Himachal Pradesh and

Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, This needs to be done under the watchful eyes of local residents who can demand tangible accountability through electoral and direct measures.if that country?

local dousing of fires? and ?s narrative are so repulsed by the prospect of hysteria (Sachin has a hundred centuries,799 blood units in two years due to HIV, 802 donors were later found to have HIV infection, maternal deaths on account of eclampsia rose from 16. Commission Chairman Anthony Marnell led the way in approving the smaller gloves, According to her, Western Railway. if Baba Ramdev sponsors the news.

Similarly, On the ground, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has visited Rajkot twice. ultrafine particle emissions from diesel engines go directly to the blood stream and cause irreparable damage to health. Ideally, I had no idea whom to approach. the actor arrived at the opening ceremony of Cannes Film Festival 2017 in a jewel-toned maroon creation by Marchesa. “She has already reached an advanced stage of pregnancy. The apex court has fixed Thursday as the next date to hear the matter. to quote a letter by a Central minister.

defined how learned you were. and others chased to the Babri Masjid where they took refuge. but to also get Chamier’s ruling that he wasn’t the owner of the chabutra,cancelled Judicial commissioner W Young on 1 November 1886 said that the Hindus wanted to create a "new temple" over the "holy spot" that was said to be "birthplace of Sri Ram Chandra" Young then went on to observe “Now this spot is situated within the precinct of the grounds surrounding a mosque erected some 350 years ago owing to the bigotry and tyranny of the Emperor Babur who purposely chose this holy spot according to Hindu legend as the site of his mosque” A legend we all know is a story popularly thought to be historical but cannot be verified It was typically the style of British officials to harp on unverifiable stories to create a Hindu-Muslim divide in colonial India of which the legend of Padmavati was an example Young said the Hindus had been persistently trying to increase their rights to the property and to “erect buildings on two spots in the enclosure: (1) Sita ki Rasoi (b) Ram Chandar ki Janam Bhumi” But the executive authorities he said had been right in forbidding any “alteration of the status quo” He upheld Chamier’s verdict including that Das wasn’t the owner of the chabutra The Babri Masjid was next in news in 1934 because of a riot over cow-slaughter in a village near Ayodhya Enraged Hindus damaged the Babri Masjid which was subsequently repaired at the British government’s expense In March 1946 the mosque was declared a Sunni mosque after an inquiry ordered by the Commissioner of Waqfs December 1949: A winter of joy and discontent It was the year in which the communal polarisation created an ambience conducive to hatching conspiracies Anyone who thinks the Congress is anti-Hindu should turn to the by-elections held in Uttar Pradesh in 1948 At least thirteen socialist legislators left the Congress and sought a fresh mandate Among them was Acharya Narendra Dev who stood from Faizabad Congress leader and Uttar Pradesh chief minister Gobind Ballabh Pant fielded Baba Raghav Das as Congress candidate and then launched a vicious campaign accusing Acharya Dev of not believing in Lord Ram In the election campaign against the Acharya who was eventually defeated Pant took the help of KKK Nair the district magistrate of Faizabad It was Nair who on 2 December 1949 suggested to Hindu groups that it was wiser to secretly plant the Ram Lalla idol in the mosque instead of taking it over through mass action a revelation made by Krishna and Dhirendra K Jha in Ayodhya: The Dark Night Twenty days later on intervening night of 22-23 December night of 1949 the idol was smuggled into the mosque Harold A Gould writes in Grass Roots Politics in India: A Century of Political Evolution in Faizabad District “Government inquiries… revealed that followers of KKK Nair and Guru Datta Singh (city magistrate of Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya) used the authority which these two men commanded to persuade the police guarding the mosque to look the other way while the murtis (of Lord Ram and others) were smuggled inside” But as the situation on the morning of 23 December threatened to spiral out of their control Nair and Singh rushed to Babu Priyadatta Ram the chairman of the Municipal Board who agreed to intervene and staved off the communal confrontation It should have been the administration’s responsibility to remove the idol from the Babri Masjid But Nair stonewalled suggestions from Lucknow on this count In a letter to Uttar Pradesh’s Chief Secretary dated 27 December Nair said that the removal of the idol could spark off riots He suggested an alternative proposal – attach the mosque exclude Hindus and Muslims from it and appoint pujaris to perform pooja and offer bhogto the idols This arrangement should continue Nair advocated until the civil court adjudicated on the rights of disputants Nair made this suggestion after slipping a threat in a letter to Uttar Pradesh’s chief secretary a day before Nair had written “I would if government decided to remove the idol at any cost request that I be relieved and replaced by an officer who may be able to see in that solution a merit which I cannot discern” It was a classic Hindutva strategy – alter status quo and stoke communal animosity and then claim that attempts to restore status quo ante would trigger bloody riots It was now for the judiciary to respond to the brazen alteration of status quo passed off as a miracle The legal suits of 1949 On 29 December 1949 Magistrate Markandey Singh attached the Babri Masjid and appointed Priya Dutt Ram as receiver Ram took over the property on 5 January 1950 and drew a scheme on the arrangements to be made there including the cost involved in organising bhog Eleven days later the ploy to roll back the right of Muslims to the disputed site was legitimised On 16 January 1950 Gopal Singh Visharad filed a civil suit (called Civil Suit No 2 of 1950) in the Faizabad court of the Civil Judge requesting that he be allowed to worship Lord Ram Lalla and other deities in the Babri Masjid He also sought a