(Relevant paragraphs containing result/directions issued)
4566. In the light of the above and considering overall findings of this Court on
various issues, following directions and/or declaration, are given which in our view
would meet the ends of justice:
(i) It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed
structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan
and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to
plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the
defendants. This area is shown by letters AA BB CC DD is Appendix 7 to this
judgment.
(ii) The area within the inner courtyard denoted by letters B C D L K J H G in
Appendix 7 (excluding (i) above) belong to members of both the communities, i.e.,
Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since
decades and centuries. It is, however, made clear that for the purpose of share of
plaintiffs, Suit-5 under this direction the area which is covered by (i) above shall
also be included.
(iii) The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, (EE FF GG HH
in Appendix 7) Sita Rasoi (MM NN OO PP in Appendix 7) and Bhandar (II JJ KK
LL in Appendix 7) in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi
Akhara (defendant no. 3) and they shall be entitled to possession thereof in the
absence of any person with better title.
(iv) The open area within the outer courtyard (A G H J K L E F in Appendix 7)
(except that covered by (iii) above) shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara (defendant
no. 3) and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people
for worship at both places.
(iv-a) It is however made clear that the share of muslim parties shall not be less
than one third (1/3) of the total area of the premises and if necessary it may be
given some area of outer courtyard. It is also made clear that while making
partition by metes and bounds, if some minor adjustments are to be made with
respect to the share of different parties, the affected party may be compensated by
allotting the requisite land from the area which is under acquisition of the
Government of India.
(v) The land which is available with the Government of India acquired under
Ayodhya Act 1993 for providing it to the parties who are successful in the suit for
better enjoyment of the property shall be made available to the above concerned
parties in such manner so that all the three parties may utilise the area to which they
are entitled to, by having separate entry for egress and ingress of the people without
disturbing each others rights. For this purpose the concerned parties may approach
the Government of India who shall act in accordance with the above directions and
also as contained in the judgement of Apex Court in Dr. Ismail Farooqi (Supra).
(vi) A decree, partly preliminary and partly final, to the effect as said above (i to
v) is passed. Suit-5 is decreed in part to the above extent. The parties are at liberty
to file their suggestions for actual partition of the property in dispute in the manner
as directed above by metes and bounds by submitting an application to this effect to
the Officer on Special Duty, Ayodhya Bench at Lucknow or the Registrar, Lucknow
Bench, Lucknow, as the case may be.
(vii) For a period of three months or unless directed otherwise, whichever is
earlier, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today in respect of property in
dispute.
4571. In the result, Suit-1 is partly decreed. Suits 3 and 4 are dismissed. Suit-5 is
decreed partly. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear
their own costs.
(From the Judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal)
FINDINGS ON ISSUES
Suit-4
1. Issue 1 (Suit-4) is answered in favour of plaintiffs.
2. Issue 1(a) (Suit-4) is answered in negative. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the building
in dispute was built by Babar or by Mir Baqi.
3. Issues 1(b), 6, 13, 14 and 27 (Suit-4) are answered in affirmative.
4. Issue 1-B(a) (Suit-4) is answered in affirmative and it is held that the fact that the land in
dispute entered in the records of the authorities as Nazul plot would make things difference.
5. Issue 1-B(b) (Suit-4) is not answered being irrelevant.
6. Issue 1-B(c) (Suit-4)-It is held that building in question was not exclusively used by the
members of muslim community. After 1856-57 outer courtyard exclusively used by Hindu and
inner courtyard had been visited for the purpose of worship by the members of both the
communities.
7. Issue 2 (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs.
8. Issue 3 (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs. It is held that Suit-4 is
barred by limitation.
9. Issue 4 (Suit-4)-At least since 1856-57, i.e., after the erection of partition wall the premises in
outer courtyard has not been shown to be used/possessed by muslim parties but so far as the
inner courtyard is concerned it has been used by both the parties.
10. Issue 5(a) (Suit-4) is answered against the plaintiffs.
11. Issue 5(b) (Suit-4) is answered in favour of defendants and Hindu parties in general.
12. Issues 5(c), 7(c), 8, 12, 22 (Suit-4), are answered in negative.
13. Issue 5(d) (Suit-4) is not pressed by the defendants, hence not answered.
14. Issue 5(e) (Suit-4) is decided in favour of plaintiffs subject to that issue 6 (Suit-3) is also
decided in favour of defendants (Suit-3).
15. Issue 5(f) (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
16. Issue 7(a) (Suit-4) is answered in negative. It is held that there is nothing to show that Mahant
Raghubar Das filed Suit-1885 on behalf of Janamsthan and whole body of persons interested
in Janamsthan.
17. Issue 7(b) (Suit-4) is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4).
18. Issue 7(d) (Suit-4) is answered in negative to the extent that there is no admission by Mahant
Raghubar Das plaintiff of Suit-1885 about the title of Muslims to the property in dispute or
any portion thereof. Consequently, the question of considering its effect does not arise.
19. Issues 10 and 15 (Suit4) are answered in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs and muslims in
general.
20. Issue 11 (Suit-4)-It is held that the place of birth as believed and worshipped by Hindus his the
area covered under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure in
the inner courtyard in the premises of dispute.
21. Issue 16 (Suit-4)-No relief since the suit is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation.
22. Issue 17 (Suit-4) is answered in negative holding that no valid notification under Section 5(3)
of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1936 was issued.
23. Issue 18 (Suit-4)-It is held that the decision of the Apex Court in Gulam Abbas Vs. State of
U.P. and others, AIR 1981 SC 2199 does not affect findings on issue 17 (Suit-4) and on the
contrary the same stand supported and strengthen by the said judgment.
24. Issue 19(a) (Suit-4)-It is held that the premises which is believed to be the place of birth of
Lord Rama continue to vest in the deity but the Hindu religious structures in the outer
courtyard cannot be said to be the property of plaintiffs (Suit-5).
25. Issue 19(b) (Suit-4) is answered in affirmative to the extent that the building was land locked
and could not be reached except of passing through the passage of Hindu worship. However,
this by itself was of no consequence.
26. Issue 19(c) (Suit-4)-It is held that Hindus were worshipping at the place in dispute before
construction of the disputed structure but that would not make any difference to the status of
the building in dispute which came to be constructed at the command of the sole monarch
having supreme power which cannot be adjudicated by a Court of Law, came to be constituted
or formed much after, and according to the law which was not applicable at that time.
27. Issue 19(d) and 19(e) (Suit-4) are answered in favour of the plaintiffs.
28. Issue 19(f) (Suit-4)-In so far as the first part is concerned, is answered in affirmative. The
second part is left unanswered being redundant. In the ultimate result the issue is answered in
favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4).
29. Issue 20(a) being irrelevant not answered.
30. Issue 20(b) (Suit-4)-It is held that at the time of attachment of the building there was a
Mutawalli, i.e., one Sri Javvad Hussain and in the absence of Mutawalli relief of possession
cannot be allowed to plaintiffs who are before the Court in the capacity of worshippers.
31. Issue 21 (Suit-4) is decided in negative, i.e., in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit is not bad for
non-joinder of deities.
32. Issues 23 and 24 (Suit-4) are held that neither the Waqf Board is an instrumentality of State
nor there is any bar in filing a suit by the Board against the State. It is also not a 'State' under
Article 12 of the Constitution and can very well represent the interest of one community
without infringing any provision of the Constitution.
33. Issues 25 and 26 (Suit-4)-Held that as a result of demolition of the disp0uted structure it
cannot be said that the suit has rendered not maintainable. Nothing further needs to be
answered.
34. Issue 28 (Suit-4)-It is held that plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession of the disputed
premises, i.e., outer and inner courtyard including the disputed building ever.
Suit-1
1. Issue 1 (Suit-1)-It is held that the place of birth, as believed and worshipped by Hindus, is the
area covered under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure in
the inner courtyard in the premises of dispute.
2. Issue 2 (Suit-1)- It is held that the idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed
structure within inner courtyard in the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949 and prior thereto the
same existed in the outer courtyard. Therefore, on 16.01.1950 when Suit-1 was filed the said
idol existed in the inner courtyard under the central dome of the disputed structure, i.e., prior
to the filing of the suit. So far as the Charan Paduka is concerned, the said premises existed in
the outer courtyard. Since Suit-1 is confined only to the inner courtyard, question of existence
of Charan Paduka on the site in suit does not arise.
3. Issues 3 and 4 (Suit-1)-It is held that plaintiffs have right to worship. The place in suit to the
extent it has been held by this Court to be the birthplace of Lord Rama and if an idol is also
placed in such a place the same can also be worshipped, but this is subject to reasonable
restrictions like security, safety, maintenance etc.
4. Issues 5(a), 5(c), 5(d), 9(c) and 11(a) (Suit-1) are answered in negative.
5. Issue 5(b) (Suit-1)-Held, the Suit 1885 was decided against Mahant Raghubar Das and he was
not granted any relief by the respective courts, and, no more.
6. Issue 6 (Suit-1) is answered in negative. The defendants have failed to prove that the property
in dispute was constructed by Shahanshah/Emperor Babar in 1528 AD.
7. Issue 7 (Suit-1) is decided in negative, i.e., against the defendants muslim parties.
8. Issue 8 (Suit-1) is answered in negative. Suit is not barred by proviso to Section 42 of Specific
Relief Act, 1963.
9. Issue 9 (Suit-1) is decided in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-1).
10. Issue 9(a) (Suit-1) is answered in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-1).
11. Issue 9(b) (Suit-1) is answered against the plaintiffs.
12. Issue 10 (Suit-1) is answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs of Suit-1.
13. Issue 11(b) (Suit-1) is answered in affirmative.
14. Issue 12, 13, 15, 16 and 21 (Suit-1) are answered in negative, i.e., in favour of the plaintiffs
(Suit-1).
15. Issue 14 (Suit-1) has become redundant after dismissal of Suit No. 25 of 1950 as withdrawn.
16. Issue 17 (suit-1)-The plaintiffs is declared to have right of worship at the site in dispute
including the part of the land which is held by this Court to be the place of birth of Lord Rama
according to the faith and belief of Hindus but this right is subject to such restrictions as may
be necessary by authorities concerned in regard to law and order, i.e., safety, security and also
for the maintenance of place of worship etc. The plaintiffs is not entitled for any other relief.
Suit-3
1. Issue 1 and 16 (Suit-3) are answered in negative.
2. Issue 2, 3, 4 and 9 (Suit-3) are answered in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs.
3. Issue 5 (Suit-3) is answered in negative. The defendants have filed to prove that the property
in dispute was constructed by Shahanshah/Emperor Babar in 1528 AD.
4. Issue 6 (Suit-3) is not proved hence answered in negative.
5. Issue 7(a) and 7(b) (Suit-3) are answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs and against
the defendants in Suit-3.
6. Issue 8 (Suit-3) is decided in negative.
7. Issue 10 (Suit-3) is decided in favour of plaintiff. It is also held that a private defendant cannot
raise objection of maintainability of suit for want of notice under Section 80 CPC.
8. Issue 11 and 12 (Suit-3) are decided in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs.
9. Issue 13 (Suit-3)-The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in view of the findings in respect of
issues 2, 3, 4, 14 and 19.
10. Issue 14 (Suit-3) is answered in affirmative. It is held that the suit as framed is not
maintainable.
11. Issue 15 (Suit-3) is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-3).
12. Issue 17 (Suit-3) is decided in favour of plaintiffs. Nirmohi Akhara is held a Panchayati Math
of Ramanandi Sect of Bairagi, is a religious denomination following its religious faith and
pursuit according to its own customs. However, its continuance at Ayodhya is found sometime
after 1734 AD and not earlier thereto.
Suit-5
1. Issue 1 (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 both are juridical persons.
2. Issue 2 (Suit-5) is not answered as it is not necessary for the dispute in the case.
3. Issue 3(a) (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. The idols were installed under the central dome
of the disputed building in the early hours of 23rd December, 1949.
4. Issue 3(b), 3(d), 5, 10, 11, 14 and 24 (Suit-5) are answered in affirmative.
5. Issues 3(c), 7, 19, 23 and 28 (Suit-5) are answered in negative.
6. Issue 4 (Suit-5) is answered in negative. The idol in question kept under the Shikhar existed
there prior to 6th December, 1992 but not from time immemorial and instead kept thereat in the
night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949.
7. Issue 6 (Suit-5) is decided in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-5).
8. Issue 8 (Suit-5) is answered against the defendant no. 3, Nirmohi Akhara.
9. Issue 9 (Suit-5) is answered against the plaintiffs.
10. Issue 13 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs. It is held that suit is not
barred by limitation.
11. Issue 15 (Suit-5)-It is held that the muslims atleast from 1860 and onwards have visited the
inner courtyard in the premises in dispute and have offered Namaj thereat. The last Namaj was
offered on 16th December, 1949.
12. Issue 16 (Suit-5)-Neither the title of plaintiffs 1 and 2 ever extinguished nor the question of
reacquisition thereof ever arise.
13. Issue 18 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., against the defendants no. 3, 4 and 5.
14. Issue 20 (Suit-5) is not answered being unnecessary for the dispute in the case in hand.
15. Issue 21 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., against the defendants no. 4 and 5.
16. Issue 22 (Suit-5)-It is held that the place of birth as believed and worshipped by Hindus his
the area covered under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed
structure in the inner courtyard in the premises of dispute.
17. Issue 25 (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. It is held that the judgement dated 30.03.1946 in
Suit No. 29 of 1949 is not binding upon the plaintiffs (suit-5).
18. Issues 26 and 27 (Suit-5) are answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-5).
19. Issue 29 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs.
20. Issue 30 (Suit-5)-The suit is partly decreed in the manner the directions are issued in
para 4566.
Gist on some point
1. The area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is
the birthplace of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus.
2. Disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be
a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly.
However, it has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar
in 1528.
3. In the absence of any otherwise pleadings and material it is difficult
to hold as to when and by whom the disputed structure was constructed but
this much is clear that the same was constructed before the visit of Joseph
Tieffenthaler in Oudh area between 1766 to 1771.
4. The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of Non-
Islamic religious structure, i.e., a Hindu temple.
5. The idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed structure
in the night of 22nd/23rd December 1949.
Other Original Suits no. 3 of 1989 and 4 of 1989 are barred by limitation.
ISSUES FRAMED
Suit-4 :
Issue No. 1:- Whether the building in question described as mosque in the sketch map attached to
the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the building) was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiffs? If the
answer is in the affirmative-
(a) When was it built and by whom-whether by Babar as alleged by the plaintiffs or by Meer
Baqi as alleged by defendant no.13?
(b) Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after
demolishing the same as alleged by defendant no.13? If so, its effect?
Issue No. 1-B(a) :-Whether the building existed at Nazul plot no. 583 of the Khasra of the year
1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram Chandra known as Ram Kot, City Ayodhya (Nazul Estate) Ayodhya? If
so its effect thereon?
Issue No. 1-B(b) :-Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as alleged by the
plaintiffs?
Issue No. 1-B(c) :-Whether the building had been used by the members of the Muslim community
for offering prayers from times immemorial? If so, its effect?
Issue No. 2 :-Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in suit upto 1949 and were
dispossessed from the same in 1949 as alleged in the plaint?
Issue No. 3 :- Is the suit within time?
Issue No. 4 :-Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Ram in particular
have perfected right of prayers at the site by adverse and continuous possession as of right for
more than the statutory period of time by way of prescription as alleged by the defendants?
Issue No. 5 :- (a)Are the defendants estopped from challenging the character of property in suit as
a waqf under the administration of plaintiff no.1 in view of the provision of 5(3) of U.P. Act 13 of
1936?
(b) Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in general and defendants in
particular, to the right of their worship?
(c) Were the proceedings under the said Act conclusive?
(d) Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-vires as alleged in written statement?
(e) Whether in view of the findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge on 21.4.1966 on issue
no.17 to the effect that “No valid notification under section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act ( No.
XIII of 1936) was ever made in respect of the property in dispute”, the plaintiff Sunni Central
Board of Waqf has no right to maintain the present suit?
(f) Whether in view of the aforesaid finding, the suit is barred on account of lack of
jurisdiction and limitation as it was filed after the commencement of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act,
1960?
Issue No. 6 :-Whether the present suit is a representative suit, plaintiffs representing the interest of
the Muslims and defendants representing the interest of the Hindus?
Issue No. 7 :- (a) Whether Mahant Raghubar Dass, plaintiff of Suit No. 61/280 of 1885 had sued
on behalf of Janma Sthan and whole body of persons interested in Janma-Sthan?
(b) Whether Mohammad Asghar was the Mutwalli of alleged Babri Masjid and did he contest
the suit for and on behalf of any such mosque?
(c) Whether in view of the judgment in the said suit, the members of the Hindu community,
including the contesting defendants, are estopped from denying the title of the Muslim community,
including the plaintiffs of the present suit, to the property in dispute? If so, its effect?
(d) Whether in the aforesaid suit, title of the Muslims to the property in dispute or any portion
thereof was admitted by plaintiff of the that suit? If so, its effect?
Issue No. 8 :-Does the judgment of case No. 6/281 of 1881, Mahant Raghubar Dass Vs. Secretary
of State and others operate as res judicata against the defendants in suit?
Issue No. 9 :- Deleted vide order dated May 22/25, 1990
Issue No. 10 :-Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse possession as alleged
in the plaint?
Issue No. 11 :-Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram Chandraji?
Issue No. 12 :-Whether idols and objects of worship were placed inside the building in the night
intervening 22nd and 23rd December 1949 as alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint or they have
been in existence there since before? In either case, effect?
Issue No. 13 :-Whether the Hindus in general and defendants in particular had the right to worship
the Charans and 'Sita Rasoi' and other idols and other objects of worship, if any, existing in or
upon the property in suit?
Issue No. 14 :-Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri Ram Janam Bhumi or
Janam Asthan and have been visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since times
immemorial? If so, its effect?
Issue No. 15 :-Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit from 1528 A.D.
continuously, openly and to the knowledge of the defendants and Hindus in general? If so, its
effect?
Issue No. 16 :-To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them, entitled?
Issue No. 17 :-Whether a valid notification under Section 5(1) of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act No.
XIII of 1936 relating to the property in suit was ever done? If so, its effect?
Issue No. 18 :-What is the effect of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in
Gulam Abbas and others vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 2198 on the
finding of the learned Civil Judge recorded on 21st April, 1966 on issue no. 17?
Issue No. 19(a) :-Whether even after construction of the building in suit Deities of Bhagwan Sri
Ram Virajman and the Asthan, Sri Ram Janam Bhumi continued to exist on the property in suit as
alleged on behalf of defendant no.13 and the said places continued to be visited by devotees for
purposes of worship? If so, whether the property in dispute continued to vest in the said Deities?
Issue No. 19(b) :-Whether the building was land-locked and cannot be reached except by passing
through places of Hindu worship? If so, its effect?
Issue No. 19(c) :-Whether any portion of the property in suit was used as a place of worship by the
Hindus immediately prior to the construction of the building in question? If the finding is in the
affirmative, whether no mosque could come into existence in view of the Islamic tenets at the
place in dispute?
Issue No. 19(d) :-Whether the building in question could not be a mosque under the Islamic Law
in view of the admitted position that it did not have minarets?
Issue No. 19(e) :-Whether the building in question could not legally be a mosque as on plaintiffs'
own showing it was surrounded by a graveyard on three sides?
Issue No. 19(f) :-Whether the pillars inside and outside the building in question contain images of
Hindu Gods and Goddesses? If the finding is in the affirmative, whether on that account the
building in question cannot have the character of Mosque under the tenets of Islam?
Issue No. 20(a) :-Whether the Wqaf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as the building was not
allegedly constructed by a Sunni Mohammedan but was allegedly constructed by Meer Baqi who
was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged Mutwallis were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so,
its effect?
Issue No. 20(b) :-Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and whether the alleged
Mutwalli not having joined in the suit, the suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief for
possession?
Issue No. 21 :-Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of alleged Deities?
Issue No. 22 :-Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs?
