayodhya.
The Bench was re-constituted as Justice U U Lalit, who was a member of the original Bench had recused himself from hearing the matter.

The new Bench comprises Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

ALSO READ: SC to form new bench for Ayodhya case after Justice U U Lalit recuses self
Justice N V Ramana, who was on the Bench which last heard the matter on January 10, is also not a member in the new Bench.
Justice Bhushan is also a new member on the Bench.
ALSO READ: Ayodhya case: Justice Lalit recuses himself; new Bench to hear on Jan 29
A notice sent by the Supreme Court registry to various parties said that the Ayodhya dispute matter will be listed on Thursday, January 29, 2019, in "Chief Justice's court before the constitution bench comprising the CJI, and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.

Thursday, 6 December 2018

The untold story of how the Ram idol surfaced inside Babri Masjid

The night was almost over. Ayodhya was still numb with sleep. Piercing through the quiet, a young sadhu, drenched in sweat, came scampering from Hanumangarhi, a fortress-like Hindu religious establishment housing over five hundred sadhus in Ayodhya. He had been sent to summon Satyendra Das to his guru, Abhiram Das, who seemed to be breathing his last. Those were the early hours of 3 December 1981, and a curtain was coming down over a few forgotten pages of history.
Dharam Das, the other disciple who stayed with Abhiram Das in his one-room tenement, the asan in Hanumangarhi, had asked for him so that they could be with their guru in his last moments. The news did not come as a shock. Satyendra Das had been almost awaiting the moment, since he had known for long that his guru was nearing the end of his journey. He had been at his bedside the whole day and the signs were not encouraging. Even when he had left Abhiram Das’s asan to get a breather after hours of tending to the terminally ill, he had a premonition that his guru – the man who had led a small band of Hindus to surreptitiously plant the idol of Lord Rama in Babri Masjid on yet another December night three decades ago – might not live long. After he had come away from the bedside, unwilling but tired to the bones, Satyendra Das was restless and unable to sleep. He dreaded the moment, yet knew that someone would knock on his doors with the news any time, and when it came, he responded fast, wrapped a quilt around himself and ran out along with the young sadhu who had come to fetch him.

It was very cold outside. The winter night was fading into a dense fog that smothered everything in its folds. Nothing was visible. The duo, almost running in total invisibility, knew the nooks and crannies of Ayodhya like the back of their hands. As Satyendra Das arrived at the asan, he saw Abhiram Das lying in the middle of the room on a charpoy, surrounded by a few sadhus from Hanumangarhi. No one spoke; it was very quiet. Only Dharam Das moved close to him and murmured softly that their guru had passed away minutes before he had stepped in. Slowly, as the day began to break, devotees and disciples started pouring into the room. Soon, preparations for the last rites of the deceased were begun with the help of some residents of Hanumangarhi.
The rituals for the final journey of ascetics are not the same as those for non-ascetic Hindu grihasthas, particularly in north India. Sadhus, unlike Hindu grihasthas, are rarely cremated. There are two options: either their bodies are smeared with salt and buried sitting in a meditative posture or they are dropped down a sacred river tied with a rock or sacks full of sand. The fact that sadhus who take vows of complete renunciation are not cremated symbolizes their separation from the material world. The claim goes that cremation for sadhus is superfluous since they have already burnt their attachments through ascetic initiation, opting for a life of austerities and renunciation.
In Ayodhya, the normal ascetic practice has been to immerse the body of a sadhu in the Sarayu – the name given to the river only as long as it touches the shores of the town. Before and after Ayodhya, the river is known as the Ghaghara. The reason for this nomenclatural confusion lies in a particular Hindu belief. As mythology has turned Ayodhya into the birthplace of Lord Rama, the river owing by it has also assumed the mythical name of Sarayu – the stream that is believed to have owed through the kingdom of Lord Rama.
ADVERTISING