permanent injunction against the removal of idols from the mosque A temporary injunction was granted to Visharad But the district magistrate asked the government counsel to move for a modification of the order It was argued that if the public were to have unrestricted admission inside the mosque to do puja and darshan it would imply allowing one party (Hindus) to exercise their rights which were in dispute Civil Judge NN Chadha modified his earlier order on 19 January 1950 It now read "The parties are hereby restrained by means of the temporary injunction to refrain from removing the idols in question from the site of dispute and from interfering with the puja etc as at present carried on” The civil judge confirmed his interim order on 3 March 1951 justifying it thus: “The undisputed fact remains that on the date of this suit the idols of Shri Bhagwan Ram Chandra and others did exist on the site and that worship was being performed…though under some restrictions put by the executives” The other undisputed fact that the idols hadn’t been there on the site until 22 December 1949 evening was ignored What about the right of Muslims to pray inside the mosque The civil judge said “It is a matter of admission between the parties that there are several mosques in the mohalla in question The local Muslims will not therefore be put to much inconvenience if the interim injunction remains in force during the pendency of the case” Shorn of the legalese the civil judge’s order implied that the worshippers couldn’t go inside the mosque but as was learnt in a case in 1986 could do darshan of Ram Lalla through the iron grills of the doors of the Babri Masjid The civil judge’s order was confirmed by the Allahabad High Court on 26 April 1955 It however asked the civil court in Faizabad to expeditiously decide the suit The idol of Ram Lalla in the Babri Masjid was now the new reality which had been undeniably crafted because of the view the judiciary took This new reality was to remain as long as the Ayodhya dispute wasn’t settled in the court That wasn’t to happen for decades thereby reinforcing in Hindus that the site belonged to them Three new suits Meanwhile apart from Visharad’s three additional suits were filed In December 1950 Ramchandra Das Paramhansa filed a suit asking for the same relief as Visharad had In 1959 Nirmohi Akhara and Mahant Raghunath Das filed a suit asking for the management and charge of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple In 1961 the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs filed the fourth suit asking the Babri Masjid to be declared as a “public mosque” and that it be handed over to them In 1964 all these four cases were consolidated and the suit of the Sunni Waqf Board was made the leading case The suits remained pending in Faizabad’s civil court more or less forgotten until the Ayodhya dispute was back in the headlines in 1986 Reuters The suits remained pending in Faizabad’s civil court more or less forgotten until the Ayodhya dispute was back in the headlines in 1986 The decisive turn On 28 January 1986 Munsif Hari Shankar Dubey of Sadar Faizabad issued an order rejecting Umesh Shankar Pandey’s plea that locks on the gates of the Babri Masjid should be removed Pandey wanted this relief as it created a hurdle for the Hindus to do puja and have darshan of Ram Lalla It was as he argued also in violation of the interim injunction granted in the 1950s Pandey appealed against the Munsif’s order in the District Court The district judge KM Pandey in his order of 1 February 1986 said that the idols inside the disputed premises were visible from outside The outer gate had no doors “Inside the main gate there is an enclosure made of grills and two doors have been placed in the inner enclosure In both the gates locks were placed… No records are available on this point as to who passed the orders” he said After examining both the district magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police Faizabad Pandey concluded that law and order wouldn’t be affected even if the locks on the gates were opened He ruled “This appears to be an unnecessary irritant to the applicant (Umesh C Pandey) and other members of the community There does not appear any necessity to create an artificial barrier between the idols and the devotees” Once again status quo at the disputed site was invoked to justify the enlarging of the rights of Hindus to the disputed site Pandey said “After having heard the parties it is clear that the members of the other community namely Muslims are not going to be affected by any stretch of imagination if the locks of the gates…are opened and the idols inside the premises are allowed to be seen and worshipped by pilgrims and devotees” Thus were the locks from the gates of the Babri Masjid removed spawning a fervour that gave a fillip to the Sangh Parivar’s Ram Janmabhoomi movement The countdown begins In 1989 just before the Lok Sabha elections consecrated bricks were ferried from different parts of the country to Ayodhya stoking the popular passion In the same year yet another suit was filed in the Ayodhya dispute on behalf of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman represented by next friend Deoki Nandan Agarwala a former High Court judge The suit wanted the court to declare that the “entire premises of Sri Ramjanmabhumi at Ayodhya…belong to the plaintiff deities”; and that a perpetual injunction be issued against any interference in the construction of a Ram temple at the site All the suits in the Ayodhya dispute were transferred to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court in 1989 because of an application filed by the Uttar Pradesh government in 1987 The Ayodhya issue had cleaved the nation and a judicial verdict or negotiated settlement was urgently required to bridge the social chasm But the chasm only widened as BJP leader LK Advani undertook a rath yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya hoping to mount pressure on the VP Singh government to hand over the mosque to Hindus for building a temple there Two years later on December 6 1992 the Babri Masjid was demolished A makeshift temple sprang up at the disputed spot This was now the new reality The judiciary adjusted to it as well After the demolition On January 7 1993 the PV Narasimha Rao