Issue No. 23 :-Whether the Waqf board is an instrumentality of State? If so, whether the said
Board can file a suit against the State itself?
Issue No. 24 :-If the Waqf Board is State under Article 12 of the Constitution? If so, the said Board
being the State can file any suit in representative capacity sponsoring the case of particular
community and against the interest of another community?
Issue No. 25 :-Whether demolition of the disputed structure as claimed by the plaintiff, it can still
be called a mosque and if not whether the claim of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no
longer maintainable
Issue No. 26 :-Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer prayer when structure
which stood thereon has been demolished
Issue No. 27 :-Whether the courtyard contained Ram Chabutara, Bhandar and Sita Rasoi If so,
whether they were also demolished on 6.12.1992 along with the main temple?
Issue No. 28 :-Whether the defendant no.3 has ever been in possession of the disputed site and the
plaintiffs were never in its possession?
Suit-1 :
Issue No. 1 :- Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram Chandra Ji?
Issue No. 2 :-Are there any idols of Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji and are His Charan Paduka situated
in the site in suit?
Issue No. 3 :-Has the plaintiff any right to worship the 'Charan Paduka' and the idols situated in
the site in suit.
Issue No. 4 :-Has the plaintiff the right to have Darshan of the place in suit?
Issue No. 5(a) :-Was the property in suit involved in Original Suit No. 61/280 of 1885 in the court
of Sub -Judge, Faizabad, Raghubar Das Mahant Vs. Secretary of State for India and others?
5(b) Was it decided against the plaintiff?
5(c) Was the suit within the knowledge of Hindus in general and were all Hindus interested in
the same?
5(d) Does the decision in same bar the present suit by principles of res judicata and in any other
way?
Issue No. 6 :- Is the property in suit a mosque constructed by Shanshah Babar commonly known as
Babri Mosque, in 1528 A.D.?
Issue No. 7 :-Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit from 1528 A.D.
continuously, openly and to the knowledge of plff and Hindus in general? If so, its effect?
Issue No. 8 :- Is the suit barred by proviso to Section 42 Specific Relief Act?
Issue No. 9 :- Is the suit barred by provision of Section 5(3) of the Muslim Waqfs Act (U.P. Act 13
of 1936)?
9(a). Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in general and plaintiff of the present
suit , in particular to his right of worship?
9(b). Were the proceedings under the said Act, referred to in written statement para 15, collusive?
If so its effect?
9(c) Are the said provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1936 ultra vires for reasons given in the
statement of plaintiff's counsel dated 9.3.62 recorded on paper no. 454-A?
Issue No. 10 :-Is the present suit barred by time?
Issue No. 11 :-(a) Are the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. applicable to present suit? If so, is the
suit bad for want of consent in writing by the Advocate General?
(b) Are the rights set up by the plaintiff in this suit independent of the provisions of section 91
CPC? If not, its effect.
Issue No. 12 :-Is the suit bad for want of steps and notice under Order 1, Rule 8 CPC? If so, its
effect?
Issue No. 13 :-Is the suit no. 2 of 50 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor Ahmad bad for want of
notice under Section 80 CPC.
Issue No. 14 :-Is the suit no. 25 of 50 Param Hans Ram Chandra Vs. Zahoor Ahmad bad for want
of valid notice under section 80 CPC?
Issue No. 15 :-Is the suit bad for non-joinder of defendants?
Issue No. 16 :-Are the defendants or any of them entitled to special costs under Section 35-A
C.P.C.
Issue No. 17 :-To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
Suit-3:
Issue No. 1 :- Is there a temple of Janam Bhumi with idols installed therein as alleged in para 3 of
the plaint.
Issue No. 2 :-Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff no.1?
Issue No. 3 :-Have plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession for over 12 years?
Issue No. 4 :-Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge of the said temple?
Issue No. 5 :- Is the property in suit a mosque made by Emperor Babar known as Babari Masjid?
Issue No. 6 :-Was this alleged mosque dedicated by Emperor Babar for worship by Muslims in
general and made a public waqf property?
Issue No. 7 :- (a) Has there been a notification under Muslim Waqf Act Act No. 13 of 1936)
declaring this property in suit as a Sunni Waqf?
(b) Is the said notification final and binding? Its effect?
Issue No. 8 :-Have the rights of the plaintiffs extinguished for want of possession for over 12
years prior to the suit?
Issue No. 9 :- Is the suit within time?
Issue No. 10 :-(a) Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 80 C?
(b) Is the above plea available to contesting defendants?
Issue No. 11 :-Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary defendants?
Issue No. 12 :-Are defendants entitled to special costs u/s 35 CPC?
Issue No. 13 :-To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
Issue No. 14 :-Is the suit not maintainable as framed?
Issue No. 15 :-Is the suit property valued and court fee paid sufficient?
Issue No. 16 :-Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 83 of U.P. Act 13 of 1936?
Issue No. 17 :-Whether Nirmohi Akhara, plaintiff, is Panchayati Math of Rama Nand sect of
Bairagis and as such is a religious denomination following its religious faith and persuit according
to its own custom?
Suit-5:
Issue No. 1 :-Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?
Issue No. 2 :-Whether the suit in the name of Deities described in the plaint as plaintiffs 1 and 2 is
not maintainable through plaintiff no.3 as next friend?
Issue No. 3 :- (a) Whether the idol in question was installed under the central dome of the disputed
building (since demolished) in the early hours of December 23, 1949 as alleged by the plaintiff in
paragraph 27 of the plaint as clarified in their statement under Order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C.
(b) Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a Chabutara under the canopy?
(c) Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or after 6.12.1992 in violation of the
courts order dated 14.8.1989 and 15.11.91?
(d) If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether the idols so placed still acquire
the status of a deity.
Issue No. 4 :-Whether the idol in question had been in existence under the “Shikhar” prior to
6.12.92 from time immemorial as alleged in paragraph 44 of the additional written statement of
defendant no.3?
Issue No. 5 :- Is the property in question properly identified and described in the plaint?
Issue No. 6 :- Is the plaintiff no.3 not entitled to represent the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as their next friend
and is the suit not competent on this account?
Issue No. 7 :-Whether the defendant no.3 alone is entitled to represent plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the
suit not competent on that account as alleged in paragraph 49 of the additional written statement of
defendant no.3?
Issue No. 8 :- Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the “Shebait” of Bhagwan Sri Ram installed in the
disputed structure?
Issue No. 9 :-Was the disputed structure a mosque known as Babri Masjid?
Issue No. 10 :-Whether the disputed structure could be treated to be a mosque on the allegations
contained in paragraph 24 of the plaint?
Issue No. 11 :-Whether on the averments made in paragraph 25 of the plaint, no valid waqf was
created in respect of the structure in dispute to constitute it as a mosque?
Issue No. 12:- Deleted vide order dated 23.02.1996.
Issue No. 13 :-Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
Issue No. 14 :-Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid was erected after
demolishing Janma Sthan temple at its site.
Issue No. 15 :-Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid was always used by the
Muslims only regularly for offering Namaz ever since its alleged construction in 1528 A.D. to
22nd December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?
Issue No. 16 :-Whether the title of plaintiffs 1 and 2, if any, was extinguished as alleged in
paragraph 25 of the written statement of defendant no.4? If yes, have plaintiffs 1 and 2 reacquired
title by adverse possession as alleged in paragraph 29 of the plaint?
Issue No. 17:- Deleted vide order dated 23.02.1996.
Issue No. 18:-Whether the suit is barred by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as alleged in
paragraph 42 of the additional written statement of defendant no.3 and also as alleged in paragraph
47 of the written statement of defendant no.4 and paragraph 62 of the written statement of
defendant no. 5?
Issue No. 19 :-Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as pleaded in paragraph
43 of the additional written statement of defendant no.3?
Issue No. 20 :-Whether the alleged Trust creating the Nyas , defendant no.21, is void on the facts
and grounds stated in paragraph 47 of the written statement of defendant no.3?
Issue No. 21 :-Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as Deities as alleged in pragraphs
1,11,12,21,22, 27 and 41 of the written statement of defendant no.4 and in paragraph 1 of the
written statement of defendant no.5?
Issue No. 22 :-Whether the premises in question or any part thereof is by tradition, belief and faith
the birth place of Lord Rama as alleged in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint? If so, its effect?
Issue No. 23 :-Whether the judgment in suit no. 61/280 of 1885 filed by Mahant Raghubar Das in
the Court of Special Judge, Faizabad is binding upon the plaintiffs by application of the principles
of estoppel and res judicata as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?
Issue No. 24 :-Whether worship has been done of the alleged plaintiff Deity on the premises in suit
since time immemorial as alleged in para 25 of the plaint?
Issue No. 25 :-Whether the judgment and decree dated 30th March 1946 passed in Suit No. 29 of
1945 is not binding upon the plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs?
Issue No. 26 :-Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under section 80 C.P.C. as alleged by the
defendants 4 and 5?
Issue No. 27 :-Whether the plea of suit being bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC can be
raised by defendants 4 and 5?
Issue No. 28 :-Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 65 of the U.P. Muslim
Waqfs Act, 1960 as alleged by defendants 4 and 5? If so, its effect.
Issue No. 29 :-Whether the plaintiffs are precluded from bringing the present suit on account of
dismissal of suit no. 57 of 1978 (Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Vs. State) of the Court of Munsif Sadar,
Faizabad?
Issue No. 30 :-To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them entitled?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
अयोध्या निर्णय ऐतिहासिक एव स्वागत योग्य : विष्णुदत्त शर्मा (राष्ट्रीय महामंत्री , अभाविप)
अयोध्या निर्णय ऐतिहासिक एव स्वागत योग्य : विष्णुदत्त शर्मा (राष्ट्रीय महामंत्री , अभाविप)
अलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय के लखनऊ खंड पीठ द्वारा श्री राम जन्म भूमि, अयोध्या के सन्दर्भ में घोषित निर्णय ऐतिहासिक एव स्वागत योग्य है काफी लम्बे समय से चले विवाद का इस निर्णय ने अंत किया है तथा करोड़ो हिन्दुओ की आस्था का सम्मान करते हुए विवादित भूमि को श्री राम की जन्म भूमि स्वीकार किया है. अखिल भारतीय विद्यार्थी परिषद् मानती है की इसे हार या जीत न मानते हुए इसे भारत के सभी मत-संप्रदाय के लोग सहर्ष स्वीकार करे एव शांति बनाये रखे .
भगवान राम केवल हिन्दुओ के पूज्य देवता नहीं अपितु भारतीय जीवन के मूल्य, संस्कृति, पहचान, परंपरा एव अस्मिता के प्रतिक है. संपूर्ण भारत की राष्ट्रीय पहचान श्री राम के भव्य मंदिर का निर्माण सभी के लिए गौरव योग्य है. तथा इस से भारत आने वाली सदियों में अपनी प्रतिष्टा व वैभव को पुन स्थापित करेगा .
अभाविप इस निर्णय को एक नए युग की सुरुवात मानती है तथा मुसलिम भाइयो सहित देश के सभी युवाओ से भव्य मंदिर के निर्माण के अभियान में सहयोगी बनने का आवाहन करती है.
अभाविप के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष प्रा. मिलिंद मराठे, राष्ट्रीय संगठन मंत्री सुनील अम्बेकर सहित सभी पदाधिकारियों ने इस निर्णय का स्वागत किया है .
विष्णु दत्त शर्मा
अलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय के लखनऊ खंड पीठ द्वारा श्री राम जन्म भूमि, अयोध्या के सन्दर्भ में घोषित निर्णय ऐतिहासिक एव स्वागत योग्य है काफी लम्बे समय से चले विवाद का इस निर्णय ने अंत किया है तथा करोड़ो हिन्दुओ की आस्था का सम्मान करते हुए विवादित भूमि को श्री राम की जन्म भूमि स्वीकार किया है. अखिल भारतीय विद्यार्थी परिषद् मानती है की इसे हार या जीत न मानते हुए इसे भारत के सभी मत-संप्रदाय के लोग सहर्ष स्वीकार करे एव शांति बनाये रखे .
भगवान राम केवल हिन्दुओ के पूज्य देवता नहीं अपितु भारतीय जीवन के मूल्य, संस्कृति, पहचान, परंपरा एव अस्मिता के प्रतिक है. संपूर्ण भारत की राष्ट्रीय पहचान श्री राम के भव्य मंदिर का निर्माण सभी के लिए गौरव योग्य है. तथा इस से भारत आने वाली सदियों में अपनी प्रतिष्टा व वैभव को पुन स्थापित करेगा .
अभाविप इस निर्णय को एक नए युग की सुरुवात मानती है तथा मुसलिम भाइयो सहित देश के सभी युवाओ से भव्य मंदिर के निर्माण के अभियान में सहयोगी बनने का आवाहन करती है.
अभाविप के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष प्रा. मिलिंद मराठे, राष्ट्रीय संगठन मंत्री सुनील अम्बेकर सहित सभी पदाधिकारियों ने इस निर्णय का स्वागत किया है .
विष्णु दत्त शर्मा
Ram idols existed on site: Allahabad HC
Ram idols existed on site: Allahabad HC
Lawyer K N Bhatt, who represented the party on behalf of 'Ram Lalla' decrees the title suit in favour of Hindus. The Allahabad High Court ruled today that the Ayodhya land is to be divided into three parts -- one part goes to the Nirmohi Akhara, one to the Babri Committee and the other to the Ram Janmasthan (the central dome). The title suit of the Sunni Waqf board has been rejected. The HC also ruled that idols of Ram existed in the site.
Lawyer K N Bhatt, who represented the party on behalf of 'Ram Lalla' decrees the title suit in favour of Hindus. The Allahabad High Court ruled today that the Ayodhya land is to be divided into three parts -- one part goes to the Nirmohi Akhara, one to the Babri Committee and the other to the Ram Janmasthan (the central dome). The title suit of the Sunni Waqf board has been rejected. The HC also ruled that idols of Ram existed in the site.
Babri Masjid Committee will move SC
Babri Masjid Committee will move SC
The Babri Masjid committed said it was disappointed with the verdict and would move the Supreme Court. Meanwhile K N Bhatt lawyer of Ram Lalla said there was no time limit for passing a final decree. The Allahabad HC has decreed that status quo will be maintained at the disputed site for the next three months
The Babri Masjid committed said it was disappointed with the verdict and would move the Supreme Court. Meanwhile K N Bhatt lawyer of Ram Lalla said there was no time limit for passing a final decree. The Allahabad HC has decreed that status quo will be maintained at the disputed site for the next three months
Ayodhya case: HC dismisses Sunni Waqf Board suit
Ayodhya case: HC dismisses Sunni Waqf Board suit
The Allahabad High Court ruled by majority that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts to be distributed among the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party for 'Ram Lalla', say lawyers.
Justice D V Sharma decrees the title suit in favour of Hindus, say lawyer K N Bhatt, who represented the party on behalf of 'Ram Lalla'.
Justice S U Khan rules that the disputed land belongs to both the communities, say lawyers.
Status quo will be maintained at the disputed site in Ayodhya for three months, claims lawyers Ravi Shanker Prasad and K N Bhatt.
The Allahabad High Court ruled by majority that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts to be distributed among the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party for 'Ram Lalla', say lawyers.
Justice D V Sharma decrees the title suit in favour of Hindus, say lawyer K N Bhatt, who represented the party on behalf of 'Ram Lalla'.
Justice S U Khan rules that the disputed land belongs to both the communities, say lawyers.
Status quo will be maintained at the disputed site in Ayodhya for three months, claims lawyers Ravi Shanker Prasad and K N Bhatt.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Ayodhya verdict on Sep 30
Ayodhya verdict on Sep 30
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday paved the way for the Allahabad High Court to give its verdict on the Ayodhya dispute, dismissing a petition that sought its postponement.
The high court has decided to announce the verdict Sep 30 at 3.30 p.m.
Former bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi had filed the petition for deferring the high court verdict on the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi title suit in Ayodhya till the end of the Commonwealth Games.
An apex court bench of Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice Aftab Alam and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan passed the brief order when the court reassembled after lunch break Tuesday.
Speaking for the bench, Chief Justice Kapadia said: "Having heard the arguments in detail, we are of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed."
With the dismissal of Tripathi's petition, the decision on when to pronounce the verdict now rests with the high court.
In its pre-lunch sitting, the apex court heard the arguments from both the sides.
Attorney General G. Vahanvati told the court: "If there is any possibility of the settlement (out of court), we will welcome it but at the same time we don't want any uncertainty to continue."
"For the sake of maintaining law and order, we cannot keep security forces in sustained animation," he added.
The apex court last week ordered an interim stay on the pronouncement of the title suit verdict by the high court, acting on a petition by Tripathi.
Tripathi had also sought the court's direction to the parties to explore the possibility of an out-of-court amicable settlement.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Ayodhya-verdict-on-Sep-30/articleshow/6643180.cms
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday paved the way for the Allahabad High Court to give its verdict on the Ayodhya dispute, dismissing a petition that sought its postponement.
The high court has decided to announce the verdict Sep 30 at 3.30 p.m.
Former bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi had filed the petition for deferring the high court verdict on the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi title suit in Ayodhya till the end of the Commonwealth Games.
An apex court bench of Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice Aftab Alam and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan passed the brief order when the court reassembled after lunch break Tuesday.
Speaking for the bench, Chief Justice Kapadia said: "Having heard the arguments in detail, we are of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed."
With the dismissal of Tripathi's petition, the decision on when to pronounce the verdict now rests with the high court.
In its pre-lunch sitting, the apex court heard the arguments from both the sides.
Attorney General G. Vahanvati told the court: "If there is any possibility of the settlement (out of court), we will welcome it but at the same time we don't want any uncertainty to continue."
"For the sake of maintaining law and order, we cannot keep security forces in sustained animation," he added.
The apex court last week ordered an interim stay on the pronouncement of the title suit verdict by the high court, acting on a petition by Tripathi.
Tripathi had also sought the court's direction to the parties to explore the possibility of an out-of-court amicable settlement.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Ayodhya-verdict-on-Sep-30/articleshow/6643180.cms
National Group Song contests organised in Bhubaneswar
National Group Song contests organised in Bhubaneswar
Bhubaneswar(VISAKEO)-In order to inculcate patriotism among school students, the Bharat Vikas Parishad (BVP) has been organising National Group Song Competitions under the Sankar Programme throughout India every year. Its Chandrasekharpur Branch, Bhubaneswar, accordingly conducted a competition on Sunday at the SAI International School at Patia.
Swami Sadananda Saraswati of the Chinmoy Mission (Divine Life Society), Bhubaneswar, inaugurated the competition followed by mass singing of Vande Mataram. Students from eight nearby schools participated in singing group songs in Sanskrit, Hindi and Odia.
The competition was conducted by Kumudini Panda while convener Aparna Das welcomed the students, teachers, guests and others. Branch president Debendra Nath Dash presided and secretary Dr Basant Kumar Dash spoke about the programme. Branch vice-president Gopal Chandra Patra introduced chief guest noted music director Santanu Kumar Mohapatra and guest of honour chairman of SAI International School Bijay Kumar Sahool.
BVP State president Laxman Kumar Mohanty and general secretary Padmalaya Garabadu spoke on various programmes. Mahapatra and Sahoo eulogised the BVP’s efforts and gave away the prizes and certificates to successful participants. Prof DD Misra proposed a vote of thanks.
Bhubaneswar(VISAKEO)-In order to inculcate patriotism among school students, the Bharat Vikas Parishad (BVP) has been organising National Group Song Competitions under the Sankar Programme throughout India every year. Its Chandrasekharpur Branch, Bhubaneswar, accordingly conducted a competition on Sunday at the SAI International School at Patia.
Swami Sadananda Saraswati of the Chinmoy Mission (Divine Life Society), Bhubaneswar, inaugurated the competition followed by mass singing of Vande Mataram. Students from eight nearby schools participated in singing group songs in Sanskrit, Hindi and Odia.
The competition was conducted by Kumudini Panda while convener Aparna Das welcomed the students, teachers, guests and others. Branch president Debendra Nath Dash presided and secretary Dr Basant Kumar Dash spoke about the programme. Branch vice-president Gopal Chandra Patra introduced chief guest noted music director Santanu Kumar Mohapatra and guest of honour chairman of SAI International School Bijay Kumar Sahool.
BVP State president Laxman Kumar Mohanty and general secretary Padmalaya Garabadu spoke on various programmes. Mahapatra and Sahoo eulogised the BVP’s efforts and gave away the prizes and certificates to successful participants. Prof DD Misra proposed a vote of thanks.
Indian ruling set to reignite religious strife
Indian ruling set to reignite religious strife
Douglas E. Curran, AFP Files
Hindu youths clamber atop the 16th-century Babri Masjid mosque on the day it was demolished by mobs in 1992.
Comments
Twitter LinkedIn Digg Buzz Email Peter Goodspeed, National Post · Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010
After 60 years of litigation, religious riots and mass murder, one of India's most contentious cases may be resolved today.
India's Supreme Court is set to decide whether to release a decision by the Allahabad High Court in Uttar Pradesh in a 60-year-old lawsuit over who owns the land under the 16th-century Babri Masjid mosque that was destroyed by Hindu extremists in 1992.
Many Hindus believe the mosque was built on the site of the birthplace of the Hindu god, Ram, a legendary king of Ayodhya and the seventh avatar of the god Vishnu.
After decades of legal delays and political interventions in the ownership dispute, a mob of Hindu extremists took matters into their own hands 18 years ago, storming the contested site and ripping the three-domed Babri Masjid apart.
The assault unleashed months of violence in which more than 2,000 people died as India experienced some of its worst religious riots since partition.
The assault became a rallying cry for Islamic fundamentalists, who clashed with Hindu extremists in major cities across India. For weeks, gangs of youths, armed with iron bars, rusty swords, knives and homemade firebombs, rampaged through Hindu and Muslim neighbourhoods.
Cars and trucks were stopped and burnt, and the bodies of their drivers were thrown onto the burning wrecks.
In Mumbai, Hindu gangs stopped men in the street and forced them to strip to check if they were circumcised Muslims before murdering them.
Some victims had their tongues cut out, while others were forced to watch as relatives were beaten to death.
The trauma of the event transformed Indian politics, fuelling the Hindu nationalism that finally brought the Bharatiya Janata Party (Hindu Nationalist Party or BJP) to power in 1998, sowing a deep sense of distrust and alienation among India's 160 million Muslims.
Now, as the courts are finally poised to settle the case, tensions are building again.
Thousands of troops have been rushed to Ayodhya, a small town of 50,000 people, 550 kilometres east of New Delhi. The government has banned sending bulk text messages on cellphone until after the release of the court's decision and politicians have taken out full-page newspaper ads pleading for calm.
A television broadcasting organization has asked India's
TV stations to refrain from broadcasting film footage of the 1992 mosque destruction. On the weekend, Bollywood film studios delayed the release of several major movies to avoid being swept up in the controversy.
Uttar Pradesh has 40,000 security police in Ayodhya, while New Delhi dispatched another 5,200 and cancelled all trips by cabinet ministers until the court's decision is known.
Another 32 "communally sensitive cities" across India, including Mumbai, which has designated some schools as emergency prisons, have been placed on a high security alert.
The Ayodhya court case, with its potential for re-igniting religious hatreds, could not come at a worse time for India, as the country is preparing to host the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, starting on Sunday.
The Allahabad High Court was prepared to release its judgment last Friday after dismissing a final appeal by an applicant who wanted to delay the case for security considerations.
Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, a retired bureaucrat, argued the government was not prepared to deal with the potential fallout from the Ayodhya case as its security forces are already tied down combating unrest in Kashmir and protecting the Commonwealth Games.
The High Court dismissed the claim, saying it simply aimed at "creating an obstruction" in the final disposal of the case.
Then, at the last minute on Thursday, the Supreme Court stepped in and said it would review that decision and decide today whether or not it is safe to go ahead and release the judgment.
Hindu and Muslim groups have pledged to respect the law when the decision is made known.
Still, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council, VHP) has been holding prayer services to Hanuman, the monkey god and eternal friend of Lord Ram, in more than 7,000 Hindu temples across India.
Whoever loses the case is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, where a final decision could still be years away.
After the lawsuit, which marshalled more than 6,000 witnesses, stagnated for 40 years in district court and lingered for another 20 years in the High Court, both sides just want a decision.
They are afraid any further delay might completely derail the lawsuit, since one of the three judges on the High Court panel that heard the Ayodhya case is set to retire on Oct. 1.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Indian+ruling+reignite+religious+strife/3588376/story.html
Douglas E. Curran, AFP Files
Hindu youths clamber atop the 16th-century Babri Masjid mosque on the day it was demolished by mobs in 1992.
Comments
Twitter LinkedIn Digg Buzz Email Peter Goodspeed, National Post · Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010
After 60 years of litigation, religious riots and mass murder, one of India's most contentious cases may be resolved today.
India's Supreme Court is set to decide whether to release a decision by the Allahabad High Court in Uttar Pradesh in a 60-year-old lawsuit over who owns the land under the 16th-century Babri Masjid mosque that was destroyed by Hindu extremists in 1992.
Many Hindus believe the mosque was built on the site of the birthplace of the Hindu god, Ram, a legendary king of Ayodhya and the seventh avatar of the god Vishnu.
After decades of legal delays and political interventions in the ownership dispute, a mob of Hindu extremists took matters into their own hands 18 years ago, storming the contested site and ripping the three-domed Babri Masjid apart.
The assault unleashed months of violence in which more than 2,000 people died as India experienced some of its worst religious riots since partition.
The assault became a rallying cry for Islamic fundamentalists, who clashed with Hindu extremists in major cities across India. For weeks, gangs of youths, armed with iron bars, rusty swords, knives and homemade firebombs, rampaged through Hindu and Muslim neighbourhoods.
Cars and trucks were stopped and burnt, and the bodies of their drivers were thrown onto the burning wrecks.
In Mumbai, Hindu gangs stopped men in the street and forced them to strip to check if they were circumcised Muslims before murdering them.
Some victims had their tongues cut out, while others were forced to watch as relatives were beaten to death.
The trauma of the event transformed Indian politics, fuelling the Hindu nationalism that finally brought the Bharatiya Janata Party (Hindu Nationalist Party or BJP) to power in 1998, sowing a deep sense of distrust and alienation among India's 160 million Muslims.
Now, as the courts are finally poised to settle the case, tensions are building again.
Thousands of troops have been rushed to Ayodhya, a small town of 50,000 people, 550 kilometres east of New Delhi. The government has banned sending bulk text messages on cellphone until after the release of the court's decision and politicians have taken out full-page newspaper ads pleading for calm.
A television broadcasting organization has asked India's
TV stations to refrain from broadcasting film footage of the 1992 mosque destruction. On the weekend, Bollywood film studios delayed the release of several major movies to avoid being swept up in the controversy.
Uttar Pradesh has 40,000 security police in Ayodhya, while New Delhi dispatched another 5,200 and cancelled all trips by cabinet ministers until the court's decision is known.
Another 32 "communally sensitive cities" across India, including Mumbai, which has designated some schools as emergency prisons, have been placed on a high security alert.
The Ayodhya court case, with its potential for re-igniting religious hatreds, could not come at a worse time for India, as the country is preparing to host the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, starting on Sunday.
The Allahabad High Court was prepared to release its judgment last Friday after dismissing a final appeal by an applicant who wanted to delay the case for security considerations.
Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, a retired bureaucrat, argued the government was not prepared to deal with the potential fallout from the Ayodhya case as its security forces are already tied down combating unrest in Kashmir and protecting the Commonwealth Games.
The High Court dismissed the claim, saying it simply aimed at "creating an obstruction" in the final disposal of the case.
Then, at the last minute on Thursday, the Supreme Court stepped in and said it would review that decision and decide today whether or not it is safe to go ahead and release the judgment.
Hindu and Muslim groups have pledged to respect the law when the decision is made known.
Still, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council, VHP) has been holding prayer services to Hanuman, the monkey god and eternal friend of Lord Ram, in more than 7,000 Hindu temples across India.
Whoever loses the case is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, where a final decision could still be years away.
After the lawsuit, which marshalled more than 6,000 witnesses, stagnated for 40 years in district court and lingered for another 20 years in the High Court, both sides just want a decision.
They are afraid any further delay might completely derail the lawsuit, since one of the three judges on the High Court panel that heard the Ayodhya case is set to retire on Oct. 1.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Indian+ruling+reignite+religious+strife/3588376/story.html
SC rejects plea to defer verdict on Ayodhya title suit case
SC rejects plea to defer verdict on Ayodhya title suit case
PTI, Sep 28, 2010,
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has lifted the stay on Allahabad High Court's verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid title suit case. However, the apex court has not fixed any date for HC to give verdict.
AG G E Vahanvati, appearing before a three-judge special bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia, said the most preferred solution to the problem would be settlement but it has not taken place and the uncertainty which is prevailing should not be allowed to continue.
"Settlement, if any possible, we welcome it but we do not want any uncertainty," he told the bench which reserved judgement for 2pm after two hours of arguments from various parties.
The hearing started with senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi putting forth arguments on behalf of a retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi on why the delivery of the verdict should be postponed and efforts be made to reach an amicable settlement outside the court.
Besides the Chief Justice, the special bench also includes Justices Aftab Alam and K S Radhakrishnan. It began hearing on the special leave petition at sharp 10.30 am.
The apex court, on September 23, had stayed for a week the High Court verdict, which was to be pronounced on September 24, after the retired bureaucrat approached it to explore a possibility of an out-of-court settlement.
The apex court had passed the interim stay amidst sharp differences of opinion on the issue of staying the verdict between Justices R V Raveendran and Justices H L Gokhale.
In the wake of differences between them, Justices Raveendran and Gokhale issued a notice on the plea and referred the case to the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench.
Tripathi's petition pleaded for exploring the possibility of an out-of-court settlement on the 60-year-old Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute.
The court had also asked Attorney General G E Vahanvati to be present and assist the court when the matter comes up for hearing today.
Today's crucial hearing assumed significance as the Sunni Central Waqf Board and Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, two opposite parties to the title suit, have ruled out the scope of reconciliation in their affidavits filed in the apex court.
Justice Raveendran was of the view that the special leave petition filed by Tripathi should be dismissed while Justice Gokhale was of the opinion that a notice should be issued for exploring the option of settlement.
Notwithstanding his reservations, Justice Raveendran, who was heading the bench, preferred to go along with Justice Gokhale in making one attempt to find a settlement.
The apex court will also address the crisis which may arise as a fall out of the deferment of the verdict as one of the three judges of the Allahabad High Court Bench, Justice D V Sharma, who has heard the matter at length, is due to demit office on October one.
Rohatgi told the court that the dispute was an emotional issue and the court and the government should make some innovative and proactive approach to evolve a mediated settlement.
On fears that the retirement of one of the three judges of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court shortly could result in de novo hearing of the case, he said there are ways in which the government could overcome the problem.
He said either the retiring judge could be re-appointed or his judgement could be pronounced by the successor judge.
Rohatgi contended that there could be no title suit pending after the government acquisition of the land in 1993.
He said the three judges of the Lucknow Bench also agreed on the need for a mediated settlement and had fixed September 24 as deadline. But the dispute was such an emotional issue that a timeline cannot work.
All parties to the Ayodhya title suit, except the Nirmohi Akhara, oppose the plea of the retired bureaucrat seeking deferment of the verdict.
PTI, Sep 28, 2010,
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has lifted the stay on Allahabad High Court's verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid title suit case. However, the apex court has not fixed any date for HC to give verdict.
AG G E Vahanvati, appearing before a three-judge special bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia, said the most preferred solution to the problem would be settlement but it has not taken place and the uncertainty which is prevailing should not be allowed to continue.
"Settlement, if any possible, we welcome it but we do not want any uncertainty," he told the bench which reserved judgement for 2pm after two hours of arguments from various parties.
The hearing started with senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi putting forth arguments on behalf of a retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi on why the delivery of the verdict should be postponed and efforts be made to reach an amicable settlement outside the court.
Besides the Chief Justice, the special bench also includes Justices Aftab Alam and K S Radhakrishnan. It began hearing on the special leave petition at sharp 10.30 am.
The apex court, on September 23, had stayed for a week the High Court verdict, which was to be pronounced on September 24, after the retired bureaucrat approached it to explore a possibility of an out-of-court settlement.
The apex court had passed the interim stay amidst sharp differences of opinion on the issue of staying the verdict between Justices R V Raveendran and Justices H L Gokhale.
In the wake of differences between them, Justices Raveendran and Gokhale issued a notice on the plea and referred the case to the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench.
Tripathi's petition pleaded for exploring the possibility of an out-of-court settlement on the 60-year-old Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute.
The court had also asked Attorney General G E Vahanvati to be present and assist the court when the matter comes up for hearing today.
Today's crucial hearing assumed significance as the Sunni Central Waqf Board and Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, two opposite parties to the title suit, have ruled out the scope of reconciliation in their affidavits filed in the apex court.
Justice Raveendran was of the view that the special leave petition filed by Tripathi should be dismissed while Justice Gokhale was of the opinion that a notice should be issued for exploring the option of settlement.
Notwithstanding his reservations, Justice Raveendran, who was heading the bench, preferred to go along with Justice Gokhale in making one attempt to find a settlement.
The apex court will also address the crisis which may arise as a fall out of the deferment of the verdict as one of the three judges of the Allahabad High Court Bench, Justice D V Sharma, who has heard the matter at length, is due to demit office on October one.
Rohatgi told the court that the dispute was an emotional issue and the court and the government should make some innovative and proactive approach to evolve a mediated settlement.
On fears that the retirement of one of the three judges of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court shortly could result in de novo hearing of the case, he said there are ways in which the government could overcome the problem.
He said either the retiring judge could be re-appointed or his judgement could be pronounced by the successor judge.
Rohatgi contended that there could be no title suit pending after the government acquisition of the land in 1993.
He said the three judges of the Lucknow Bench also agreed on the need for a mediated settlement and had fixed September 24 as deadline. But the dispute was such an emotional issue that a timeline cannot work.
All parties to the Ayodhya title suit, except the Nirmohi Akhara, oppose the plea of the retired bureaucrat seeking deferment of the verdict.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
http://expressbuzz.com/states/orissa/kandhamal-nun-skips-court-one-more-time/209572.html
Kandhamal nun skips court one more time
Express News ServiceFirst Published : 24 Sep 2010 04:40:26 AM ISTLast Updated : 24 Sep 2010 10:45:16 AM IST
CUTTACK: It was a day of wait at the court of the District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack, yet again today as the alleged Kandhamal rape victim, the nun, failed to show up for the trial. This despite the refusal of the Orissa High Court to grant her relief on the plea to stay or defer the trial proceedings in the case. And, this the third summons by the trial court that she has not acceded to.
District and Sessions Judge BK Mishra, while adjourning the trial on September 7, had directed the nun to appear in the court for testifying on September 23 or 24.
The court, which resumed trial proceedings in the case today, however, recorded statements of two witnesses including the sub-inspector of Baliguda police station Arpita Khatua. Khatua had received the complaint of the nun and had registered the case. Along with her, a staff of the Jana Vikash Kendra at K Nuagaon, the place of the crime, Latika Devi also testified.
The in-camera proceedings saw cross-examination of recording of statement by the prosecution lawyer L Mishra and crossexamination by defence counsel Sauri Mohapatra. Latika's cross-examination was, however, incomplete.
Express News ServiceFirst Published : 24 Sep 2010 04:40:26 AM ISTLast Updated : 24 Sep 2010 10:45:16 AM IST
CUTTACK: It was a day of wait at the court of the District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack, yet again today as the alleged Kandhamal rape victim, the nun, failed to show up for the trial. This despite the refusal of the Orissa High Court to grant her relief on the plea to stay or defer the trial proceedings in the case. And, this the third summons by the trial court that she has not acceded to.
District and Sessions Judge BK Mishra, while adjourning the trial on September 7, had directed the nun to appear in the court for testifying on September 23 or 24.
The court, which resumed trial proceedings in the case today, however, recorded statements of two witnesses including the sub-inspector of Baliguda police station Arpita Khatua. Khatua had received the complaint of the nun and had registered the case. Along with her, a staff of the Jana Vikash Kendra at K Nuagaon, the place of the crime, Latika Devi also testified.
The in-camera proceedings saw cross-examination of recording of statement by the prosecution lawyer L Mishra and crossexamination by defence counsel Sauri Mohapatra. Latika's cross-examination was, however, incomplete.
Maoist writ runs in 13 blocks: Oram
Maoist writ runs in 13 blocks: Oram
Express News ServiceFirst Published : 26 Sep 2010 05:59:28 AM ISTLast Updated : 26 Sep 2010 12:25:21 PM IST
BHUBANESWAR: State BJP president Jual Oram today alleged that the administration in the Naxal- affected districts had completely surrendered before the Left wing extremists.
After touring the cholera-affected Rayagada district, Oram said that more than 12 blocks of the State were under the grip of the Maoists. The public is at the mercy of the Naxals as the local administrations had turned a blind eye to their activities.
The BJP leader claimed that the administration had no control over four out of seven blocks in Malkangiri district, the hotbed of the Maoists, three blocks in Nabarangpur district, two each in Gajapati, Koraput and Sundargarh districts.
Alleging that tribal unrest is growing, Oram said that the tribal community as a whole has seen through the games of the BJD Government. This is precisely the reason why the anti-Centre rallies organised by the Government were a failure everywhere.
While the tribals are against handing over any of the mines to either Posco or Vedanta, the Government has recommended to the Centre for granting Khandadhar mines to the Korean steel major, Oram said and cautioned the Government that any move to grant mining lease on Khandadhar will be resisted tooth and nail.
Describing the State Government as non-performing, the BJP chief said it had failed on all fronts. There is absolutely no administration in Rayagada where people are dying of cholera. The Government claim that everything is under control is a big lie.
When pointed out that the BJP cannot absolve its responsibility as it was ruling partner of the BJD for nine years and was in charge of the Rural Development Department, Oram said that his party was not allowed to function freely.
Oram said that his party would launch a Statewide agitation against the failure of the Government from November.
http://expressbuzz.com/states/orissa/maoist-writ-runs-in-13-blocks-oram/210091.html
Express News ServiceFirst Published : 26 Sep 2010 05:59:28 AM ISTLast Updated : 26 Sep 2010 12:25:21 PM IST
BHUBANESWAR: State BJP president Jual Oram today alleged that the administration in the Naxal- affected districts had completely surrendered before the Left wing extremists.
After touring the cholera-affected Rayagada district, Oram said that more than 12 blocks of the State were under the grip of the Maoists. The public is at the mercy of the Naxals as the local administrations had turned a blind eye to their activities.
The BJP leader claimed that the administration had no control over four out of seven blocks in Malkangiri district, the hotbed of the Maoists, three blocks in Nabarangpur district, two each in Gajapati, Koraput and Sundargarh districts.
Alleging that tribal unrest is growing, Oram said that the tribal community as a whole has seen through the games of the BJD Government. This is precisely the reason why the anti-Centre rallies organised by the Government were a failure everywhere.
While the tribals are against handing over any of the mines to either Posco or Vedanta, the Government has recommended to the Centre for granting Khandadhar mines to the Korean steel major, Oram said and cautioned the Government that any move to grant mining lease on Khandadhar will be resisted tooth and nail.
Describing the State Government as non-performing, the BJP chief said it had failed on all fronts. There is absolutely no administration in Rayagada where people are dying of cholera. The Government claim that everything is under control is a big lie.
When pointed out that the BJP cannot absolve its responsibility as it was ruling partner of the BJD for nine years and was in charge of the Rural Development Department, Oram said that his party was not allowed to function freely.
Oram said that his party would launch a Statewide agitation against the failure of the Government from November.
http://expressbuzz.com/states/orissa/maoist-writ-runs-in-13-blocks-oram/210091.html
Talks, not courts, can solve Ayodhya tangle
Talks, not courts, can solve Ayodhya tangle
September 26, 2010 2:57:43 PM
Swapan Dasgupta
Last week, the Supreme Court offered a generous lifeline to the litigants in the Ayodhya dispute to make a last ditch effort to secure a negotiated, out-of-court settlement. The offer, in my view, had precious little to do with the diversion of security from the Commonwealth Games or, for that matter, the Bihar Assembly election. If courts had to consult the Home Ministry before delivering sensitive judgements, the work of the courts would come to a complete standstill and contentious issue would remain pending permanently. The sub-text of the order to stay the Allahabad High Court judgement till September 28 at least was the tacit acknowledgement that what was at stake wasn’t just a property title suit and that a compromise solution was the ideal way forward.
It is tragic that the two sides of the divide have refused to admit the wisdom of the Supreme Court’s advice. As of now, both are unanimous that they want the judgement delivered and both have blamed the Congress for manipulating a delay. If this intransigence persists, the Supreme Court may be left with no alternative other than vacating the stay and allowing the Allahabad High Court judgement.
The stubbornness of the two sides arises from different compulsions. For the Sunni Waqf Board and the Babri Masjid Action Committee, the judgment is worth the gamble precisely because they have nothing to lose: The Babri structure was demolished 18 years ago and the site, although nominally acquired by the Centre, hosts a Ram temple, as it has done since 1949. The Muslim leadership is aware that since possession of the site gives the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas a distinct upper hand in any negotiations, it should await the judgement in the title suit. A victory in that matter won’t lead to the removal of the Ram temple but it will establish a new benchmark for the future. More to the point, it will give moral legitimacy to the claim that Hindu activists took over ‘inalienable’ waqf property illegally. This in turn will allow the Muslim side to widen its political appeal and rope in Hindu liberals who, in any case, have an aesthetic abhorrence of the BJP, VHP and the sadhu samaj.
If the Muslim intransigence is centred on a calculated gamble, Hindu obstinacy is based on adventurist bravado. There are definite indications that the RSS leadership, which exercises control over the VHP, doesn’t believe that the Allahabad High Court will rule against it under any circumstances. Whether this conviction is based on the inputs provided by over-zealous lawyers or something more profound is unknown. But it is a fact that the RSS and VHP have discounted the possibility of adverse judgements. Alternatively, they may even believe — and at least one BJP leader was indiscreet enough to admit this ‘off the record’ to a media gathering — that political victory lies in legal defeat.
The assumption that an adverse verdict in the title suit will also suit the Hindu cause is based on the belief that it will trigger a wave of Hindu outrage which, in turn, will influence both politics and the ruling of the Supreme Court after the matter goes for appeal. This faith in the power of Hindu outrage may well explain why the gathering of Hindu religious figures decided last Friday to up the ante and advocate a maximalist position. The meeting apparently decided that the proposed Ram temple would cover the entire 70 acres acquired by the Centre and that “there could be no place for another mosque in Ayodhya, even outside the disputed place”. Predictably, such posturing doesn’t leave even any space for negotiations with the other side.
The problem with the VHP and the religious figures who endorsed such a position on the eve of a delicate judicial verdict is that they interact exclusively with the committed. This leads to imagining that their little ghettos constitute the whole world, a phenomenon common to political and religious extremists. The VHP appears to have overlooked the fact that while the Ram temple issue is possibly dear to huge numbers of Hindus, the consequences of faith are very complex. Without necessarily endorsing the facile and self-serving India-has-moved-on theory of pop sociologists, it is nevertheless true that any renewed Ram temple agitation won’t have the same impact it did in the 1990s. If there is Hindu outrage it will be expressed with greater dignity than rioting. More to the point, it may result in widespread questioning of the claim of the likes of Ashok Singhal and Praveen Togadia to mirror Hindu sentiments.
At the colossal risk of being proved utterly wrong, it seems to me that both sides in the Ayodhya dispute have made a Himalayan blunder by shunning the Supreme Court’s offer of last-minute salvage. True, no negotiations can yield results in just five days. Yet what was achievable was the recognition that neither side can achieve total victory or inflict total defeat. If the Home Minister’s cautionary statement last week was any accurate indication, the High Court may throw up an ambiguous verdict — victory for one side in the title suit and for the other side in the archaeological scrutiny — which could throw up a fresh set of intractable issues. India could do with a settlement where there are no obvious losers, something beyond the scope of law.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285795/Talks-not-courts-can-solve-Ayodhya-tangle.html
September 26, 2010 2:57:43 PM
Swapan Dasgupta
Last week, the Supreme Court offered a generous lifeline to the litigants in the Ayodhya dispute to make a last ditch effort to secure a negotiated, out-of-court settlement. The offer, in my view, had precious little to do with the diversion of security from the Commonwealth Games or, for that matter, the Bihar Assembly election. If courts had to consult the Home Ministry before delivering sensitive judgements, the work of the courts would come to a complete standstill and contentious issue would remain pending permanently. The sub-text of the order to stay the Allahabad High Court judgement till September 28 at least was the tacit acknowledgement that what was at stake wasn’t just a property title suit and that a compromise solution was the ideal way forward.
It is tragic that the two sides of the divide have refused to admit the wisdom of the Supreme Court’s advice. As of now, both are unanimous that they want the judgement delivered and both have blamed the Congress for manipulating a delay. If this intransigence persists, the Supreme Court may be left with no alternative other than vacating the stay and allowing the Allahabad High Court judgement.
The stubbornness of the two sides arises from different compulsions. For the Sunni Waqf Board and the Babri Masjid Action Committee, the judgment is worth the gamble precisely because they have nothing to lose: The Babri structure was demolished 18 years ago and the site, although nominally acquired by the Centre, hosts a Ram temple, as it has done since 1949. The Muslim leadership is aware that since possession of the site gives the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas a distinct upper hand in any negotiations, it should await the judgement in the title suit. A victory in that matter won’t lead to the removal of the Ram temple but it will establish a new benchmark for the future. More to the point, it will give moral legitimacy to the claim that Hindu activists took over ‘inalienable’ waqf property illegally. This in turn will allow the Muslim side to widen its political appeal and rope in Hindu liberals who, in any case, have an aesthetic abhorrence of the BJP, VHP and the sadhu samaj.
If the Muslim intransigence is centred on a calculated gamble, Hindu obstinacy is based on adventurist bravado. There are definite indications that the RSS leadership, which exercises control over the VHP, doesn’t believe that the Allahabad High Court will rule against it under any circumstances. Whether this conviction is based on the inputs provided by over-zealous lawyers or something more profound is unknown. But it is a fact that the RSS and VHP have discounted the possibility of adverse judgements. Alternatively, they may even believe — and at least one BJP leader was indiscreet enough to admit this ‘off the record’ to a media gathering — that political victory lies in legal defeat.
The assumption that an adverse verdict in the title suit will also suit the Hindu cause is based on the belief that it will trigger a wave of Hindu outrage which, in turn, will influence both politics and the ruling of the Supreme Court after the matter goes for appeal. This faith in the power of Hindu outrage may well explain why the gathering of Hindu religious figures decided last Friday to up the ante and advocate a maximalist position. The meeting apparently decided that the proposed Ram temple would cover the entire 70 acres acquired by the Centre and that “there could be no place for another mosque in Ayodhya, even outside the disputed place”. Predictably, such posturing doesn’t leave even any space for negotiations with the other side.
The problem with the VHP and the religious figures who endorsed such a position on the eve of a delicate judicial verdict is that they interact exclusively with the committed. This leads to imagining that their little ghettos constitute the whole world, a phenomenon common to political and religious extremists. The VHP appears to have overlooked the fact that while the Ram temple issue is possibly dear to huge numbers of Hindus, the consequences of faith are very complex. Without necessarily endorsing the facile and self-serving India-has-moved-on theory of pop sociologists, it is nevertheless true that any renewed Ram temple agitation won’t have the same impact it did in the 1990s. If there is Hindu outrage it will be expressed with greater dignity than rioting. More to the point, it may result in widespread questioning of the claim of the likes of Ashok Singhal and Praveen Togadia to mirror Hindu sentiments.
At the colossal risk of being proved utterly wrong, it seems to me that both sides in the Ayodhya dispute have made a Himalayan blunder by shunning the Supreme Court’s offer of last-minute salvage. True, no negotiations can yield results in just five days. Yet what was achievable was the recognition that neither side can achieve total victory or inflict total defeat. If the Home Minister’s cautionary statement last week was any accurate indication, the High Court may throw up an ambiguous verdict — victory for one side in the title suit and for the other side in the archaeological scrutiny — which could throw up a fresh set of intractable issues. India could do with a settlement where there are no obvious losers, something beyond the scope of law.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285795/Talks-not-courts-can-solve-Ayodhya-tangle.html
Don’t further delay verdict, Advani urges apex court
September 26, 2010 2:56:41 PM
Rathin Das | Ahmedabad
BJP stalwart LKAdvani has urged the Supreme Court to expeditiously pave the way for the long-awaited verdict on the Ayodhya issue for which people of the country are waiting for 50 years.
The SC had on Thursday granted an interim stay on the Allahabad High Court’s verdict on the age-old dispute over the Ayodhya land issue.
Talking to journalists after praying at the historic Somnath Temple on Saturday morning, Advani said he was unable to understand the decision of the Supreme Court in granting interim stay on the verdict on Ayodhya dispute by the Allahabad High Court.
He expressed the hope that the Supreme Court would give its nod to the Allahabad High Court on September 28 so that the latter can pronounce its verdict on the Ayodhya issue on September 29 or so.
Advani was in Somnath as per his annual routine for 20 years since he had started his historic Rath Yatra to Ayodhya from here in 1990, a journey that had catapulted the BJP to the centrestage of national politics.
Since then, Advani pays a visit to the Somnath Temple every year on this day (Sept 25) without fail.
Advani was accompanied this time by his daughter Pratibha, BJP Rajya Sabha member Balbir Punj and former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Uma Bharti.sss
Reiterating his respect for the judicial system, Advani also appealed to the people to maintain calm and respect for the court verdict.
Advani said that he would like all communities and parties to appreciate the desire of the people to have a befitting Ram Temple constructed at Ayodhya. All sections of the population can contribute to the building of the Ram Temple, the BJP veteran hoped.
Reminiscing about his historic Somnath to Ayodhya Rath Yatra in 1990, Advani said that he had received a tremendous response during the journey.
He said that the Somnath and Ayodhya temples should be made symbols of national unity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285805/Don’t-further-delay-verdict-Advani-urges-apex-court.html
September 26, 2010 2:56:41 PM
Rathin Das | Ahmedabad
BJP stalwart LKAdvani has urged the Supreme Court to expeditiously pave the way for the long-awaited verdict on the Ayodhya issue for which people of the country are waiting for 50 years.
The SC had on Thursday granted an interim stay on the Allahabad High Court’s verdict on the age-old dispute over the Ayodhya land issue.
Talking to journalists after praying at the historic Somnath Temple on Saturday morning, Advani said he was unable to understand the decision of the Supreme Court in granting interim stay on the verdict on Ayodhya dispute by the Allahabad High Court.
He expressed the hope that the Supreme Court would give its nod to the Allahabad High Court on September 28 so that the latter can pronounce its verdict on the Ayodhya issue on September 29 or so.
Advani was in Somnath as per his annual routine for 20 years since he had started his historic Rath Yatra to Ayodhya from here in 1990, a journey that had catapulted the BJP to the centrestage of national politics.
Since then, Advani pays a visit to the Somnath Temple every year on this day (Sept 25) without fail.
Advani was accompanied this time by his daughter Pratibha, BJP Rajya Sabha member Balbir Punj and former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Uma Bharti.sss
Reiterating his respect for the judicial system, Advani also appealed to the people to maintain calm and respect for the court verdict.
Advani said that he would like all communities and parties to appreciate the desire of the people to have a befitting Ram Temple constructed at Ayodhya. All sections of the population can contribute to the building of the Ram Temple, the BJP veteran hoped.
Reminiscing about his historic Somnath to Ayodhya Rath Yatra in 1990, Advani said that he had received a tremendous response during the journey.
He said that the Somnath and Ayodhya temples should be made symbols of national unity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285805/Don’t-further-delay-verdict-Advani-urges-apex-court.html
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Naveen failed to protect State interests: BJP
Naveen failed to protect State interests: BJP
BHUBANESWAR: The BJP today slammed the Centre for showering favours on Andhra Pradesh like Polavaram project and blamed the ruling BJD for failing to protect the State interests.
Addressing activists of the BJP Yuva Morcha who staged a dharna near Raj Bhawan protesting Polavaram, senior leaders of the party blamed Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik for his failure to take up the issue with the Centre in right earnest.
Former minister BB Harichandan said the Chief Minister did the gravest mistake by ignoring the invitation of his Andhra counterpart for a discussion on the multipurpose irrigation project. Things could have been different had the two discussed the issue. Now Patnaik is shedding crocodile tears over Polavaram to divert attention of the people. But the people have seen though the game, he said.
Senior BJP leader Bijay Mohapatra said the Chief Minister was still ignorant about the Polavaram project and not sure about the extent of damage the project will do to Malkangiri district. Even though the Chief Minister is holding the Water Resources portfolio for more than 11 years, he has not yet visited the areas likely to be affected by the Andhra Pradesh project, he remarked.
What is galling is that Naveen is not taking Cabinet colleagues into confidence on major issues including Polavaram. Since Polavaram is an interstate issue and the Centre is siding with Andhra Pradesh, the Chief Minister should discuss the issue at an allparty meeting and elicit opinion of senior citizens and intellectuals.
Describing the series of 'Save Orissa' rallies, organised by the BJD, as an attempt to cover up the multicrore mining scam and its failure to protect the interest of Vedanta, former party president Suresh Pujari and general secretary Nayan Kishore Mohanty said the people of the State will not forgive the Government if any part of the State is affected by the Andhra Pradesh project.
The BJP Yuva Morcha took out a rally under the leadership of morcha president Bibhuti Jena in the city and staged a dharna near Raj Bhawan. The Morcha submitted a memorandum, addressed to the President of India, to the Governor.
http://expressbuzz.com/states/orissa/naveen-failed-to-protect-state-interests-bjp/208985.html
BHUBANESWAR: The BJP today slammed the Centre for showering favours on Andhra Pradesh like Polavaram project and blamed the ruling BJD for failing to protect the State interests.
Addressing activists of the BJP Yuva Morcha who staged a dharna near Raj Bhawan protesting Polavaram, senior leaders of the party blamed Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik for his failure to take up the issue with the Centre in right earnest.
Former minister BB Harichandan said the Chief Minister did the gravest mistake by ignoring the invitation of his Andhra counterpart for a discussion on the multipurpose irrigation project. Things could have been different had the two discussed the issue. Now Patnaik is shedding crocodile tears over Polavaram to divert attention of the people. But the people have seen though the game, he said.
Senior BJP leader Bijay Mohapatra said the Chief Minister was still ignorant about the Polavaram project and not sure about the extent of damage the project will do to Malkangiri district. Even though the Chief Minister is holding the Water Resources portfolio for more than 11 years, he has not yet visited the areas likely to be affected by the Andhra Pradesh project, he remarked.
What is galling is that Naveen is not taking Cabinet colleagues into confidence on major issues including Polavaram. Since Polavaram is an interstate issue and the Centre is siding with Andhra Pradesh, the Chief Minister should discuss the issue at an allparty meeting and elicit opinion of senior citizens and intellectuals.
Describing the series of 'Save Orissa' rallies, organised by the BJD, as an attempt to cover up the multicrore mining scam and its failure to protect the interest of Vedanta, former party president Suresh Pujari and general secretary Nayan Kishore Mohanty said the people of the State will not forgive the Government if any part of the State is affected by the Andhra Pradesh project.
The BJP Yuva Morcha took out a rally under the leadership of morcha president Bibhuti Jena in the city and staged a dharna near Raj Bhawan. The Morcha submitted a memorandum, addressed to the President of India, to the Governor.
http://expressbuzz.com/states/orissa/naveen-failed-to-protect-state-interests-bjp/208985.html
Final summons to absentee nun
Final summons to absentee nun
CUTTACK: Refusing to give any more relief to the alleged Kandhamal rape victim nun, who has been staying away from the trial proceedings, the District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack, today issued final summons fixing dates of October 5 or 6 for her deposition.
The nun had filed a petition praying for deferment of her deposition in the case which was rejected by the Judge BK Mishra in view of the Orissa High Court's observations that the trial can neither be stayed nor deferred at this stage.
The victim is yet to testify in the case ever since the trial started at Baliguda court in Kandhamal district and later shifted to Cuttack on March 20. The trial had been shifted to Cuttack by the Orissa High Court on the basis of her petition where she had expressed her inability to go to Kandhamal due to the trauma as well as life risks there.
However, she has still not attended the proceedings here on grounds of ill health despite three summons issued by the trial court. However, she took part in the Test Identification (TI) parade at Cuttack Central Jail at Choudwar in between.
The single judge Bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Justice BK Nayak on September 22 had rejected her petition seeking deferment of her deposition and shifting other cases from Kandhamal to Cuttack so that she could testify on a single day. The Court had allowed her to file a petition in the trial court detailing her grievances.
The court of Judge Mishra today completed the testification of Latika Devi, a staffer of Jana Vikash Kendra at K Nuagaon, the place of occurrence of the alleged gang rape. Latika was cross examined by defence counsel S Mohapatra during the proceedings that were held incamera.
http://expressbuzz.com/states/orissa/final-summons-to-absentee-nun/209823.html
CUTTACK: Refusing to give any more relief to the alleged Kandhamal rape victim nun, who has been staying away from the trial proceedings, the District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack, today issued final summons fixing dates of October 5 or 6 for her deposition.
The nun had filed a petition praying for deferment of her deposition in the case which was rejected by the Judge BK Mishra in view of the Orissa High Court's observations that the trial can neither be stayed nor deferred at this stage.
The victim is yet to testify in the case ever since the trial started at Baliguda court in Kandhamal district and later shifted to Cuttack on March 20. The trial had been shifted to Cuttack by the Orissa High Court on the basis of her petition where she had expressed her inability to go to Kandhamal due to the trauma as well as life risks there.
However, she has still not attended the proceedings here on grounds of ill health despite three summons issued by the trial court. However, she took part in the Test Identification (TI) parade at Cuttack Central Jail at Choudwar in between.
The single judge Bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Justice BK Nayak on September 22 had rejected her petition seeking deferment of her deposition and shifting other cases from Kandhamal to Cuttack so that she could testify on a single day. The Court had allowed her to file a petition in the trial court detailing her grievances.
The court of Judge Mishra today completed the testification of Latika Devi, a staffer of Jana Vikash Kendra at K Nuagaon, the place of occurrence of the alleged gang rape. Latika was cross examined by defence counsel S Mohapatra during the proceedings that were held incamera.
http://expressbuzz.com/states/orissa/final-summons-to-absentee-nun/209823.html
CJI to head SC bench on Ayodhya deferment hearing
CJI to head SC bench on Ayodhya deferment hearing
September 25, 2010 3:21:05 PM
PTI | New Delhi
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia will on Tuesday decide the fate of the special leave petition seeking deferment of the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya title suit.
Besides the Chief Justice, the bench would include Justices Aftab Alam and K S Radhakrishnan. The matter has been listed as the first item on the agenda at 10.30 a.M.
The apex court had on Thursday, stayed for a week the High Court verdict following the petition moved by a retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi seeking deferment of the verdict to explore the possibility of an out-of-court settlement.
The apex court had passed the interim stay amidst sharp differences of opinion on the issue of staying the verdict between Justices R V Raveendran and Justices H L Gokhale.
Tripathi's petition pleaded for exploring the possibility of an out-of-court settlement on the 60-year-old Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute.
The court had also asked Attorney General G E Vahanvati to be present and assist the court when the matter comes up on Tuesday.
Justice Raveendran was of the view that the special leave petition filed by Tripathi should be dismissed while Justice Gokhale was of the opinion that a notice should be issued for exploring the option of settlement.
Notwithstanding his reservations, Justice Raveendran, who was heading the bench, preferred to go along with Justice Gokhale in making one attempt to find a settlement.
"If there is one per cent chance, you have to give it (for settlement)," Justice Gokhale said.
Justice Raveendran in his order said, "One of the members of the bench is of the view that the SLP should be dismissed. Another member is of the view that the order should be stayed and notice issued.
"Tradition of this court is when one member says that notice be issued another says that it should not be issued, the notice should be issued.
"And we issue notice and stay the order. There shall be an interim stay for a week. Notice to all parties and the Attorney General who shall be present in the court".
Tuesday's special hearing assumed considerable importance in view of the fact that one of the three judges of the Ayodhya bench in Lucknow--Justice D V Sharma-- is due to demit office on October one.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285604/CJI-to-head-SC-bench-on-Ayodhya-deferment-hearing.html
September 25, 2010 3:21:05 PM
PTI | New Delhi
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia will on Tuesday decide the fate of the special leave petition seeking deferment of the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya title suit.
Besides the Chief Justice, the bench would include Justices Aftab Alam and K S Radhakrishnan. The matter has been listed as the first item on the agenda at 10.30 a.M.
The apex court had on Thursday, stayed for a week the High Court verdict following the petition moved by a retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi seeking deferment of the verdict to explore the possibility of an out-of-court settlement.
The apex court had passed the interim stay amidst sharp differences of opinion on the issue of staying the verdict between Justices R V Raveendran and Justices H L Gokhale.
Tripathi's petition pleaded for exploring the possibility of an out-of-court settlement on the 60-year-old Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute.
The court had also asked Attorney General G E Vahanvati to be present and assist the court when the matter comes up on Tuesday.
Justice Raveendran was of the view that the special leave petition filed by Tripathi should be dismissed while Justice Gokhale was of the opinion that a notice should be issued for exploring the option of settlement.
Notwithstanding his reservations, Justice Raveendran, who was heading the bench, preferred to go along with Justice Gokhale in making one attempt to find a settlement.
"If there is one per cent chance, you have to give it (for settlement)," Justice Gokhale said.
Justice Raveendran in his order said, "One of the members of the bench is of the view that the SLP should be dismissed. Another member is of the view that the order should be stayed and notice issued.
"Tradition of this court is when one member says that notice be issued another says that it should not be issued, the notice should be issued.
"And we issue notice and stay the order. There shall be an interim stay for a week. Notice to all parties and the Attorney General who shall be present in the court".
Tuesday's special hearing assumed considerable importance in view of the fact that one of the three judges of the Ayodhya bench in Lucknow--Justice D V Sharma-- is due to demit office on October one.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285604/CJI-to-head-SC-bench-on-Ayodhya-deferment-hearing.html
Police plan to weed out criminals before puja
Police plan to weed out criminals before puja
As part of its pre-puja crackdown on criminals and habitual offenders of the city, the Cuttack police have decided to execute all the pending arrest warrants to control crime in the city.
Sources informed that the city police have devised an action plan against the anti-social elements who have posed a challenge to the force for days. The city over the past few weeks had witnessed an upsurge in crimes related to extortions, intimidation over tender related contracts. But it would soon come back to normalcy, said a senior police official.
As part of the drive, the city police have prepared a list of active criminals of various anti-social groups and have launched a crackdown to arrest them and put them behind bars under long-term detention laws. "A hardcore criminal of the city was booked under NSA recently and a few are on the offing", said a senior police official.
The police are also systematically working on identifying the source of procurement of firearms and ammunition to the city. Several illegal firearms and live bullets have been seized from the city in recent days. "We are verifying the stock records of all licensed firearms and explosive shops in the city. Out of about 15 such shops here, we have completed stock verification of some and the exercise is on", the official added.
Each police station of the city has prepared a list of criminals of their respective areas and they would be soon cooling their heels behind the bars, the police officer added saying that the criminal activities in the city would be completely weeded out before the puja.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/BHUBANESWAR/Bhubaneswar.html
As part of its pre-puja crackdown on criminals and habitual offenders of the city, the Cuttack police have decided to execute all the pending arrest warrants to control crime in the city.
Sources informed that the city police have devised an action plan against the anti-social elements who have posed a challenge to the force for days. The city over the past few weeks had witnessed an upsurge in crimes related to extortions, intimidation over tender related contracts. But it would soon come back to normalcy, said a senior police official.
As part of the drive, the city police have prepared a list of active criminals of various anti-social groups and have launched a crackdown to arrest them and put them behind bars under long-term detention laws. "A hardcore criminal of the city was booked under NSA recently and a few are on the offing", said a senior police official.
The police are also systematically working on identifying the source of procurement of firearms and ammunition to the city. Several illegal firearms and live bullets have been seized from the city in recent days. "We are verifying the stock records of all licensed firearms and explosive shops in the city. Out of about 15 such shops here, we have completed stock verification of some and the exercise is on", the official added.
Each police station of the city has prepared a list of criminals of their respective areas and they would be soon cooling their heels behind the bars, the police officer added saying that the criminal activities in the city would be completely weeded out before the puja.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/BHUBANESWAR/Bhubaneswar.html
Trial court rejects nun's plea, asks to appear by next date
Trial court rejects nun's plea, asks to appear by next date
The Cuttack district sessions court conducting the trial in the Kandhamal nun rape case, on Friday, refused to adjourn the hearing as requested by the nun and gave her yet another chance to appear before it to record her statements by the next date. Rejecting the nun's petition and allowing the time petition of special public prosecution, the judge Mr B K Mishra adjourned the case to be heard next on Oct 5 and 6.
The nun filed for adjournment of her case till the disposal of her pending petition in the High Court in which she had sought for transfer of all her cases to the Cuttack court from the Kandhamal district. However, the defense lawyers vehemently opposed the nun's plea saying that the High Court in its earlier order had clearly given directions the case will be conductedby the trial court on day-to-day basis. Moreover, when the witnesses in the case have already appeared and recorded their statement, how can the complainant take the liberty of so many adjournments, argued the defense lawyer Soura Chandra Mohapatra.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285573/Trial-court-rejects-nuns-plea-asks-to-appear-by-next-date.html
The Cuttack district sessions court conducting the trial in the Kandhamal nun rape case, on Friday, refused to adjourn the hearing as requested by the nun and gave her yet another chance to appear before it to record her statements by the next date. Rejecting the nun's petition and allowing the time petition of special public prosecution, the judge Mr B K Mishra adjourned the case to be heard next on Oct 5 and 6.
The nun filed for adjournment of her case till the disposal of her pending petition in the High Court in which she had sought for transfer of all her cases to the Cuttack court from the Kandhamal district. However, the defense lawyers vehemently opposed the nun's plea saying that the High Court in its earlier order had clearly given directions the case will be conductedby the trial court on day-to-day basis. Moreover, when the witnesses in the case have already appeared and recorded their statement, how can the complainant take the liberty of so many adjournments, argued the defense lawyer Soura Chandra Mohapatra.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285573/Trial-court-rejects-nuns-plea-asks-to-appear-by-next-date.html
HINDU SWAYAMSEVAK SANGH
HINDU SWAYAMSEVAK SANGH
On Saturday 18thSept 2010, distinguished speakers of state assemblies from various states of
Bharat got together for a brief meeting organized by Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh at Deendayal
Bhavan on Muranga road. These speakers have been in Nairobi for past few days to take part
in the 56th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference which was held at KICC, ( KENYATTA
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CENTER ), Nairobi from 14th Sept to 19th Sept 2010.
The speaker present at the gathering on Saturday at 5pm expressed gratitude for being invited
to such a warm welcome by Hindus. The speaker present were Shri Bopayya from Karnataka,
Shri Dharampal Kaushik from Chhattisgarh, Shri Harbans Kapoor from Uttarakhand, Secretary
of Legislative Assembly from Chhattisgarh., Shri Devendra Verma. Also present were Shri
Dilipbhai Parmar and the Opposition Leader from Gujarat Shri Shaktisinh Gohil.
They were utterly delighted to be among Hindus who have maintained the tradition and culture
so much, so that they felt they were at home. An attendance of more than a Hundred people had
the opportunity to hear from the experienced speakers about their views on the visit to Kenya and
how Bharat is always happy to cater for the Indians leaving outside Bharat. One speaker from
Gujarat went ahead to emphasize that religion is purely for the well being of a individual.
To conclude the meeting, Shri Vanraj Sarvaiya (Chairman Hindu council of Kenya) thanked
all the speakers, on behalf of the entire Hindu community of Kenya, sparing time and attending
the informal gathering and addressing us. General feeling of the audience was that those
approaching Indian High Commission in Kenya for any matter are not helped in the way
they should be. Instead they are harassed in insignificient matters .It would be to the credit of
India, if those employees are trained in serving the customers as Embassies of other countries.
The speakers in return were simply very happy to just be there amongst such an enthusiastic
crowd of Hindus.
On Saturday 18thSept 2010, distinguished speakers of state assemblies from various states of
Bharat got together for a brief meeting organized by Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh at Deendayal
Bhavan on Muranga road. These speakers have been in Nairobi for past few days to take part
in the 56th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference which was held at KICC, ( KENYATTA
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CENTER ), Nairobi from 14th Sept to 19th Sept 2010.
The speaker present at the gathering on Saturday at 5pm expressed gratitude for being invited
to such a warm welcome by Hindus. The speaker present were Shri Bopayya from Karnataka,
Shri Dharampal Kaushik from Chhattisgarh, Shri Harbans Kapoor from Uttarakhand, Secretary
of Legislative Assembly from Chhattisgarh., Shri Devendra Verma. Also present were Shri
Dilipbhai Parmar and the Opposition Leader from Gujarat Shri Shaktisinh Gohil.
They were utterly delighted to be among Hindus who have maintained the tradition and culture
so much, so that they felt they were at home. An attendance of more than a Hundred people had
the opportunity to hear from the experienced speakers about their views on the visit to Kenya and
how Bharat is always happy to cater for the Indians leaving outside Bharat. One speaker from
Gujarat went ahead to emphasize that religion is purely for the well being of a individual.
To conclude the meeting, Shri Vanraj Sarvaiya (Chairman Hindu council of Kenya) thanked
all the speakers, on behalf of the entire Hindu community of Kenya, sparing time and attending
the informal gathering and addressing us. General feeling of the audience was that those
approaching Indian High Commission in Kenya for any matter are not helped in the way
they should be. Instead they are harassed in insignificient matters .It would be to the credit of
India, if those employees are trained in serving the customers as Embassies of other countries.
The speakers in return were simply very happy to just be there amongst such an enthusiastic
crowd of Hindus.
BJD Government most non-performing: BJP
BJD Government most non-performing: BJP
Bhubaneswar(visakeo)The BJP on Saturday termed the BJD Government as the most non-performing and said the development of the State has taken a downturn since it came to power in 2009.
“Under the rule of BJD, Odisha is not at all safe now. The Maoists have taken control of many parts of the State while on the other side diseases like cholera and diarrhoea are spreading at an alarming speed, claiming several lives every day. These are the direct results of governance failure,” BJP State president Jual Oram alleged.
Addressing a Press conference here, Oram alleged that the State administration had totally collapsed and it had no presence in at least 12 blocks in Malkagiri, Gajpati, Sundergarh and Koraput districts and the State Government officials lived here at the mercy of the Maoists. This apart, the red rebels have consolidated their bases in at least 20 of the 30 districts, he added.
Expressing his anguish over non-performance of the Government, he further said, “I don’t find presence of administration anywhere in the State. Different territorial parts are being ruled by Maoists or mafias. In southern districts, tribal people are dying of cholera and diarrhoea due to lack of healthcare, basic infrastructure. Most of the people in this part of the State are literarily starving as PDS (public distribution system) food materials do not reach them on time,”
Coming down heavily on the BJD’s pro-Posco and pro-Vedanta congregations, Oram said the Government has feared the Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi, who said in a meeting at Lanjigarh that he was working as sepoy for tribals assuring them that their right would certainly be protected. “Frightened with Rahul’s vociferous statement, the BJD is trying to woo the tribal voters, but the latter has already known how far the Government is fighting for Vedanta and Posco, but not for them,” he said.
The BJP State president announced that his party would launch a series of programmes against the failures of the Naveen Patnaik Government in November.
Bhubaneswar(visakeo)The BJP on Saturday termed the BJD Government as the most non-performing and said the development of the State has taken a downturn since it came to power in 2009.
“Under the rule of BJD, Odisha is not at all safe now. The Maoists have taken control of many parts of the State while on the other side diseases like cholera and diarrhoea are spreading at an alarming speed, claiming several lives every day. These are the direct results of governance failure,” BJP State president Jual Oram alleged.
Addressing a Press conference here, Oram alleged that the State administration had totally collapsed and it had no presence in at least 12 blocks in Malkagiri, Gajpati, Sundergarh and Koraput districts and the State Government officials lived here at the mercy of the Maoists. This apart, the red rebels have consolidated their bases in at least 20 of the 30 districts, he added.
Expressing his anguish over non-performance of the Government, he further said, “I don’t find presence of administration anywhere in the State. Different territorial parts are being ruled by Maoists or mafias. In southern districts, tribal people are dying of cholera and diarrhoea due to lack of healthcare, basic infrastructure. Most of the people in this part of the State are literarily starving as PDS (public distribution system) food materials do not reach them on time,”
Coming down heavily on the BJD’s pro-Posco and pro-Vedanta congregations, Oram said the Government has feared the Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi, who said in a meeting at Lanjigarh that he was working as sepoy for tribals assuring them that their right would certainly be protected. “Frightened with Rahul’s vociferous statement, the BJD is trying to woo the tribal voters, but the latter has already known how far the Government is fighting for Vedanta and Posco, but not for them,” he said.
The BJP State president announced that his party would launch a series of programmes against the failures of the Naveen Patnaik Government in November.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Kandhamal nun skips court one more time
Kandhamal nun skips court one more time
CUTTACK: It was a day of wait at the court of the District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack, yet again today as the alleged Kandhamal rape victim, the nun, failed to show up for the trial. This despite the refusal of the Orissa High Court to grant her relief on the plea to stay or defer the trial proceedings in the case. And, this the third summons by the trial court that she has not acceded to.
District and Sessions Judge BK Mishra, while adjourning the trial on September 7, had directed the nun to appear in the court for testifying on September 23 or 24.
The court, which resumed trial proceedings in the case today, however, recorded statements of two witnesses including the sub-inspector of Baliguda police station Arpita Khatua. Khatua had received the complaint of the nun and had registered the case. Along with her, a staff of the Jana Vikash Kendra at K Nuagaon, the place of the crime, Latika Devi also testified.
The in-camera proceedings saw cross-examination of recording of statement by the prosecution lawyer L Mishra and crossexamination by defence counsel Sauri Mohapatra. Latika's cross-examination was, however, incomplete.
CUTTACK: It was a day of wait at the court of the District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack, yet again today as the alleged Kandhamal rape victim, the nun, failed to show up for the trial. This despite the refusal of the Orissa High Court to grant her relief on the plea to stay or defer the trial proceedings in the case. And, this the third summons by the trial court that she has not acceded to.
District and Sessions Judge BK Mishra, while adjourning the trial on September 7, had directed the nun to appear in the court for testifying on September 23 or 24.
The court, which resumed trial proceedings in the case today, however, recorded statements of two witnesses including the sub-inspector of Baliguda police station Arpita Khatua. Khatua had received the complaint of the nun and had registered the case. Along with her, a staff of the Jana Vikash Kendra at K Nuagaon, the place of the crime, Latika Devi also testified.
The in-camera proceedings saw cross-examination of recording of statement by the prosecution lawyer L Mishra and crossexamination by defence counsel Sauri Mohapatra. Latika's cross-examination was, however, incomplete.
आयोध्या पर फैसला टालने का निर्णय दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण
आयोध्या पर फैसला टालने का निर्णय दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण
नई दिल्ली। (visakeo) - सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अयोध्या फैसले को टाले जाने के निर्णय को दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण बताते हुए विश्व हिंदू परिषद की संत उच्चाधिकार समिति की शुक्रवार को हुई बैठक में सभी संतों ने सर्वसम्मति से शीघ्र फैसला सुनाए जाने की मांग करते हुए श्रीराम जन्मभूमि पर मंदिर निर्माण के लिए अपने अभियान को जारी रखने संकल्प व्यक्त किया है।
बैठक में मंदिर निर्माण से संबंधित एक प्रस्ताव भी पारित किया गया है। जिसमे साफ तौर पर कहा गया है कि परिसर का विभाजन किसी भी कीमत पर स्वीकार नहीं किया जाएगा। प्रस्ताव में सोमनाथ की तर्ज पर अयोध्या में मंदिर निर्माण की बात भी कही गई है।
बैठक के उपरान्त आयोजित संवाददाता सम्मेलन को सम्बोधित करते हुए जगद्गुरू शंकराचार्य स्वामी वासुदेवानंद सरस्वती ने कहा- “सन्त उच्चाधिकार समिति दो टूक शब्दों में स्पष्ट करना चाहती है कि श्रीराम जन्मभूमि का तथाकथित विवादित 90 ग 130 वर्गफुट भूखण्ड सहित सम्पूर्ण 70 एकड़ अधिग्रहीत परिसर अविभाज्य रूप से विराजमान श्रीरामलला का जन्म, लीला एवं क्रीड़ा स्थल है। इसलिए इस परिसर का विभाजन और इसमें किसी अन्य मत-मजहब का पूजा स्थल नहीं बनेगा।”
श्रीराम जन्मभूमि न्यास के अध्यक्ष महंत नृत्य गोपाल दास ने कहा- “समिति का दृढ़ विश्वास है कि भगवान श्रीराम भारत राष्ट्र की संस्कृति, परम्परा, पौरुष, पराक्रम, एकता एवं अखण्डता तथा सामाजिक सौहार्द के प्रतीक एवं आस्था के केन्द्र हैं। जबकि दूसरी तरफ इतिहास का यह भी कड़वा सत्य है कि बाबर एक विदेशी आक्रांता था, जिसने भारतीय स्वाभिमान एवं अस्मिता के मानमर्दन हेतु श्रीराम जन्मभूमि मन्दिर को ध्वस्त कर मस्जिद जैसा ढांचा निर्माण कराया।”
महामण्डलेश्वर स्वामी विश्वदेवानन्द ने कहा- “राम हिन्दू समाज के आराध्य हैं और उनकी जन्मभूमि में हिन्दू समाज की आत्मा निवास करती है। अत: उस समय से लेकर आज तक हमारी अनेक पीढ़ियाँ अपने स्वाभिमान एवं मानबिन्दु की रक्षा हेतु संघर्ष करते हुए प्राणोत्सर्ग करती आ रही हैं। अब समय आ गया है कि राजनीतिक दलों के लोगों को इस सत्य को स्वीकार करना चाहिए कि भगवान राम इस भारत राष्ट्र के सर्वस्व हैं, राम के बिना भारत की कल्पना असंभव है। कोटि-कोटि हिन्दुओं के रहते हुए श्रीरामलला टाट के मन्दिर में रहें, यह हिन्दू समाज सहित सभी के लिए अपमान एवं पीड़ा का विषय है। अत: अयोध्या में श्रीराम जन्मभूमि पर भव्य मन्दिर निर्माण के प्रश्न पर स्पष्ट नीति अपनाना ही इस देश के हित में होगा।”
आचार्य सभा के महामंत्री स्वामी परमात्मानन्द ने कहा- “सन्त उच्चाधिकार समिति आह्वान करती है कि सभी दलों के सांसद एकमत होकर सोमनाथ मन्दिर की तरह संसद में कानून बनाकर श्रीराम जन्मभूमि पर भव्य मन्दिर निर्माण का मार्ग प्रशस्त करें। साथ ही रामभक्त, राष्ट्रभक्त हिन्दू समाज का आह्वान करते हैं कि लोकतांत्रिक पद्धति से श्रीराम जन्मभूमि पर भव्य मन्दिर निर्माण के लिए सभी प्रकार से तैयार रहें। यदि किसी प्रकार से श्रीराम जन्मभूमि मन्दिर परिसर में मस्जिद बनाने का प्रस्ताव आता है तो सम्पूर्ण सामर्थ्य के साथ उसका विरोध कर उस षड्यंत्र को विफल करें।”
विश्व हिंदू परिषद के अंतरराष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष श्री अशोक सिंहल
ने कहा कि उच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय को लटकाए जाने के पीछे कहीं न कहीं राजनीति की गंध आती है। विशेष रूप से जबकि वादी पक्ष द्वारा किसी भी पàA
नई दिल्ली। (visakeo) - सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अयोध्या फैसले को टाले जाने के निर्णय को दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण बताते हुए विश्व हिंदू परिषद की संत उच्चाधिकार समिति की शुक्रवार को हुई बैठक में सभी संतों ने सर्वसम्मति से शीघ्र फैसला सुनाए जाने की मांग करते हुए श्रीराम जन्मभूमि पर मंदिर निर्माण के लिए अपने अभियान को जारी रखने संकल्प व्यक्त किया है।
बैठक में मंदिर निर्माण से संबंधित एक प्रस्ताव भी पारित किया गया है। जिसमे साफ तौर पर कहा गया है कि परिसर का विभाजन किसी भी कीमत पर स्वीकार नहीं किया जाएगा। प्रस्ताव में सोमनाथ की तर्ज पर अयोध्या में मंदिर निर्माण की बात भी कही गई है।
बैठक के उपरान्त आयोजित संवाददाता सम्मेलन को सम्बोधित करते हुए जगद्गुरू शंकराचार्य स्वामी वासुदेवानंद सरस्वती ने कहा- “सन्त उच्चाधिकार समिति दो टूक शब्दों में स्पष्ट करना चाहती है कि श्रीराम जन्मभूमि का तथाकथित विवादित 90 ग 130 वर्गफुट भूखण्ड सहित सम्पूर्ण 70 एकड़ अधिग्रहीत परिसर अविभाज्य रूप से विराजमान श्रीरामलला का जन्म, लीला एवं क्रीड़ा स्थल है। इसलिए इस परिसर का विभाजन और इसमें किसी अन्य मत-मजहब का पूजा स्थल नहीं बनेगा।”
श्रीराम जन्मभूमि न्यास के अध्यक्ष महंत नृत्य गोपाल दास ने कहा- “समिति का दृढ़ विश्वास है कि भगवान श्रीराम भारत राष्ट्र की संस्कृति, परम्परा, पौरुष, पराक्रम, एकता एवं अखण्डता तथा सामाजिक सौहार्द के प्रतीक एवं आस्था के केन्द्र हैं। जबकि दूसरी तरफ इतिहास का यह भी कड़वा सत्य है कि बाबर एक विदेशी आक्रांता था, जिसने भारतीय स्वाभिमान एवं अस्मिता के मानमर्दन हेतु श्रीराम जन्मभूमि मन्दिर को ध्वस्त कर मस्जिद जैसा ढांचा निर्माण कराया।”
महामण्डलेश्वर स्वामी विश्वदेवानन्द ने कहा- “राम हिन्दू समाज के आराध्य हैं और उनकी जन्मभूमि में हिन्दू समाज की आत्मा निवास करती है। अत: उस समय से लेकर आज तक हमारी अनेक पीढ़ियाँ अपने स्वाभिमान एवं मानबिन्दु की रक्षा हेतु संघर्ष करते हुए प्राणोत्सर्ग करती आ रही हैं। अब समय आ गया है कि राजनीतिक दलों के लोगों को इस सत्य को स्वीकार करना चाहिए कि भगवान राम इस भारत राष्ट्र के सर्वस्व हैं, राम के बिना भारत की कल्पना असंभव है। कोटि-कोटि हिन्दुओं के रहते हुए श्रीरामलला टाट के मन्दिर में रहें, यह हिन्दू समाज सहित सभी के लिए अपमान एवं पीड़ा का विषय है। अत: अयोध्या में श्रीराम जन्मभूमि पर भव्य मन्दिर निर्माण के प्रश्न पर स्पष्ट नीति अपनाना ही इस देश के हित में होगा।”
आचार्य सभा के महामंत्री स्वामी परमात्मानन्द ने कहा- “सन्त उच्चाधिकार समिति आह्वान करती है कि सभी दलों के सांसद एकमत होकर सोमनाथ मन्दिर की तरह संसद में कानून बनाकर श्रीराम जन्मभूमि पर भव्य मन्दिर निर्माण का मार्ग प्रशस्त करें। साथ ही रामभक्त, राष्ट्रभक्त हिन्दू समाज का आह्वान करते हैं कि लोकतांत्रिक पद्धति से श्रीराम जन्मभूमि पर भव्य मन्दिर निर्माण के लिए सभी प्रकार से तैयार रहें। यदि किसी प्रकार से श्रीराम जन्मभूमि मन्दिर परिसर में मस्जिद बनाने का प्रस्ताव आता है तो सम्पूर्ण सामर्थ्य के साथ उसका विरोध कर उस षड्यंत्र को विफल करें।”
विश्व हिंदू परिषद के अंतरराष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष श्री अशोक सिंहल
ने कहा कि उच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय को लटकाए जाने के पीछे कहीं न कहीं राजनीति की गंध आती है। विशेष रूप से जबकि वादी पक्ष द्वारा किसी भी पàA
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Odisha the real birthplace of Second Buddha Guru Padmasambhava
Odisha the real birthplace of Second Buddha Guru Padmasambhava
September 23, 2010 4:04:43 PM
Bimalendu Mohanty
On January 12, 2010, the Dalai Lama inaugurated a Mahavihara at Chandragiri in Gajapati district of Odisha naming it after Guru Padmasambhava. A statue of Padmasambhava has been installed at the Mahavihara. Guru Padmasambhava is also known as the Second Buddha throughout the world. While everyone knows about the birthplace of Buddha as Lumbini garden of Kapilavastu and he was the son of king Sudhodana, it is unfortunate that many don't know that the Second Buddha was born in Sambhal (presently Sambalpur) in Uddiyana, presently Odisha.
I was a student of History and had the opportunity of learning Odisha history under the tutelage of well-known Buddhist scholar Prof Nabin Kumar Sahu. In his book Buddhism in Orissa, it has been clearly mentioned that Padmasambhava was the adopted son of Indrabhuti, the king of Sambhal. Haraprasad Shastri, Dr B Bhattacharya, Dr Karunakar Kar and Dr Maurice Winternitz, who are well-known for their scholastic attainments, have identified that Uddiyana is no other place than Odisha.
Dr Thomas Eugene Donaldson holds an assertive view with regard to the identity of Oddiyana with Odisha. What he advocates in his own language is; "Although scholars have been divided on the proper identification and location of Uddiyana, it seems probable that it was situated in Odisha that Uddiyana is a variant of the words Oda, Odra, Udra, Odivisa and Oddiyana all of which refer to Odisha." In Encyclopedia of Religion, it has been clearly mentioned that according to Tibetan traditions Padmasambhava is known as a native of Uddiyana and the discovered son of king Indravodhi (Indrabhuti). It is said that the king discovered the boy resembling the Buddha seated at the centre of a lotus blossom on Lake Dhanakosa.
In his book Buddhism & Lamaism of Tibet, L Austin Waddell has mentioned that the founder of Lamaism, saint Padmasambhava, 'the lotus born one' is called by Tibetans Guru Rin-po-ch'e or the precious Guru. Padmasambhava is also called Ugyan or Urgyan as he was a native of Udyana or Urgyan. In Buddhist Tantric literature Chandramarichi Tantra-ratnavali Samvalaka, it has been mentioned as capital of Indrabhuti. Its location is given as a place on the bank Mahanadi and Uddiyana has been described as the original centre of the development of Tantricism.
It is said that Indrabhuti at the beginning was a blind man and he had to undergo various troubles and sufferings in his early life. He was the least happy man because his territory was devastated by the visitations of famine and pestilences, and to add to his grief, his only son died a premature death.
In the midst of these misfortunes the king and his distressed subjects cried unto the Buddhas with many offerings, as a result of which Padmasambhava, who is regarded as the incarnation of Sakya Muni, miraculously appeared in that land and was brought up by Indrabhuti, who got back his eyes at the sight of him. Padmasambhava who can be said as son of Indrabhuti grew up to be a great religious reformer.
Nepali's Tantric traditions contain a prophecy in which Lord Buddha assures Sari Putra that he would be in a distant future time a Buddha under the name of Padmaprabha and that his place of Enlightenment will be Viraja. Padmasambhava and Tara along with other deities, are invoked in a fairly large inscription of 25 lines incised on the back of a standing Bodhisattva of Udayagiri near Viraja, which states that a Tathagatodhisthita dhatugarbha Stupa (a Stupa with a relic inside and dwelt in by the Tathagata or Buddha) was set up on that very spot. The Stupa is believed to have contained the relics of Padmasambhava.
Dr RL Mitra in his work The Sansk Buddhist Literature of Nepal states about the prophecy of Lord Buddha. Dr Surendra Kumar Maharana in his book Tantric Buddhism mentions that Padmasambhava was a great religious reformer who preached Tantrayana and organised the order of Lamas in Tibet. It is said that Indrabhuti and his distressed subjects took refuge in Buddha with offerings and Padmasambhava miraculously appeared as an eight-year-old boy on the petals of a lotus in the sacred lake of that country and the boy was no other than the great Sakyamuni in disguise. Indrabhuti, to everybody's astonishment got back his eyesight and brought the boy and accepted him as his son.
Dr Alaka Chattopadhyaya and Lama Chimpa in their book Taranatha's History of Buddhism in India have clearly stated that Indrabhuti is the famous king of Uddiyana. Dr KC Panigrahi in his book History of Orissa has conclusively stated that Uddiyana is no other place than modern Odisha. It is, according to Buddhist tradition, one of the great Pithas of Tantric Buddhism. He has stated that although scholars like Prof M Levi and Dr PC Bagchi located Uddiyana in the Swat Valley, the valley does not contain Buddhist relics, whereas in Odisha hundreds of Buddhist monuments and typical Buddhist-Tantric images are to be found in a wide tract from Ayodhya in Balasore district to Banapur in Khurda district. These Buddhist Tantrik remains of Odisha justify its identification with Uddiyana and lessen the importance of its identification with that of Swat Valley, purely on the literary evidences.
Sarat Chandra Das in his book Rise and Progress of Buddhist in Tibet writes that Santaraksita the great Indian Pandit who was in Tibet in the middle of 7th century AD to give a strong footing to Buddhism requested the king of Tibet to invite Padmasambhava.
Accordingly, the king sent messengers to India to invite the illustrious sage. By his gift of fore knowledge, knowing what was required of him, Padmasambhava had already started for Tibet. He obliged all the evil and wicked genii and demons to bind themselves under solemn oaths not to work evil nor stand in the way of the pious. Sitting on a cross made of two Dorje (Vajra), placed on a clear space, he purified a spot on which he built the great Vihara of Ssan-yag Migyur-Lhun-gyi-dubpai-tsugla-khan or the shrine of the unchanging, self-grown working.
The king together with twenty six of his saintly subjects, by sitting in three kinds of yoga posures, became possessed of wonderful learning and obtained saintly power, perfection, and, finally, emancipation.
-- Dr Mohanty is a former Vice-Chancellor of the Utkal University of Culture
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285019/Odisha-the-real-birthplace-of-Second-Buddha-Guru-Padmasambhava.html
September 23, 2010 4:04:43 PM
Bimalendu Mohanty
On January 12, 2010, the Dalai Lama inaugurated a Mahavihara at Chandragiri in Gajapati district of Odisha naming it after Guru Padmasambhava. A statue of Padmasambhava has been installed at the Mahavihara. Guru Padmasambhava is also known as the Second Buddha throughout the world. While everyone knows about the birthplace of Buddha as Lumbini garden of Kapilavastu and he was the son of king Sudhodana, it is unfortunate that many don't know that the Second Buddha was born in Sambhal (presently Sambalpur) in Uddiyana, presently Odisha.
I was a student of History and had the opportunity of learning Odisha history under the tutelage of well-known Buddhist scholar Prof Nabin Kumar Sahu. In his book Buddhism in Orissa, it has been clearly mentioned that Padmasambhava was the adopted son of Indrabhuti, the king of Sambhal. Haraprasad Shastri, Dr B Bhattacharya, Dr Karunakar Kar and Dr Maurice Winternitz, who are well-known for their scholastic attainments, have identified that Uddiyana is no other place than Odisha.
Dr Thomas Eugene Donaldson holds an assertive view with regard to the identity of Oddiyana with Odisha. What he advocates in his own language is; "Although scholars have been divided on the proper identification and location of Uddiyana, it seems probable that it was situated in Odisha that Uddiyana is a variant of the words Oda, Odra, Udra, Odivisa and Oddiyana all of which refer to Odisha." In Encyclopedia of Religion, it has been clearly mentioned that according to Tibetan traditions Padmasambhava is known as a native of Uddiyana and the discovered son of king Indravodhi (Indrabhuti). It is said that the king discovered the boy resembling the Buddha seated at the centre of a lotus blossom on Lake Dhanakosa.
In his book Buddhism & Lamaism of Tibet, L Austin Waddell has mentioned that the founder of Lamaism, saint Padmasambhava, 'the lotus born one' is called by Tibetans Guru Rin-po-ch'e or the precious Guru. Padmasambhava is also called Ugyan or Urgyan as he was a native of Udyana or Urgyan. In Buddhist Tantric literature Chandramarichi Tantra-ratnavali Samvalaka, it has been mentioned as capital of Indrabhuti. Its location is given as a place on the bank Mahanadi and Uddiyana has been described as the original centre of the development of Tantricism.
It is said that Indrabhuti at the beginning was a blind man and he had to undergo various troubles and sufferings in his early life. He was the least happy man because his territory was devastated by the visitations of famine and pestilences, and to add to his grief, his only son died a premature death.
In the midst of these misfortunes the king and his distressed subjects cried unto the Buddhas with many offerings, as a result of which Padmasambhava, who is regarded as the incarnation of Sakya Muni, miraculously appeared in that land and was brought up by Indrabhuti, who got back his eyes at the sight of him. Padmasambhava who can be said as son of Indrabhuti grew up to be a great religious reformer.
Nepali's Tantric traditions contain a prophecy in which Lord Buddha assures Sari Putra that he would be in a distant future time a Buddha under the name of Padmaprabha and that his place of Enlightenment will be Viraja. Padmasambhava and Tara along with other deities, are invoked in a fairly large inscription of 25 lines incised on the back of a standing Bodhisattva of Udayagiri near Viraja, which states that a Tathagatodhisthita dhatugarbha Stupa (a Stupa with a relic inside and dwelt in by the Tathagata or Buddha) was set up on that very spot. The Stupa is believed to have contained the relics of Padmasambhava.
Dr RL Mitra in his work The Sansk Buddhist Literature of Nepal states about the prophecy of Lord Buddha. Dr Surendra Kumar Maharana in his book Tantric Buddhism mentions that Padmasambhava was a great religious reformer who preached Tantrayana and organised the order of Lamas in Tibet. It is said that Indrabhuti and his distressed subjects took refuge in Buddha with offerings and Padmasambhava miraculously appeared as an eight-year-old boy on the petals of a lotus in the sacred lake of that country and the boy was no other than the great Sakyamuni in disguise. Indrabhuti, to everybody's astonishment got back his eyesight and brought the boy and accepted him as his son.
Dr Alaka Chattopadhyaya and Lama Chimpa in their book Taranatha's History of Buddhism in India have clearly stated that Indrabhuti is the famous king of Uddiyana. Dr KC Panigrahi in his book History of Orissa has conclusively stated that Uddiyana is no other place than modern Odisha. It is, according to Buddhist tradition, one of the great Pithas of Tantric Buddhism. He has stated that although scholars like Prof M Levi and Dr PC Bagchi located Uddiyana in the Swat Valley, the valley does not contain Buddhist relics, whereas in Odisha hundreds of Buddhist monuments and typical Buddhist-Tantric images are to be found in a wide tract from Ayodhya in Balasore district to Banapur in Khurda district. These Buddhist Tantrik remains of Odisha justify its identification with Uddiyana and lessen the importance of its identification with that of Swat Valley, purely on the literary evidences.
Sarat Chandra Das in his book Rise and Progress of Buddhist in Tibet writes that Santaraksita the great Indian Pandit who was in Tibet in the middle of 7th century AD to give a strong footing to Buddhism requested the king of Tibet to invite Padmasambhava.
Accordingly, the king sent messengers to India to invite the illustrious sage. By his gift of fore knowledge, knowing what was required of him, Padmasambhava had already started for Tibet. He obliged all the evil and wicked genii and demons to bind themselves under solemn oaths not to work evil nor stand in the way of the pious. Sitting on a cross made of two Dorje (Vajra), placed on a clear space, he purified a spot on which he built the great Vihara of Ssan-yag Migyur-Lhun-gyi-dubpai-tsugla-khan or the shrine of the unchanging, self-grown working.
The king together with twenty six of his saintly subjects, by sitting in three kinds of yoga posures, became possessed of wonderful learning and obtained saintly power, perfection, and, finally, emancipation.
-- Dr Mohanty is a former Vice-Chancellor of the Utkal University of Culture
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285019/Odisha-the-real-birthplace-of-Second-Buddha-Guru-Padmasambhava.html
Kandhamal nun’s plea disallowed by HC
Kandhamal nun’s plea disallowed by HC
The Odisha High Court on Wednesday disallowed the prayer of the Kandhamal nun who had sought a stay or deferment of trial proceedings of her case in the Cuttack District and Sessions Court.
A single-judge bench of HC comprising Justice BK Naik refused to grant any relief to the nun stating that since the trial in the lower court has already begun, it cannot be stayed or deferred at this stage. Instead, the HC asked her to approach the trial court if she had any grievances.
With this order coming from the HC on Wednesday, the nun- who was allegedly raped during August 2008 Kandhamal violence- is now left with no choice but to appear before the trial court on Thursday either personally or through her advocate to spell out her grievances.
The nun was given a last chance by the Cuttack court to appear before it on September 23 and 24 to record her statements. The court had also warned of "coercive" actions against her if she fails to turn up in the court again this time as she had defied the court summons thrice earlier.
The Cuttack court had been holding trail in the case since July this year following an order of the HC, which, incidentally, had come on the insistence of the nun. But surprisingly, the nun was avoiding the trial court all these days on the plea that she was indisposed due to sickness. But during this period she had participated in a test identification (TI) parade here at Choudwar jail.
It may be mentioned here that the nun had earlier approached the HC through a writ petition seeking to shift all her pending cases in Kandhamal district pertaining to August 2008 riots to any of the courts in Cuttack or Bhubaneswar as she was feeling unsafe to go to Kandhamal. This petition of the nun however, is still pending in the HC.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285047/Kandhamal-nun’s-plea-disallowed-by-HC.html
The Odisha High Court on Wednesday disallowed the prayer of the Kandhamal nun who had sought a stay or deferment of trial proceedings of her case in the Cuttack District and Sessions Court.
A single-judge bench of HC comprising Justice BK Naik refused to grant any relief to the nun stating that since the trial in the lower court has already begun, it cannot be stayed or deferred at this stage. Instead, the HC asked her to approach the trial court if she had any grievances.
With this order coming from the HC on Wednesday, the nun- who was allegedly raped during August 2008 Kandhamal violence- is now left with no choice but to appear before the trial court on Thursday either personally or through her advocate to spell out her grievances.
The nun was given a last chance by the Cuttack court to appear before it on September 23 and 24 to record her statements. The court had also warned of "coercive" actions against her if she fails to turn up in the court again this time as she had defied the court summons thrice earlier.
The Cuttack court had been holding trail in the case since July this year following an order of the HC, which, incidentally, had come on the insistence of the nun. But surprisingly, the nun was avoiding the trial court all these days on the plea that she was indisposed due to sickness. But during this period she had participated in a test identification (TI) parade here at Choudwar jail.
It may be mentioned here that the nun had earlier approached the HC through a writ petition seeking to shift all her pending cases in Kandhamal district pertaining to August 2008 riots to any of the courts in Cuttack or Bhubaneswar as she was feeling unsafe to go to Kandhamal. This petition of the nun however, is still pending in the HC.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285047/Kandhamal-nun’s-plea-disallowed-by-HC.html
SC stays Ayodhya verdict for a week, further hearings on Sept 28
SC stays Ayodhya verdict for a week, further hearings on Sept 28
The Supreme Court today stayed for a week the Ayodhya title suit verdict that was due to be pronounced by Allahabad High Court tomorrow and will hear the plea for deferment of the judgement next Tuesday.
The Court issued notices to the contesting parties on the petition filed by retired bureacrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi challenging the order of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court order refusing to defer the verdict in the 60-year-old Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute.
It posted the matter for further hearing on September 28.
A Bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale stayed the verdict for a week following conflicting views over the issue of entertaining the petition challenging the High Court order.
Justice Raveendran was of the view that the special leave petition filed by Tripathi should be dismissed while Justice Gokhale, on the other hand, was of the opinion that a notice should be issued for exploring the option of settlement.
However, Justice Raveendran, who was heading the Bench, preferred to go by the opinion of Justice Gokhale.
In the order, Justice Raveendran said, "When one of the Judges has a difference of opinion then the tradition is to issue notice."
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285147/SC-stays-Ayodhya-verdict-for-a-week-further-hearings-on-Sept-28.html
The Supreme Court today stayed for a week the Ayodhya title suit verdict that was due to be pronounced by Allahabad High Court tomorrow and will hear the plea for deferment of the judgement next Tuesday.
The Court issued notices to the contesting parties on the petition filed by retired bureacrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi challenging the order of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court order refusing to defer the verdict in the 60-year-old Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute.
It posted the matter for further hearing on September 28.
A Bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale stayed the verdict for a week following conflicting views over the issue of entertaining the petition challenging the High Court order.
Justice Raveendran was of the view that the special leave petition filed by Tripathi should be dismissed while Justice Gokhale, on the other hand, was of the opinion that a notice should be issued for exploring the option of settlement.
However, Justice Raveendran, who was heading the Bench, preferred to go by the opinion of Justice Gokhale.
In the order, Justice Raveendran said, "When one of the Judges has a difference of opinion then the tradition is to issue notice."
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285147/SC-stays-Ayodhya-verdict-for-a-week-further-hearings-on-Sept-28.html
Supreme Court defers Ayodha Verdict by a week
Supreme Court defers Ayodha Verdict by a week
NDTV Correspondent, Updated: September 23, 2010 15:13 IST
New Delhi: The verdict on the Ayodhya title suit has been deferred by a week by the Supreme Court. It was scheduled to be delivered tomorrow by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court will hear the case again on Tuesday, September 28.
The verdict on the Ayodhya title suit will handle one of India's most divisive and sensitive issues - what came first at Ayodhya - the Babri Masjid or a temple for Lord Ram.
A plea submitted to the Supreme Court asked that the verdict be postponed because it could lead to communal violence. The plea was filed by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi earlier this week.
A three-judge Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had rejected his petition for deferring the verdict and to allow mediation to find a solution to the 60-year-old Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute.
There are massive security arrangements for the verdict. The government has appealed repeatedly to the public to keep the peace, stressing that this verdict is just one step in a variety of legal options available to those involved with the case.
Tripathi has appealed for the verdict to be postponed partly because of the Commonwealth Games. He says that given the security preparations for the Games, UP may not get the cover it needs to maintain law and order after the verdict.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/supreme-court-defers-ayodha-verdict-by-a-week-54235
NDTV Correspondent, Updated: September 23, 2010 15:13 IST
New Delhi: The verdict on the Ayodhya title suit has been deferred by a week by the Supreme Court. It was scheduled to be delivered tomorrow by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court will hear the case again on Tuesday, September 28.
The verdict on the Ayodhya title suit will handle one of India's most divisive and sensitive issues - what came first at Ayodhya - the Babri Masjid or a temple for Lord Ram.
A plea submitted to the Supreme Court asked that the verdict be postponed because it could lead to communal violence. The plea was filed by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi earlier this week.
A three-judge Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had rejected his petition for deferring the verdict and to allow mediation to find a solution to the 60-year-old Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute.
There are massive security arrangements for the verdict. The government has appealed repeatedly to the public to keep the peace, stressing that this verdict is just one step in a variety of legal options available to those involved with the case.
Tripathi has appealed for the verdict to be postponed partly because of the Commonwealth Games. He says that given the security preparations for the Games, UP may not get the cover it needs to maintain law and order after the verdict.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/supreme-court-defers-ayodha-verdict-by-a-week-54235
Orissa media body M U F P demands exemplary action against media baiters
Orissa media body M U F P demands exemplary action against media baiters
Wednesday, September 22, 2010http://orissadiary.com/CurrentNews.asp?id=21338Email StoryFeedbackPrint Story
Report by Orissa Diary correspondent; Bhubaneswar: The Media Unity for Freedom of Press held a silent protest before the Raj Bhavan, Bhubaneswar , against growing atrocities on media in Orssa. Hundreds of media persons belonging to print, electronic and web media joined the protest dharana to condemn the silence of the State Government over repeated attacks on the media in the State.
A large number of intellectuals, educationists, advocates, social and political activists joined the protest to express solidarity with the media persons of the State.
Talking to the newsmen, Prasanta Patnaik, member of the Presidium of MUFP siad that, the MUFP decided to protest before the Raj Bhavan and handover a memorandum to the Governor, seeking his immediate interference to put an end to attacks on the media and also to take stringent actions against the assaulter. Since repeated appeal to the Chief Minister, in this regard, yielded no result, therefore it has been decided to urge intervention of the Governor.
Condemning the manner in which Bikas Swain, the printer, publisher and promoter of Oriya daily Suryaprava was arrested, Patnaik said thar though Bikash Swain was not a terrorist or a dreaded criminal with records of escaping the law, the plain clothed police intercepted his vehicle, while he was on way to a hospital carrying food and medicine for his father who is struggling with cancer. According to reports, the policemen snatched away the food and medicines and threw it on the road. Basing on a F.I.R. of a person the police have slapped a number of criminal charges against him including the Arms Act. though no arms has been recovered from his person, home or office.
He said that the police have blatantly violated the procedures prescribed by the Supreme Court of India, National Police Commission and Article 21 of the Constitution of India in connection with arrest of any individual.
The media persons present were of the view that arrest of Swain might have been aimed at creating panic among the mediamen and to intimidate them for writing against the Government and the police.
Suryaprava managing editor, Naveen Das informed about the alleged sad design of the police against the Suryaprava for exposing wrong doings of the Government. He disclosed that about a fortnight ago a senior police officer had indicated before the Editor of Suryaprava of facing consequences for writing agsint the police and the Government.
Since the Governor was on tour to Bangalore, it was decided to handover the memorandum to him on his return.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010http://orissadiary.com/CurrentNews.asp?id=21338Email StoryFeedbackPrint Story
Report by Orissa Diary correspondent; Bhubaneswar: The Media Unity for Freedom of Press held a silent protest before the Raj Bhavan, Bhubaneswar , against growing atrocities on media in Orssa. Hundreds of media persons belonging to print, electronic and web media joined the protest dharana to condemn the silence of the State Government over repeated attacks on the media in the State.
A large number of intellectuals, educationists, advocates, social and political activists joined the protest to express solidarity with the media persons of the State.
Talking to the newsmen, Prasanta Patnaik, member of the Presidium of MUFP siad that, the MUFP decided to protest before the Raj Bhavan and handover a memorandum to the Governor, seeking his immediate interference to put an end to attacks on the media and also to take stringent actions against the assaulter. Since repeated appeal to the Chief Minister, in this regard, yielded no result, therefore it has been decided to urge intervention of the Governor.
Condemning the manner in which Bikas Swain, the printer, publisher and promoter of Oriya daily Suryaprava was arrested, Patnaik said thar though Bikash Swain was not a terrorist or a dreaded criminal with records of escaping the law, the plain clothed police intercepted his vehicle, while he was on way to a hospital carrying food and medicine for his father who is struggling with cancer. According to reports, the policemen snatched away the food and medicines and threw it on the road. Basing on a F.I.R. of a person the police have slapped a number of criminal charges against him including the Arms Act. though no arms has been recovered from his person, home or office.
He said that the police have blatantly violated the procedures prescribed by the Supreme Court of India, National Police Commission and Article 21 of the Constitution of India in connection with arrest of any individual.
The media persons present were of the view that arrest of Swain might have been aimed at creating panic among the mediamen and to intimidate them for writing against the Government and the police.
Suryaprava managing editor, Naveen Das informed about the alleged sad design of the police against the Suryaprava for exposing wrong doings of the Government. He disclosed that about a fortnight ago a senior police officer had indicated before the Editor of Suryaprava of facing consequences for writing agsint the police and the Government.
Since the Governor was on tour to Bangalore, it was decided to handover the memorandum to him on his return.
Ayodhya verdict deferred by one week
Ayodhya verdict deferred by one week
Ayodhya verdict deferred by one week
23 Sep 2010 15:04:00
Font size:
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has deferred the much awaited verdict on Ayodhya/Babri Masjid by one week.
Hearing a deferment plea, the apex court stayed the September 24 Allahabad High Court Ayodhya Verdict.
A retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi approached the Supreme Court on Wednesday after the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed his reconciliation plea and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000.
The Supreme Court has fixed September 28 for the next hearing.
http://english.samaylive.com/nation/676474121.html
Ayodhya verdict deferred by one week
23 Sep 2010 15:04:00
Font size:
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has deferred the much awaited verdict on Ayodhya/Babri Masjid by one week.
Hearing a deferment plea, the apex court stayed the September 24 Allahabad High Court Ayodhya Verdict.
A retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi approached the Supreme Court on Wednesday after the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed his reconciliation plea and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000.
The Supreme Court has fixed September 28 for the next hearing.
http://english.samaylive.com/nation/676474121.html
Trial stay: HC rejects plea of Kandhamal nun
Trial stay: HC rejects plea of Kandhamal nun
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court (HC) today rejected the prayer of the Kandhamal nun seeking a stay or deferment of the trial proceedings of her case in the district and sessions court here.
Justice BK Naik, Judge of the Orissa High Court, refused to grant relief to the petitioner since the trial can neither be stayed nor deferred at this stage and asked her to approach the trial court.
The nun was allegedly raped during the 2008 Kandhamal riots. Trial in her case is held by the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack, BK Mishra. However, she has not presented herself even once during the trial that began in July though she had turned up for test identification parade held at a prison.
Earlier on September 7, the trial court had adjourned the proceedings till September 23 directing the nun to appear either on that day or September 24.With today's HC order, the nun has to appear before the trial court on Thursday personally or through her counsel. The district court is holding trial in the rape case following the HC order which had come after a petition was filed by the nun.
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court (HC) today rejected the prayer of the Kandhamal nun seeking a stay or deferment of the trial proceedings of her case in the district and sessions court here.
Justice BK Naik, Judge of the Orissa High Court, refused to grant relief to the petitioner since the trial can neither be stayed nor deferred at this stage and asked her to approach the trial court.
The nun was allegedly raped during the 2008 Kandhamal riots. Trial in her case is held by the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack, BK Mishra. However, she has not presented herself even once during the trial that began in July though she had turned up for test identification parade held at a prison.
Earlier on September 7, the trial court had adjourned the proceedings till September 23 directing the nun to appear either on that day or September 24.With today's HC order, the nun has to appear before the trial court on Thursday personally or through her counsel. The district court is holding trial in the rape case following the HC order which had come after a petition was filed by the nun.
1. Petitioner has Congress links; apex court to hear matter on Sept 28
1. Petitioner has Congress links; apex court to hear matter on Sept 28
SC defers Ayodhya verdict
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/98902/sc-defers-ayodhya-verdict.html
A day before the crucial judgment by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid title suit was to be delivered, the Supreme Court intervened on Thursday to defer pronouncement of the ruling in ''public interest.''
At a time when the country was awaiting the Lucknow Bench’s verdict with bated breath, the Supreme Court stepped in to grant time to the 27 litigants till September 28 to try reconciliation and negotiation for a final settlement of the 60-year-old dispute centred on whether the site should be given to Hindus or returned to the Muslims.
The apex court stayed the verdict while hearing a special leave petition filed by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi who is believed to have some links with the Congress. A retired bureaucrat, Tripathi had filed the petition challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court that had earlier dismissed his plea to defer the prounoun-cement of the order.
A three-judge Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justices S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma, was scheduled to pronounce the judgment on Friday at 3.30 pm on the title suit related to 2.77 acres of land at Ayodhya.
Following one hour of arguments by the advocates appearing for four parties, a Bench of Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale stayed the Lucknow Bench’s yet-to-be-delivered verdict till September 28 when it would hear the matter again.
The Bench asked the parties to file their response by the next date of hearing keeping in mind that one of the judges of the three-Judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court —Justice Dharam Veer Sharma—was retiring on October 1.
The Bench also sought the assistance of Attorney General Ghulam E Vahanvati to assist it in the case. Justice Raveendran was in favour of dismissing Tripathi’s petition, but Justice Gokhale said that a last chance be given to the parties to reconcile and negotiate the dispute in public interest. “One of the members on the Bench was in favour of notice to the parties. One member was not in favour of it. Keeping the tradition of this court, notice is issued to the parties,’’ the order, pronounced in a packed courtroom, said.
“If anything goes wrong, (the) consequences will be for the ordinary people. You are aware of the history. You will blame us if anything adverse happens,’’ said Justice Gokhale.
Tripathi’s petition was contested by senior advocate Anoop G Chaudhary, who appeared for the Sunni Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh, and by Ravi Shankar Prasad for Dharmadas Paramahans.
They submitted that enough opportunities had been granted to the parties for a mediated settlement of the dispute and that there should be no further delay in the pronouncement of the Lucknow Bench’s judgment.
But Justice Gokhale reasoned by saying that ‘’The High Court has failed. It is referred to the Supreme Court. The court cannot run away from its responsibility. When it is an appeal, it is different.’’
Appearing for Tripathi, senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi argued for deferring the verdict, saying that “it is a religious issue and two religious communities are involved”. Reminding the Court that “everybody knows what happened in the aftermath of the (December 6), 1992 incident”, Rohtagi feared that the High Court’s verdict on September 24 “will lead to serious problems”. He added that the “country is facing a large number of problems such as floods, Kashmir and the Commonwealth Games”.
But Justice Raveendran asked: “Why do you think the people of this country are so immature? Everybody thinks people are immature. Do you think they are not mature enough to accept the judgement of the (High) Court?”
When Rohtagi referred to the religious passions that were ignited following the demolition of the Babri mosque and the consequent riots, Justice Raveendran said: “Religious passion will be raised if people try to raise them”.
Tripathi’s counsel Sunil Jain said that “the pronoucement of the judgement may lead to communal riots in Uttar Pradesh as well as other parts of India. It is evident that the entire Kashmir valley is in turmoil and is witnessing deaths every day”.
Tripathi’s petition pointed out that “it is important to note the upcoming Commonwealth Games” whose venues are in the national capital region (NCR), including UP, and the forthcoming Assembly elections in “the most communally sensitive state, Bihar”.
School, college holidays revoked
The State government has cancelled the two-day holiday declared for schools and colleges on September 24 and September 25 in the wake of the Supreme Court deferring by a week the pronouncement of the Ayodhya verdict by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
“Schools and colleges will function as usual. The holiday notification has been withdrawn. We will take an appropriate decision on security measures when the Supreme Court announces the next date of the verdict,” Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa told reporters in Bangalore on Thursday. Several institutions like St Joseph’s Indian High School, Bangalore, will take a call depending on the students’ attendance on Friday.
“There is a lot of confusion among the students as well as the teachers. It is difficult to inform the students in the last minute. If they turn up tomorrow, we will conduct classes,” said Gilbert Saldanha, the principal of the school.
2. Petitioner is nephew of former Congress CM in Uttar Pradesh
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/petitioner-is-nephew-of-former-congress-cm-in-uttar-pradesh/686373/
Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, who has approached the Supreme Court with a petition to defer the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya title suits, is the maternal nephew of the late Congress leader and former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Sripati Mishra. Tripathi is also Defendant No. 17 in the title suit filed by the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs.
The main relief claimed in the suit is for declaration of the disputed site as the Babri Masjid and the adjoining land as a public graveyard. Possession of both has been sought in the suit.
Last week, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court rejected Tripathi’s plea to defer the verdict. He had cited apprehension of breach of peace and wanted the issue resolved through mediation. But Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, one of the three judges on the bench, disagreed with the decision to impose Rs 50,000 as cost on Tripathi.
3. Defendant No. 17 with ‘a cousin who ruled UP’
TAPAS CHAKRABORTY http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100924/jsp/nation/story_12976051.jsp
Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
Lucknow, Sept. 23: Ramesh Chandra Tripathi who?
That was Lucknow’s reaction nine days ago. Today, the elusive 73-year-old who has written several books on religion was an unlikely object of extreme emotions.
The city either praised him or reviled him for the way he had got the Ayodhya verdict stayed just a day before it was to be passed. Those disappointed at the apex court decision whispered conspiracy theories: apparently, the man was a Congress pawn.
“Secrets” tumbled out. Sources in Faizabad, Tripathi’s native place, said he was a cousin of late party leader Sripati Mishra, who had been Uttar Pradesh chief minister from 1982 to 1984. Apparently, Tripathi’s father and Mishra’s mother were siblings.
No one had seemed to know anything about his past, though, when he emerged from the shadows on September 14, petitioning the high court to defer its verdict. Some of the lawyers in the court had found him “mentally not balanced”; others said he need not be taken seriously.
Yet, Tripathi had been defendant No. 17 in the title suit for nearly four decades. But, as the lawyers said, there were dozens of petitioners in the case. Tripathi had never appeared in court and his counsel never expressed any views, his opponents alleged in the apex court today, trying to get the “non-serious” petitioner’s appeal dismissed. Even on the Internet, a search for “Ramesh Chandra Tripathi” led to another R.C. Tripathi, a retired IAS officer.Tripathi is a retired defence expenditure accountant. He lives alternately in Lucknow’s Gomtinagar with his daughter or in Ambedkarnagar district with the rest of his family,” his lawyer in Lucknow, Prasant Chandra, said.
Tripathi had retired in 1997. “On September 12, he came to me,” Chandra said. “He was not well off, so I didn’t charge any money. Nor did his lawyer in the Supreme Court.”
Congress leader Akhilesh Pratap Singh denied the party had in any way influenced Tripathi. His sons, college teacher Shyamdhan and government employee Bibhakar, said Tripathi had never cultivated political links. “He is not a politician,” Bibhakar said.
“I don’t know about his political links; I don’t think he did this because of his family connections with the Congress,” Chandra said. “But what he has done is for the general good; it doesn’t matter if the Congress had anything to do with this.”Tripathi’s Ambedkarnagar neighbours said he never flaunted his political connections but added that during his frequent visits to Lucknow in recent times, he may have rebuilt his Congress ties.“He is a very humble and deeply religious man, keeps a low profile and is not always very social,” a neighbour said. Tripathi has written several books in Hindi on spiritualism, some of which are titled Vaishnodevi, Vindhyachal and Hanumandev. He had first taken an interest in the Ayodhya dispute in 1971 when he was posted in Jammu and Kashmir. He had then filed a petition before the Faizabad court saying the site’s gates should be opened for worshippers. “But as judgment day approached, he was scared and wanted to stop the verdict,” a relative said.
SC defers Ayodhya verdict
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/98902/sc-defers-ayodhya-verdict.html
A day before the crucial judgment by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid title suit was to be delivered, the Supreme Court intervened on Thursday to defer pronouncement of the ruling in ''public interest.''
At a time when the country was awaiting the Lucknow Bench’s verdict with bated breath, the Supreme Court stepped in to grant time to the 27 litigants till September 28 to try reconciliation and negotiation for a final settlement of the 60-year-old dispute centred on whether the site should be given to Hindus or returned to the Muslims.
The apex court stayed the verdict while hearing a special leave petition filed by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi who is believed to have some links with the Congress. A retired bureaucrat, Tripathi had filed the petition challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court that had earlier dismissed his plea to defer the prounoun-cement of the order.
A three-judge Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justices S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma, was scheduled to pronounce the judgment on Friday at 3.30 pm on the title suit related to 2.77 acres of land at Ayodhya.
Following one hour of arguments by the advocates appearing for four parties, a Bench of Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale stayed the Lucknow Bench’s yet-to-be-delivered verdict till September 28 when it would hear the matter again.
The Bench asked the parties to file their response by the next date of hearing keeping in mind that one of the judges of the three-Judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court —Justice Dharam Veer Sharma—was retiring on October 1.
The Bench also sought the assistance of Attorney General Ghulam E Vahanvati to assist it in the case. Justice Raveendran was in favour of dismissing Tripathi’s petition, but Justice Gokhale said that a last chance be given to the parties to reconcile and negotiate the dispute in public interest. “One of the members on the Bench was in favour of notice to the parties. One member was not in favour of it. Keeping the tradition of this court, notice is issued to the parties,’’ the order, pronounced in a packed courtroom, said.
“If anything goes wrong, (the) consequences will be for the ordinary people. You are aware of the history. You will blame us if anything adverse happens,’’ said Justice Gokhale.
Tripathi’s petition was contested by senior advocate Anoop G Chaudhary, who appeared for the Sunni Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh, and by Ravi Shankar Prasad for Dharmadas Paramahans.
They submitted that enough opportunities had been granted to the parties for a mediated settlement of the dispute and that there should be no further delay in the pronouncement of the Lucknow Bench’s judgment.
But Justice Gokhale reasoned by saying that ‘’The High Court has failed. It is referred to the Supreme Court. The court cannot run away from its responsibility. When it is an appeal, it is different.’’
Appearing for Tripathi, senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi argued for deferring the verdict, saying that “it is a religious issue and two religious communities are involved”. Reminding the Court that “everybody knows what happened in the aftermath of the (December 6), 1992 incident”, Rohtagi feared that the High Court’s verdict on September 24 “will lead to serious problems”. He added that the “country is facing a large number of problems such as floods, Kashmir and the Commonwealth Games”.
But Justice Raveendran asked: “Why do you think the people of this country are so immature? Everybody thinks people are immature. Do you think they are not mature enough to accept the judgement of the (High) Court?”
When Rohtagi referred to the religious passions that were ignited following the demolition of the Babri mosque and the consequent riots, Justice Raveendran said: “Religious passion will be raised if people try to raise them”.
Tripathi’s counsel Sunil Jain said that “the pronoucement of the judgement may lead to communal riots in Uttar Pradesh as well as other parts of India. It is evident that the entire Kashmir valley is in turmoil and is witnessing deaths every day”.
Tripathi’s petition pointed out that “it is important to note the upcoming Commonwealth Games” whose venues are in the national capital region (NCR), including UP, and the forthcoming Assembly elections in “the most communally sensitive state, Bihar”.
School, college holidays revoked
The State government has cancelled the two-day holiday declared for schools and colleges on September 24 and September 25 in the wake of the Supreme Court deferring by a week the pronouncement of the Ayodhya verdict by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
“Schools and colleges will function as usual. The holiday notification has been withdrawn. We will take an appropriate decision on security measures when the Supreme Court announces the next date of the verdict,” Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa told reporters in Bangalore on Thursday. Several institutions like St Joseph’s Indian High School, Bangalore, will take a call depending on the students’ attendance on Friday.
“There is a lot of confusion among the students as well as the teachers. It is difficult to inform the students in the last minute. If they turn up tomorrow, we will conduct classes,” said Gilbert Saldanha, the principal of the school.
2. Petitioner is nephew of former Congress CM in Uttar Pradesh
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/petitioner-is-nephew-of-former-congress-cm-in-uttar-pradesh/686373/
Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, who has approached the Supreme Court with a petition to defer the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya title suits, is the maternal nephew of the late Congress leader and former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Sripati Mishra. Tripathi is also Defendant No. 17 in the title suit filed by the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs.
The main relief claimed in the suit is for declaration of the disputed site as the Babri Masjid and the adjoining land as a public graveyard. Possession of both has been sought in the suit.
Last week, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court rejected Tripathi’s plea to defer the verdict. He had cited apprehension of breach of peace and wanted the issue resolved through mediation. But Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, one of the three judges on the bench, disagreed with the decision to impose Rs 50,000 as cost on Tripathi.
3. Defendant No. 17 with ‘a cousin who ruled UP’
TAPAS CHAKRABORTY http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100924/jsp/nation/story_12976051.jsp
Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
Lucknow, Sept. 23: Ramesh Chandra Tripathi who?
That was Lucknow’s reaction nine days ago. Today, the elusive 73-year-old who has written several books on religion was an unlikely object of extreme emotions.
The city either praised him or reviled him for the way he had got the Ayodhya verdict stayed just a day before it was to be passed. Those disappointed at the apex court decision whispered conspiracy theories: apparently, the man was a Congress pawn.
“Secrets” tumbled out. Sources in Faizabad, Tripathi’s native place, said he was a cousin of late party leader Sripati Mishra, who had been Uttar Pradesh chief minister from 1982 to 1984. Apparently, Tripathi’s father and Mishra’s mother were siblings.
No one had seemed to know anything about his past, though, when he emerged from the shadows on September 14, petitioning the high court to defer its verdict. Some of the lawyers in the court had found him “mentally not balanced”; others said he need not be taken seriously.
Yet, Tripathi had been defendant No. 17 in the title suit for nearly four decades. But, as the lawyers said, there were dozens of petitioners in the case. Tripathi had never appeared in court and his counsel never expressed any views, his opponents alleged in the apex court today, trying to get the “non-serious” petitioner’s appeal dismissed. Even on the Internet, a search for “Ramesh Chandra Tripathi” led to another R.C. Tripathi, a retired IAS officer.Tripathi is a retired defence expenditure accountant. He lives alternately in Lucknow’s Gomtinagar with his daughter or in Ambedkarnagar district with the rest of his family,” his lawyer in Lucknow, Prasant Chandra, said.
Tripathi had retired in 1997. “On September 12, he came to me,” Chandra said. “He was not well off, so I didn’t charge any money. Nor did his lawyer in the Supreme Court.”
Congress leader Akhilesh Pratap Singh denied the party had in any way influenced Tripathi. His sons, college teacher Shyamdhan and government employee Bibhakar, said Tripathi had never cultivated political links. “He is not a politician,” Bibhakar said.
“I don’t know about his political links; I don’t think he did this because of his family connections with the Congress,” Chandra said. “But what he has done is for the general good; it doesn’t matter if the Congress had anything to do with this.”Tripathi’s Ambedkarnagar neighbours said he never flaunted his political connections but added that during his frequent visits to Lucknow in recent times, he may have rebuilt his Congress ties.“He is a very humble and deeply religious man, keeps a low profile and is not always very social,” a neighbour said. Tripathi has written several books in Hindi on spiritualism, some of which are titled Vaishnodevi, Vindhyachal and Hanumandev. He had first taken an interest in the Ayodhya dispute in 1971 when he was posted in Jammu and Kashmir. He had then filed a petition before the Faizabad court saying the site’s gates should be opened for worshippers. “But as judgment day approached, he was scared and wanted to stop the verdict,” a relative said.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Two killed, 16 injured in fresh protests in Kashmir
Two killed, 16 injured in fresh protests in Kashmir
September 17, 2010 6:54:38 PM
PTI | Srinagar
Two persons were killed and 16 others injured as security forces allegedly opened fire to quell stone-pelting mobs at four places in Budgam and Baramulla districts of central Kashmir on Friday.
The fresh protests came even as curfew remained in force in Srinagar and other major towns of the Kashmir Valley for the fifth successive day on Friday.
Five persons were injured when security forces allegedly opened fire to disperse hundreds of people who defied curfew and indulged in stone-pelting at Churpora village of Beerwah, 32 kms from here, in Budgam district, official sources said.
One of the critically injured identified as Fayaz Ahmad Dar was rushed to SKIMS Medical College Hospital at Bemina where he was declared brought dead by the doctors, they said.
Another youth Ghulam Rasool Bhat was killed and eight others injured when security forces allegedly opened fire and used pump action gun to chase away curfew-defying mob at Tapper Payeen in Pattan area of Baramulla district, the sources said.
Bhat was taken to Sumbal sub-district hospital where he succumbed to injuries, they said.
With the fresh killings, the toll in the ongoing unrest, since June 11, in the Kashmir Valley has risen to 93.
Three more persons were injured in clashes between security forces and protestors at Sangrama in Baramulla district, the sources said, adding security forces allegedly opened fire in an attempt to bring the situation under control.
Another person identified as Mohammad Shafi was hit by a bullet in the leg when security forces allegedly opened fire after being attacked by a stone-pelting mob at Chichloora-Magam, 25 kms from here, on Srinagar-Gulmarg road, the sources said.
They said the situation in the areas, hit by fresh violence, was tense as hundreds of people have gathered on the roads to protest against the security forces firing.
Curfew was being strictly implemented across the Valley in order to thwart the call for a march to various violence-hit areas given by hardline faction of Hurriyat Conference, which is spearheading the ongoing agitation.
Geelani-led Hurriyat has asked people from North Kashmir except Kupwara district to march to Palhallan in Baramulla district, while the residents of Ganderbal, Budgam and Srinagar were asked to head to Humhama area of Budgam.
The residents of South Kashmir were asked to march to Pampore town in Pulwama district, while the residents of Kupwara were asked to hold peaceful protests at the district headquarters against the recent killings.
Pampore, Humhama and Palhallan have been the worst hit areas in the clashes between the protestors and security forces over the last fortnight and most of the deaths have occurred in these areas.
Curfew was imposed in Sriangar on Sunday and was extended to entire Kashmir Valley the next day following large scale violence and massive protests.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/283764/Two-killed-16-injured-in-fresh-protests-in-Kashmir.html
September 17, 2010 6:54:38 PM
PTI | Srinagar
Two persons were killed and 16 others injured as security forces allegedly opened fire to quell stone-pelting mobs at four places in Budgam and Baramulla districts of central Kashmir on Friday.
The fresh protests came even as curfew remained in force in Srinagar and other major towns of the Kashmir Valley for the fifth successive day on Friday.
Five persons were injured when security forces allegedly opened fire to disperse hundreds of people who defied curfew and indulged in stone-pelting at Churpora village of Beerwah, 32 kms from here, in Budgam district, official sources said.
One of the critically injured identified as Fayaz Ahmad Dar was rushed to SKIMS Medical College Hospital at Bemina where he was declared brought dead by the doctors, they said.
Another youth Ghulam Rasool Bhat was killed and eight others injured when security forces allegedly opened fire and used pump action gun to chase away curfew-defying mob at Tapper Payeen in Pattan area of Baramulla district, the sources said.
Bhat was taken to Sumbal sub-district hospital where he succumbed to injuries, they said.
With the fresh killings, the toll in the ongoing unrest, since June 11, in the Kashmir Valley has risen to 93.
Three more persons were injured in clashes between security forces and protestors at Sangrama in Baramulla district, the sources said, adding security forces allegedly opened fire in an attempt to bring the situation under control.
Another person identified as Mohammad Shafi was hit by a bullet in the leg when security forces allegedly opened fire after being attacked by a stone-pelting mob at Chichloora-Magam, 25 kms from here, on Srinagar-Gulmarg road, the sources said.
They said the situation in the areas, hit by fresh violence, was tense as hundreds of people have gathered on the roads to protest against the security forces firing.
Curfew was being strictly implemented across the Valley in order to thwart the call for a march to various violence-hit areas given by hardline faction of Hurriyat Conference, which is spearheading the ongoing agitation.
Geelani-led Hurriyat has asked people from North Kashmir except Kupwara district to march to Palhallan in Baramulla district, while the residents of Ganderbal, Budgam and Srinagar were asked to head to Humhama area of Budgam.
The residents of South Kashmir were asked to march to Pampore town in Pulwama district, while the residents of Kupwara were asked to hold peaceful protests at the district headquarters against the recent killings.
Pampore, Humhama and Palhallan have been the worst hit areas in the clashes between the protestors and security forces over the last fortnight and most of the deaths have occurred in these areas.
Curfew was imposed in Sriangar on Sunday and was extended to entire Kashmir Valley the next day following large scale violence and massive protests.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/283764/Two-killed-16-injured-in-fresh-protests-in-Kashmir.html
Another 26/11 would mean full-blown war between India and Pak
Another 26/11 would mean full-blown war between India and Pak
September 17, 2010 6:53:32 PM
PTI | Washington
In the event of another Mumbai- type attack, India is most likely to strike back by eliminating terrorist training camps across the border which may lead to a "full-blown" Indo-Pak war involving possibility of a nuclear exchange, a noted US counter-terrorism expert has said.
"I think a very serious concern that we should all be collectively worried about is the possibility of a Mumbai II attack," Peter Bergen, the Counter-terrorism Strategy Initiative Co-Director at New America Foundation, said in his testimony before the House Homeland and Security Committee.
Mumbai-II, Bergen, said would change every strategic calculation in South Asia.
"I think the Indians showed great restraint after the last Mumbai attack. But their populations are going to demand some kind of retribution if a large-scale attack happens on Indian soil by a Pakistani militant group, which I think is one of the more foreseeable foreign policy challenges we have going forward," he told the committee, which had organised a hearing on the evolving nature of terrorism nine years after 9/11.
One of the more predictable US foreign policy challenges of the next years is a "Mumbai II": a large-scale attack on a major Indian city by a Pakistani militant group that kills hundreds, Bergen said.
However, an attack like this would likely produce considerable political pressure on the Indian government to "do something," he said.
"That something would likely involve incursions over the border to eliminate the training camps of Pakistani militant groups with histories of attacking India. That could lead in turn to a full-blown war for the fourth time since 1947 between India and Pakistan," he said.
"Such a war involves the possibility of a nuclear exchange and the certainty that Pakistan would move substantial resources to its eastern border and away from fighting the Taliban on its western border, so relieving pressure on all the militant groups based there, including al-Qaeda," Bergen said.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/283766/Another-26/11-would-mean-full-blown-war-between-India-and-Pak.html
September 17, 2010 6:53:32 PM
PTI | Washington
In the event of another Mumbai- type attack, India is most likely to strike back by eliminating terrorist training camps across the border which may lead to a "full-blown" Indo-Pak war involving possibility of a nuclear exchange, a noted US counter-terrorism expert has said.
"I think a very serious concern that we should all be collectively worried about is the possibility of a Mumbai II attack," Peter Bergen, the Counter-terrorism Strategy Initiative Co-Director at New America Foundation, said in his testimony before the House Homeland and Security Committee.
Mumbai-II, Bergen, said would change every strategic calculation in South Asia.
"I think the Indians showed great restraint after the last Mumbai attack. But their populations are going to demand some kind of retribution if a large-scale attack happens on Indian soil by a Pakistani militant group, which I think is one of the more foreseeable foreign policy challenges we have going forward," he told the committee, which had organised a hearing on the evolving nature of terrorism nine years after 9/11.
One of the more predictable US foreign policy challenges of the next years is a "Mumbai II": a large-scale attack on a major Indian city by a Pakistani militant group that kills hundreds, Bergen said.
However, an attack like this would likely produce considerable political pressure on the Indian government to "do something," he said.
"That something would likely involve incursions over the border to eliminate the training camps of Pakistani militant groups with histories of attacking India. That could lead in turn to a full-blown war for the fourth time since 1947 between India and Pakistan," he said.
"Such a war involves the possibility of a nuclear exchange and the certainty that Pakistan would move substantial resources to its eastern border and away from fighting the Taliban on its western border, so relieving pressure on all the militant groups based there, including al-Qaeda," Bergen said.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/283766/Another-26/11-would-mean-full-blown-war-between-India-and-Pak.html
All parties must respect judicial verdict on Ayodhya: Karat
All parties must respect judicial verdict on Ayodhya: Karat
September 17, 2010 6:52:07 PM
PTI | Patna
General Secretary Prakash Karat on Friday urged all parties to the Ayodhya dispute to respect the verdict of the Allahabad High Court next week on the title suit.
All parties to the Ayodhya dispute as well as people in general should respect the verdict in the matter, he told reporters in reply to a question.
"The judgement on the Ayodhya dispute should be accepted by all in deference to the judicial process," the CPI(M) leader said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailypioneer.com/283769/All-parties-must-respect-judicial-verdict-on-Ayodhya-Karat.html
September 17, 2010 6:52:07 PM
PTI | Patna
General Secretary Prakash Karat on Friday urged all parties to the Ayodhya dispute to respect the verdict of the Allahabad High Court next week on the title suit.
All parties to the Ayodhya dispute as well as people in general should respect the verdict in the matter, he told reporters in reply to a question.
"The judgement on the Ayodhya dispute should be accepted by all in deference to the judicial process," the CPI(M) leader said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailypioneer.com/283769/All-parties-must-respect-judicial-verdict-on-Ayodhya-Karat.html
Ayodhya verdict: Muslim, Hindu leaders appeal for peace
Ayodhya verdict: Muslim, Hindu leaders appeal for peace
September 17, 2010 6:51:17 PM
PTI | Lucknow
With the date of pronouncement of the Allahabad High Court judgement on Ayodhya dispute drawing near, religious leaders and scholars of both the communities have appealed for peace and communal harmony.
Leading Muslim religious leaders, including Shia cleric Maulana Kalbe Jawwad, naib imam of Idgah and member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangimahli besides Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband have asked Muslims to respect the verdict of the court and maintain communal harmony .
"Peace is of prime importance and we have made the Muslims aware of it at every level in discourses and appeals that communal harmony should be maintained, so as to check vested interests from taking advantage of the situation," Firangimahli told PTI.
Kalbe Jawwad asked community members to be weary of political leaders who would try to take advantage of the situation to serve their ulterior motives.
Darul Uloom Deoband had yesterday appealed to the people to respect the verdict of the court and maintain peace and communal harmony in the country .
The main pujari of the Ram Janmbhoomi temple in Ayodhya, Acharya Satyendra Das Mahraj and Mahant of Janki Ghat in Ayodhya, Janmey Sharan have also asked the community to remain calm and accept the verdict of the court.
Satyendra Das, appointed main pujari by the court, had also taken part in the roza iftar function recently to strengthen communal amity.
"In case the verdict is against the aspirations of any individual or party in the case, he is free to approach the Supreme Court,", Firangimahli said, adding there should not be any reaction to it in society or on streets.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/283544/Ayodhya-verdict-Muslim-Hindu-leaders-appeal-for-peace.html
September 17, 2010 6:51:17 PM
PTI | Lucknow
With the date of pronouncement of the Allahabad High Court judgement on Ayodhya dispute drawing near, religious leaders and scholars of both the communities have appealed for peace and communal harmony.
Leading Muslim religious leaders, including Shia cleric Maulana Kalbe Jawwad, naib imam of Idgah and member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangimahli besides Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband have asked Muslims to respect the verdict of the court and maintain communal harmony .
"Peace is of prime importance and we have made the Muslims aware of it at every level in discourses and appeals that communal harmony should be maintained, so as to check vested interests from taking advantage of the situation," Firangimahli told PTI.
Kalbe Jawwad asked community members to be weary of political leaders who would try to take advantage of the situation to serve their ulterior motives.
Darul Uloom Deoband had yesterday appealed to the people to respect the verdict of the court and maintain peace and communal harmony in the country .
The main pujari of the Ram Janmbhoomi temple in Ayodhya, Acharya Satyendra Das Mahraj and Mahant of Janki Ghat in Ayodhya, Janmey Sharan have also asked the community to remain calm and accept the verdict of the court.
Satyendra Das, appointed main pujari by the court, had also taken part in the roza iftar function recently to strengthen communal amity.
"In case the verdict is against the aspirations of any individual or party in the case, he is free to approach the Supreme Court,", Firangimahli said, adding there should not be any reaction to it in society or on streets.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/283544/Ayodhya-verdict-Muslim-Hindu-leaders-appeal-for-peace.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)