Back in Hanumangarhi, by the noon of 3 December 1981, Abhiram Das’s disciples and friends had completed all preparations and were ready to initiate the final rituals for the deceased. Outside the asan, the body of Abhiram Das had been placed on a platform made of bamboo in a seated posture, his face frozen into a mask of self-control, his eyes half-closed as if he were deep in meditation. A saffron piece of cloth that had the name of Lord Rama printed all over – a particular kind of cotton or silk material called ramnami – had been carefully wrapped around his body. A similar cloth covered three sides of the arch made out of split bamboo that rested on the hard bamboo platform holding the corpse. The bamboo structure – euphemistically called viman to symbolize the mythical transporter of souls to the heavenly realm – had been kept uncovered on one side to enable people to have a last glimpse of the deceased.
Slowly, a group of sadhus lifted the viman on their shoulders and climbed up the flight of stairs leading to the temple of Lord Hanuman in the centre of Hanumangarhi. At the temple, the group swelled further and as the viman was taken out of Hanumangarhi, the motley crowd accompanying it chanted, ‘Ramajanmabhoomi Uddharak amar rahen (Long live the saviour of the birth place of Rama).’
Three decades back, on the morning of 23 December 1949, the First Information Report (FIR) registered by Ayodhya Police following the planting of the idol of Lord Rama in Babri Masjid on the night before had named Abhiram Das as the prime accused. He had also been tried for the crime he and his friends had committed that night, but the case had remained inconclusive. In course of time, many Hindus in Ayodhya had started calling him Ramajanmabhoomi Uddharak.
The slogan-shouting grew louder as the viman reached the entrance of Babri Masjid, where it was carefully laid down. The priests of Ramajanmabhoomi, the temple that operated inside Babri Masjid ever since the idol was planted in it, as well as those of nearby Hindu religious establishments already knew about the demise of the sadhu, and they came out and garlanded the corpse and paid their homage to the departed soul.
By and large, however, Ayodhya remained unaware of Abhiram Das’s death. Though some residents looked at this funeral procession with curiosity, for the majority it was the demise of yet another old sadhu. After three decades, the historical facts associated with the developments in 1949 had slipped into obscurity. e propaganda of All India Hindu Mahasabha and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – that the idol had never been planted and Lord Rama had manifested Himself at His place of birth – had gained ground among devout Hindus by now, largely delinking Abhiram Das from what he had done in the dark hours of that fateful night. Booklets and pamphlets written by Hindu communalists during the intervening period had flooded the shops of Ayodhya and had gone a long way in reinforcing the myth of ‘divine exercise’. For legal reasons, even those who had a role in that surreptitious act found it convenient to let the myth grow and capture popular imagination. e law, after all, could catch human conspiracies, but a ‘divine exercise’ was beyond its reach. Yet, to a small group of Hindus in Ayodhya, Abhiram Das continued to remain till his death Ramajanmabhoomi Uddharak or simply Uddharak Baba.
Whatever be the case, the lack of interest among locals could not be missed by many present in the cortège as it wound down the narrow lanes of Ayodhya and moved towards the banks of the Sarayu. On the bank, where the cortège reached at around two that afternoon, those carrying the viman on their shoulders bent down to put their burden on the ground. The sadhu’s body was taken out of it, bathed in the river and, after being smeared with ghee all over, was wrapped in a fresh white cloth. Two sand-filled sacks were tied to the back of the body, one beneath the shoulder and the other under the waist, which was then gently laid out in the boat that sailed o the moment Satyendra Das, Dharam Das and three other sadhus of Hanumangarhi boarded it. Within minutes, the boat reached the centre of the river, where it was no longer shallow and which had traditionally been used for such water burials. Those present on the boat performed the final rites before lifting Abhiram Das’s body and casting it into the cool, calm waters of the Sarayu.
II
The indifferent response that Abhiram Das’s death evoked among the local populace in 1981 was at odds with the atmosphere the town had witnessed three decades ago, during the years following Independence. At that time, many in Ayodhya, as in several other parts of the country, had seen things differently. The communal frenzy which had accompanied the partition of India had intensely brutalized the atmosphere. No less important was the role played by organizations which saw the immediate aftermath of Partition as an opportunity to derail the secular project of independent India. e conspirators associated with these organizations and the conspiracies they hatched had already resulted in major national tragedies.
One such was the gruesome murder of Mahatma Gandhi on 30 January 1948. The hands that pumped bullets into the chest of the Mahatma were that of Nathuram Godse, but, as was proved later, the assassination was part of a conspiracy hatched by top Hindu Mahasabha leaders, led by V.D. Savarkar, whose prime objectives were to snatch political initiative from the Congress and destabilize all efforts to uphold secularism in India. The conspiracy to kill Gandhi could not remain hidden for long even though the trial, held immediately after the assassination, had failed to uncover its extent.
The surreptitious occupation of the Babri Masjid was an act planned by almost the same set of people about two years later – on the night of 22 December 1949. It was, in many ways, a reflection of the same brutalized atmosphere that saw Gandhi being murdered. Neither the conspirators nor their underlying objectives were different. In both instances, the conspirators belonged to the Hindu Mahasabha leadership – some of the prime movers of the planting of the idol had been the prime accused in the Gandhi murder case – and their objective this time too was to wrest the political centre stage from the Congress by provoking large-scale Hindu mobilization in the name of Lord Rama.
Yet the two incidents differed – as much in the modus operandi used by Hindu communalists as in the manner in which the government and the ruling party, the Congress, responded to them. While the Mahatma was killed in full public view in broad daylight, the Babri Masjid was converted into a temple secretly, in the dead of night. Apparently, the quick and massive government reprisal in the aftermath of Gandhi’s assassination had taught the Hindu Mahasabha leaders several lessons. One was to avoid confrontation with the government so that they could extract maximum political advantage out of their act. Another was to involve a section of the Congress that was sympathetic to their cause. So when, two years later, they set out to execute the Ayodhya project, they remained extremely careful, keeping themselves in the backstage until the mosque was actually impounded and ensuring a large-scale mobilization of Hindus in the immediate aftermath without wasting any time. Though the political objective they had planned through this act of communal aggression in Ayodhya could not be achieved in the manner they had hoped for, they greatly succeeded in keeping the story of the night and the conspiracy behind it a secret, for it never came out in its entirety.
Also, while the conspiracy to kill the Mahatma was probed thoroughly by a commission set up by the Government of India albeit two decades later, no such inquiry was conducted to unmask the plot and the plotters behind the forcible conversion of the Babri Masjid into a temple. As a result, an event that so remarkably changed the political discourse in India continues to be treated as a localized crime committed spontaneously by a handful of local people led, of course, by Abhiram Das, a local sadhu. It was, however, a well-planned conspiracy involving national-, provincial- and local-level leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha undertaken with he objective of reviving the party’s political fortunes that were lost in the aftermath of the Gandhi assassination.
Time has further pushed the secret story of the Hindu Mahasabha’s Ayodhya strategy into obscurity, leaving only what is most apparent for public debate. The unending process of litigation which it triggered completely shifted the focus away from that fateful night and has now become the basis of communal politics in the country. Incidentally, the most crucial part of the controversy – the hidden one – remains an ignored area of research. For instance, the White Paper on the Babri Masjid–Ramajanmabhoomi dispute of the Government of India dismissed the incident of 1949 – legally the root cause of the dispute – in just one paragraph. Issued in the aftermath of the demolition of the mosque on 6 December 1992, the document does not have more to say on the incident:
The controversy entered a new phase with the placing of idols in the disputed structure in December 1949. The premises were attached under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Civil suits were led shortly thereafter. Interim orders in these civil suits restrained the parties from removing the idols or interfering with their worship. In effect, therefore, from December 1949 till December 6, 1992 the structure had not been used as a mosque.
It seems impertinent to say that so little is known about the night of 22–23 December 1949 since, in a sense, almost the entire dispute over the mosque emanates from the appearance of the idol of Rama inside that structure. Nevertheless, it is true that there has been little research by contemporary or later writers to fill the gap. This missing link of history remained out of focus till the issue was politically revived and strengthened by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in the mid-1980s. And by then the story of the night had been taken over by the politics of communalism and the debate over the proprietorship of the disputed land.
But till Lord Rama ‘manifested’ Himself inside the Babri Masjid, all moves had sought to construct the temple at Ramachabutara, an elevated platform outside the inner courtyard of the mosque. Only after the idols were placed inside did the demand for converting the Muslim place of worship into a temple enter the legal arena. And yet the development of that night did not attract much attention in the media when it actually took place. No major newspaper or journal of the time gave it the kind of serious coverage it deserved even though the import of the development was not at all lost on Congress leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Govind Ballabh Pant and Akshay Brahmachary as well as Hindu Mahasabha president N.B. Khare, its vice-president V.G. Deshpande and its all India general secretary and president of the party’s UP unit Mahant Digvijai Nath.
The only journal that covered the events in detail was a local Hindi weekly in Ayodhya called Virakta. Its editor, Ramgopal Pandey ‘Sharad’, was a known Mahasabhaite. The kind of material that Virakta published had a pronounced Hindu communal bias, and it was hardly expected to carry objective reportage on the developments. If anything, this journal was the first to promote the theory of ‘divine exercise’ – though in bits and pieces – to explain the appearance of the idol of Lord Rama inside the mosque.
Later, Ramgopal Pandey ‘Sharad’ wrote a booklet in Hindi – Shree Ramjanmabhoomi Ka Rakta Ranjit Itihaas (The Blood-soaked History of the Birth Place of Lord Rama). In Ayodhya, this has remained the most popular and perhaps only available material on the subject ever since. Like Virakta, this booklet, too, explains the developments of that night in terms of divine intervention rather than as a communal tactic conceived and executed by the Mahasabha in collaboration with local communalists. is is what the booklet says:
Twenty-third December 1949 was a glorious day for India. On that day, after a long gap of about four hundred years, the birth place of Lord Rama was redeemed. e way developments happened [on the night before], it can be said that Lord Rama himself redeemed his place of birth.
While this theory was being used by communalists to explain the mystery of those dark hours, no serious attempt was made to explore the events of that night objectively, neither by the government nor by any institutions or individual researchers. Debunking the theory of ‘divine exercise’ is one thing (and there is no dearth of works in this regard), but unravelling the truth that was sought to be covered is something else.
Surely, part of the reason why the facts could not come out as and when they occurred – as happened in case of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination – had greatly to do with the power politics of the time. After the assassination of Gandhi in 1948 until the death of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in 1950, the Congress party was beset with an intense intra-party power struggle. Though it had witnessed factional fights earlier as well, there had always been an element of restraint under the influence of Mahatma Gandhi and the idealism of the freedom struggle. But as soon as these restraints disappeared, the fight between the two power blocs in the Congress – Hindu conservatives led by Patel and secularists led by Nehru – came out in the open.
The United Provinces, in particular, emerged as one of the main battlegrounds for these power blocs in the Congress, merely months after Gandhi’s assassination. Govind Ballabh Pant, the chief minister of the province (called prime minister before adoption of the Constitution on 26 January 1950), was a staunch loyalist of Patel. His desperation to remove all those who appeared to be potential challengers to his authority in the state Congress led him to align with Hindu revivalists in Ayodhya – a move that, apart from paying him dividends, greatly emboldened Mahasabhaites and set the ground for the eventual appearance of the idols at the Babri Masjid.
With the Hindu conservative faction of the Congress, in a bid to neutralize Nehru, openly trying to outsource political strength from communal elements outside the party, and the latter endeavouring to arrest this political drift and salvage its own position, there was hardly much time, or determination, to probe the misdeeds of the Mahasabhaites. This was even more so in the United Provinces where the government appeared to be more interested in protecting the Hindu communalists than bringing them to book.
By the time this battle was won by Nehru in late 1950, the incidents of the night of 22 December 1949 had got lost in legal thickets, and the mood of the nation had changed, with the secular fabric seemingly no longer threatened by Hindu revivalists. As the focus shifted following the promulgation of the Constitution of India on 26 January 1950, almost all the players of the Hindu Mahasabha’s Ayodhya strategy either lost their relevance or, in cases where some of them managed to remain in currency, their ability to break the secular equilibrium got severely restricted and their link with the night became part of this missing link of modern India’s history.

Saturday, 24 November 2018

Ram Temple 'Dharam Sabha' in Ayodhya LIVE: It's either now or war, says VHP

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) will hold a 'Dharam Sabha' rally in Ayodhya on Sunday, describing it as its "last effort" to clear the hurdles for the construction of a Ram temple in the temple town. The meeting, according to agency reports, has been called to discuss a strategy for the early construction of the temple. Hundreds and thousands of VHP cadres are slated to attend the 'Dharam Sabha'.
In a statement, quoted by news agency PTI, VHP regional organisational secretary Bholend said there would be no more congregations and the next stop for them would be the beginning of the temple's construction. "Ab mandir nirman ke liye sabhayein, pradarshan aur dharna ityadi nahin honge, na hi virodhiyon ko samjhaya jayega... seedhe mandir nirman hoga (There would no longer be meetings, processions and protests for Ram temple, opponents will no longer be engaged with... There will only be temple construction)," he added. This is the last time an effort is being made to make the people opposing the temple construction realise the facts, the VHP leader said.
He also said that if all efforts fail, then "war" was the only way.
The RSS and its other affiliates have also thrown in their support to make the event a show of strength so that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government at the Centre can be pressurised into acting for the early construction of the temple. Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray will also take part in some events.
CATCH ALL THE LIVE UPDATES
11:05 AM
"I had heard that Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath had said that the Ram Temple existed in the past, exists now and will exist in the future. This is also our belief, our feeling. But we are sad that this is not visible. When will the temple be visible. It should be constructed as soon as possible,": Uddhav Thackeray.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
ANI UP

@ANINewsUP
Maine suna tha ki CM Yogi ji ne kaha ki mandir tha, hai aur rahega. Ye to hamari dhaarna hai, hamari bhavna hai. Dukh iss baat ka hai ki wo dikh nahi raha, wo mandir dikhega kab. Jald se jald uska nirmaan hona chahiye: Uddhav Thackeray, Shiv Sena chief
44
10:57 AM - Nov 25, 2018
22 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
10:57 AM
"I've no hidden agenda in coming to Ayodhya. I've come to express sentiments of all Indians and Hindus across (the) world. All are waiting for Ram Temple": Uddhav Thackeray

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
ANI UP

@ANINewsUP
Saints who blessed me y'day,I'd told them that the work which we're about to begin can't be done without their blessings.I've no hidden agenda in coming to Ayodhya.I've come to express sentiments of all Indians&Hindus across world.All are waiting for #RamTemple: Uddhav Thackeray
58
10:51 AM - Nov 25, 2018
19 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
10:55 AM
If need be, 1992 will be repeated at Ayodhya: BJP lawmaker

Known for controversial remarks, BJP legislator Surendra Singh on Thursday said "if need be, 1992 would be repeated in Ayodhya on November 25". The ruling party legislator from Beria in Ballia district was referring to the demolition of the Babri mosque at the disputed site in the temple town by 'kar sevaks' on December 6, 1992. (Read more here)
10:52 AM
Congress never opposed Ram Temple, even Muslims want it now: Raj Babbar

Congress leader Raj Babbar said on Thursday his party was never opposed to the construction of Ram Temple in Ayodhya and he now felt that even the Muslim community wanted it. To a question, he said, "Congress has never opposed construction of Ram temple and will never do so in future as well." (Read more here)


10:49 AM
Embedded video
ANI

@ANI
#WATCH Washington DC, USA: MoS MEA VK Singh responds to Akhilesh Yadav's statement 'Army should be brought in Ayodhya if required.' says "Jab jab BJP power mein rahi hai tab tab dange aur dusri cheezein nahi hui hain. Akhilesh ji ko vishwas dilana chahta hoon aaram se baithiye."
86
10:32 AM - Nov 25, 2018
31 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
10:27 AM
Babri mosque demolished in 17 mins, how long will govt take for temple ordinance: Raut

Shiv Sena's Sanjay Raut on Friday asked the central government as to how long it would take to bring an ordinance to build the Ram Temple at the site where the Babri mosque was "demolished in 17 minutes by Ram bhakts". (Read more here)
10:22 AM
Don't orchestrate, but solve Ayodhya land dispute legally: Mayawati to BJP

Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati on Saturday attacked BJP by saying that its leaders are orchestrating the present action on Ram Temple in Ayodhya through its allies (Shiv Sena) and affiliates (Vishwa Hindu Parishad) in order to divert people's attention from failure in governance ahead of the Assembly and general elections. (Read more here)
10:19 AM
SC should deploy Army in Ayodhya: Akhilesh

Ahead of the Dharam Sabha being held in Ayodhya on Sunday to push for the construction of a Ram temple, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav has said if required the Army should be deployed in the town. Talking to reporters on Friday, Yadav had said, "The Supreme Court should take notice of the situation in Uttar Pradesh. It should seriously consider the matter and bring in the Army, if required... as the BJP and its allies can go to any extent." (Read more here)
10:15 AM
Let people of Ayodhya live in peace, says Muslim litigant

The Muslim litigant in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit, Iqbal Ansari, on Saturday said he was satisfied with the security arrangements in Ayodhya ahead of the VHP 'Dharam Sabha', but questioned the intention of the leaders in bringing such large crowds to the town. "They can gherao the (Uttar Pradesh) Vidhan Sabha or Parliament if they want but leave the people of Ayodhya in peace," said Ansari. (Read more here)
10:11 AM
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
ANI

@ANI
There's enough law & order machinery available. I'm quite sure the govt being that of BJP, unlike other parties, will ensure that law and order is maintained: MoS MEA, VK Singh on Akhilesh Yadav's statement that 'Army should be brought in Ayodhya if required.'
64
9:56 AM - Nov 25, 2018
18 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
10:10 AM
AMUSU seeks SC's intervention ahead of VHP's Dharam Sabha
The Aligarh Muslim University Students' Union has sought the Supreme Court's intervention as the VHP is holding a Dharam Sabha for the construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya on Sunday, despite the case being sub-judice. The AMUSU at a press conference on Friday evening announced that they were writing to the Chief Justice of India, the Uttar Pradesh governor and the chief minister regarding the threat to law and order in the state in view of the VHP's Dharma Sabha. (Read more here)
10:04 AM
Ram in 'exile' in Ayodhya: Sena

In a veiled attack on the BJP over the Ram Temple issue, the Shiv Sena on Saturday said those talking about it had kept Lord Ram in "exile" in Ayodhya, despite being in power at the Centre and in Uttar Pradesh. (Read more here)
10:00 AM
Senior VHP leaders, including its international vice-president Champat Rai, are camping in the temple town, overseeing arrangements for the 'Dharma Sabha'.
09:59 AM
VHP leaders informed IANS that Hindu devotees and Ram temple supporters from around 50 districts of Uttar Pradesh have been mobilised for the show of strength.
09:58 AM
More than 100 prominent Hindu seers, including Mahant Ravindra Puri, Mahant Suresh Das of the Digambar Akhada, head of the Ram Janmabhoom Trust Mahant Nritya Gopal Das, Jagatguru Ramanadcharya Hansdevacharya from Haridwar, Jagatguru Ramanandacharya Swami Ram Bhadracharya, and Swami Gyananad Giri from Odisha, are part of the religious congregation.
09:56 AM
The 'Dharma Sabha' rally is expected to begin at 11 am, reports news agency IANS.
09:53 AM
Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray on Sunday visited the Ram Lalla temple in Ayodhya, reported news agency ANI.

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter
ANI UP

@ANINewsUP
Ayodhya: Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray returns to the hotel after visiting the Ram Lalla temple earlier today.
90
9:44 AM - Nov 25, 2018
15 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
09:51 AM
Centre should bring law for Ram Temple: Bhagwat

Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat on Saturday said that there was no dispute as to what should be built at Ayodhya, reiterating his demand that the Centre enact a law for a Ram temple in the Uttar Pradesh town. (Read more here)

"This is not a question to be asked as to what should be built at Ayodhya...the Sangh is committed already for the construction of a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya," Bhagwat said in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, after inaugurating the Patanjali Gurukulum.
09:42 AM
BJP flays Akhilesh for seeking Army deployment at Ayodhya
The BJP on Saturday slammed former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Akhilesh Yadav for demanding the Army be deployed in Ayodhya ahead of the 'Dharma Sabha' organised by the VHP, labelling him "anti-Ram". (Read more here)
09:32 AM
Amid mass gatherings being organised by the Shiv Sena, VHP and some Hindu groups in Ayodhya, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideologue MG Vaidya on Saturday said the central government will wait till January when the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit case will come up in the Supreme Court.

"I think the government will wait till the matter comes up in the Supreme Court in January and then it will decide whether to bring in an ordinance or a law in this matter. People in the government can only talk about this, but if they (government) want they can bring in an ordinance like the Shah Bano case," said the nonagenarian RSS ideologue.
09:30 AM
Ayodhya DIG Omkar Singh told news agency ANI on Sunday: "We've made all the arrangements for the programme (VHP's Dharma Sansad). We've allotted spaces for parking, bypass is running smoothly and we'll ensure it stays like that. 'Darshan' will be from the usual routes. We'll do everything in an organised way."

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
ANI UP

@ANINewsUP
We’ve made all the arrangements for the programme (VHP’s dharma sansad). We’ve allotted spaces for parking, bypass is running smoothly & we’ll ensure it stays like that. ‘Darshan’ will be from the usual routes. We’ll do everything in an organized way: DIG Ayodhya, Omkar Singh
105
9:25 AM - Nov 25, 2018
16 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
09:27 AM
'Muslims in Ayodhya are terrified'

Muslims in Ayodhya are "terrified" ahead of the VHP's 'Dharam Sabha', Zafaryab Jilani, a senior member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), said on Saturday. (Read more here)
09:25 AM
The Babri mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, was razed to the ground by Hindu activists in 1992. The Supreme Court, which is hearing the title suit, has posted the hearing in the matter for January next year.
09:23 AM
Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) on Saturday urged all Left parties to commemorate December 6 -- the day the Babri mosque in Ayodhya was demolished -- as "Defend the Constitution and Secularism Day". (Read more here)

"December 6 this year marks the 26th anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Masjid. In the current situation, it is essential to observe this day in the defence of secularism and democracy," the party said in a statement.
09:21 AM
A museum showcasing the history of Ram Janmabhoomi and related subjects will also be constructed.
09:19 AM
The CM selected the design, which proposed a bronze statue measuring 151 metres standing on a pedestal of 50 metres and covered under an umbrella hood of another 20 metres, thus totalling 221 metres. The selected design depicts Ram holding a metal bow in his left arm, while holding an arrow in his right arm.
09:19 AM
Late last night, Adityanath reviewed statue designs submitted by five different firms regarding the proposed Ram statue in Ayodhya.
09:19 AM
At the proposed height of 221 metres, the statue would be the highest in the world and 38 metre taller than the current tallest ‘Statue of Unity’ dedicated to Sardar Patel in Gujarat, which was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi last month.
09:19 AM
Yogi counters Shiv Sena's temple narrative with world's tallest Ram statue

Within a few hours of Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray challenging the BJP over the Ram temple, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath cleared the ambitious Lord Ram statue project in Ayodhya. (Read more here)


09:05 AM
The Shiv Sena's prime demand is to expedite the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya by promulgating an Ordinance to the effect.

Friday, 23 November 2018

70,000 cops turn Ayodhya into virtual fortress, anti-terror squad deployed

Following the mass mobilisation events announced by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Shiv Sena on Sunday in Ayodhya, the temple town has been turned into a virtual fortress to thwart any untoward situation, which could escalate and pose a threat to the law and order situation for Yogi Adityanath-led UP government.
Almost 70,000 security personnel have been deployed under multiple-tiered security arrangement in Ayodhya. The state government has been mandated to ensure security in Ayodhya according to Supreme Court guidelines. The UP government has deployed anti-terror squads, special police and paramilitary personnel, including Rapid Action Force (RAF) and drone cameras to monitor the crowd in real time.
While security is always on high alert in Ayodhya, especially around the disputed site, the security apparatus has further been strengthened in view of a large number of people who are expected to arrive for the two separate programmes.
VHP has announced a ‘Dharam Sansad’ (religious parliament) seeking a law to facilitate an early construction of Lord Ram temple in Ayodhya. It has claimed to have invited thousands of its members to arrive in Ayodhya to display its support for the temple cause.
On the other hand, Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray is scheduled to arrive in Ayodhya on Saturday for Sunday’s programme. Shiv Sena has already booked two special trains to ferry its activists from Maharashtra to show solidarity for the demand. Thackeray will also meet Hindu saints, perform Saryu Aarti and visit the makeshift Ram Lala temple during his two-day stay in Ayodhya.
ALSO READ: Ayodhya 1992 can be repeated, says controversial BJP MLA Surendra Singh
Meanwhile, a high-level meeting was held in Lucknow on Thursday night to review the security arrangements in Ayodhya.
Two senior IPS officers namely, ADG Ashutosh Pandey and DIG Subhash Singh Baghel have been assigned the task to supervise security arrangements in Ayodhya.
While Pandey is tasked with the charge of blue and yellow zone of the disputed site, Baghel has been given the task of ensuring the security of red zone. The ADG would also officiate as security in-charge during the Shiv Sena programme and would manage security for VHP's event.
According to sources, 48 companies of Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) had been sent to Ayodhya apart from RAF companies. Around 10 companies of PAC and other security agencies are permanently posted for year-round security atf the disputed site, trifurcated into blue, yellow and red zones.
UP Director General of Police (DGP) O P Singh had ordered deployment of five Superintendent of Police (SP) rank officers in Ayodhya along with 15 additional SPs and 19 deputy SPs. Ayodhya has been divided into eight zones and 16 sectors headed by a magistrate and an ASP and DSP rank police officers.

Thursday, 27 September 2018

Are mosques integral to Islam? SC declines to refer issue to 5-judge bench

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to refer to a five-judge Constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement that a mosque was not integral to Islam which had arisen during the hearing of Ayodhya land dispute.
In a majority verdict of 2:1, the apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance on it.

Justice Ashok Bhushan, who read out the judgement for himself and the CJI, said it has to find out the context in which the five-judge had delivered the 1994 judgement.
Justice S Abdul Nazeer disagreed with the two judges and said whether mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering belief of religion and it requires detailed consideration.
He referred to the recent Supreme Court order on female genital mutilation and said the present matter be heard by larger bench.
The apex court said now the civil suit on land dispute will be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on October 29 as Justice Misra will retire on October 2 as the CJI.
The issue whether mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when he three-judge bench headed by CJI Misra was hearing the batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area was divided in three parts.
A three-judge bench of the high court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.