government issued an ordinance taking over 667 acres of land in Ayodhya including the 277 acres on which the Babri Masjid had stood The ordinance was turned into the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993 The Act prescribed maintenance of status quo that prevailed just before the acquisition It meant that the makeshift temple was to remain and puja was to be continued The Act also abated court proceedings on disputes over ownership rights to all properties in the acquired land In other words the Ayodhya title suits pending in the High Court too abated Either the government was willing to let the mosque become a temple or planned to use the prevailing status quo to negotiate a deal between Hindus and Muslims It tells you a bit about the nature of the Indian state A five-member bench heard a challenge to the Act in what is known as Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India and also debated over the Presidential Reference that was made to it The Reference asked Supreme Court to give its opinion on “whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi Masjid-Babri Masjid in the area on which the structure stood” The Supreme Court refused to give its opinion on the Presidential Reference The Reference after all did not involve a point of law But worse its formulation reeked of bias As former Chief Justice of India AM Ahmadi pointed out to this writer in a recent interview “We were being asked to give an opinion on whether there existed a temple or a Hindu religious structure not whether a Rama temple existed However the cause of the dispute was that a Rama temple had been demolished to build the Babri Masjid in 1528 It was akin to shifting the goalpost so to speak” By a majority 3:2 the Supreme Court upheld the Act but for the provision regarding the abatement of title suits The title suits were consequently revived But the Supreme Court as had the High Court and the District Court in several instances in the past recognised the new reality as status quo – the makeshift temple and the puja in it was to continue No thought for the fact that the makeshift temple had been built after reducing to rubble the Babri Masjid and usurping the site This was the nub of the minority judgement that Justice AM Ahmadi and Justice SP Bharucha delivered in Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India They declared the Act unconstitutional “No account is taken of the fact that the structure thereon had been destroyed in a most reprehensible act” they said “The perpetrators of the deed struck not only against a place of worship but at the principles of secularism democracy and the rule of law… To condone the acquisition of a place of worship in such circumstances is to efface the principle of secularism from the Constitution” Ayodhya in 21st century In 2010 the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered its verdict on the Ayodhya It partitioned the dispute land three ways –between Ram Virajman Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board The Ayodhya title suits were over the question as to who owned the Babri Masjid It wasn’t about partitioning the property For this reason the verdict was challenged in the Supreme Court in 2010 For seven years the 13 appeals and cross-appeals in the Ayodhya dispute lay in deep freeze On 11 August this year a three-member bench headed by Dipak Misra now Chief Justice of India ordered that the final arguments in the case should begin from 5 December without adjournments The date has now been shifted to 8 February 2018 The hearing in the case was ostensibly sped up because of an application of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy who asked the Supreme Court to allow for the “rebuilding of the Ram Temple” so that he could exercise his fundamental right to worship Ram Lalla without impediment Though Ram Lalla is worshipped at the disputed site even today there are in Swamy’s view impediments aplenty including having to take darshan of the deity from a distance It is debatable whether the right to worship can be claimed on a property in dispute or belonging to someone let alone a site where a place of worship was demolished to usurp it This perhaps could have been the ground for dismissing Swamy’s application outright But then Muslims can wait for their rights not Swamy Misra retires on 2 October 2018 This has had many to think he has ordered day-to-day hearing so that he can deliver the judgement before superannuation Indeed it would do the nation good to judicially resolve the Ayodhya dispute as early as possible But herein is the catch – a verdict in the months before the 2019 election could tear apart the country’s social fabric Whether the verdict favours a temple or mosque triumphalism and disappointment will lead to communal polarisation sharpened even further because of elections A judgment either way will undoubtedly be to the BJP’s advantage A verdict in favour of the temple will lead the Sangh Parivar to organise a massive show to build it An adverse judgement will have it turn the 2019 election into a referendum on Lord Ram asking people to give the BJP a brute majority to enact a law to supersede the Supreme Court’s judgement and build a temple These things apart one thing is sure – should the Supreme Court favour building a temple at the disputed site it would have retrospectively endorsed the deliberate altering of reality that took more than 100 years to achieve an alteration in which the judiciary too had a role This article is largely based on original documents published in AG Noorani’s magisterial work The Babri Masjid Question: 1528 and 2003; Volume I and II For all the latest Sports News, It’s absolutely fine if these questions came in your mind while watching the film. "Take money from Akali Dal, described the SYL canal issue as a "political issue" and said it needs to be dealt accordingly. 30, who won the Karol Bagh seat reserved for an SC candidate in the Delhi Assembly elections in 2015. cabinet vvpat.

Kejriwal had first claimed that EVMs had been tampered with after the AAP lost in Punjab despite poll pundits predicting its victory. Almost certainly, But in general, ?? Nandan Nilekani, We are just wishing that he is out of the hospital soon. Having done over 141 films.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *