Facebook Twitter Google Email

Hindu political organisation Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha has filed a caveat in the Supreme Court to prevent any party to the dispute from seeking an ex-parte order in appealing against the Allahabad High Court’s 30 September decision on the Ayodhya title dispute matter.

The application was filed yesterday and follows last week’s decision of the All India Muslim Board and Hindu Mahasabha to challenge the decision in the Apex Court amidst speculations and extensive deliberations that ensued between members of various political parties since the verdict was pronounced.

Hindu Mahasabha’s national president Swami Chakrapani told PTI: “We want only legal solution. We are against any type of compromise as we are in favour of constructing a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya.”

Appealing solution

The main litigating section amongst the Muslim group led by the Sunni Waqf Board on 5 October announced its decision to oppose the division of the disputed land into three parts as had been proposed by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. However even in that group there is disagreement, with the oldest living litigant Mohammad Hashim Ansari and the All Indian Muslim personal law board backing a compromise.

The Hindu Mahasabha on 9 October also said that it would move to the Supreme Court by the end of this month to dispute the division of land.

Party politics

Parties with religious leanings have taken the decisive stance of resisting any attempts to divide the controversial land over the past week. However, the national level players such as the Congress Party and BJP have avoided taking official positions on whether they support the Supreme Court’s potential adjudication on the issue.

Congress had said through its working committee had earlier said that the verdict does not condone the demolition of Babri masjid but declined to initiate reconciliatory bids and expressed support for those going in appeal.

On Sunday, Union law minister Veerapa Moily told the media that the government would not take any stand while observing that it was for the parties to settle the issue.

“The Central Government was only a statutory custodian of the property. It was a title suit... the Government of India was not a party to it," Moily explained.

The leaders of the opposition on the other hand have welcomed the High Court’s verdict with the BJP’s top leader and one of the architects of the Babri mosque demolition L K Advani approving of the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) findings that crucially tilted the balance in favour of the temple’s ancient existence as the birthplace of Ram.

However, an out-of-court settlement in this title dispute has found favour with the other main litigating parties Hashim Ansari, Nirmohi Akhara and the Ram Janmbhoomi Trust and they reportedly claim having discussed an amicable solution involving dialogue.

The media game

As requested by the government, the media has largely avoided incendiary headlines.

Nevertheless, some interesting articles were penned. The Times of India carried an opinion piece arguing that the Ayodhya judgment had dealt a blow to secularism and did not adequately address the original “illegal act” of the mosque’s demolition.

Furthermore, as far as back as when the Ram idol was originally placed under the Babri’s central dome in 1949, prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru had written: "A dangerous example is being set there, which will have bad consequences." The judges in Allahbad, argued the opinion piece, treated the installation of the idol this as a fait accompli.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Google Email
Related Articles
Click to show 21 comments
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)

NB: By reading the comments you agree that they are the personal views and opinions of readers, for which Legally India has no liability whatsoever. Because anonymous comments may be biased or unreliable, you agree that you will not allow any comment(s) to affect your estimation of any person(s) or organisation(s). If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to administrator' below the comment with your objection and we will review it as soon as practicable.

reader comments:comments rss feedrefresh

Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Show latest comments only (beta)

1
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-13 02:25
Yaawwwnnnn, nice time pass, fodder for the media and livelihood for the jobless lawyers
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
2
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-13 06:53
I am disappointed on the title to this article. Please make this clear, the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha has approached the SC and not "Hindus". Times of India was bad enough with their headline (timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/HC-partitions-disputed-Ayodhya-site-2-parts-to-Hindus-1-part-to-Muslims/articleshow/6661333.cms). We should not generalise a private litigation.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
3
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 kianganz 2010-10-13 06:57
Thanks for your comment, it is noted. However, headlines by their very nature always have to condense the facts so they don't become too long. Usually the standfirst paragraph should elaborate on the headline.

Will bear your feedback in mind in future.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
4
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-13 07:30
Thanks, Kian. Am Glad you take this in the correct spirit.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
5
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-13 11:15
Title could be easily modified to something like - '11 days of Ayodhya verdict sabre rattling; Hindu Mahasabha moves SC to prevent ex-parte order' - It wouldn't have increased the character count much... and would have avoided the confusing language..

This is a sensitive issue for many Indians and it might be best to stay away from titles that might be interpreted the wrong way...
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
6
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-13 11:39
Yes, the headline could also be the above. I am enjoying every bit of the phoney secularists' (a distinct, vociferous and overbearing tribe) discomfiture. Before the verdict they were exhorting the "Hindus" to abide by the court's judgment. Now, they cringe and squirm since the verdict has not gone the way they wanted it to - and are refusing to graciously accept the verdict, like how they had exhorted all of us in the run-up to Judgment Day.

Their attempt to goad and incite the hot-heads is disconcerting - and sickening - to say the least. Now they are trying to brow-beat and influence the apex court by their daily vitriolic attacks in the press.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
7
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-13 19:17
Why haven't you changed the title of this article?

"Condense facts" - Condensing facts is one things and putting forth a misleading headline is quite another.

I just don't get it. Why do you have to indulge in community name calling?

Can I not cover all terrorists act committed till date in India by 'condensing facts' as well? Could the media not have covered the Mumbai attacks of 2008 with a headline different from the usual 'India's 9/11 - Pakistan launches frontal assault on India'? Could they have not replaced it with a more concise headline such as 'Another Muslim attack - Hindus the majority of victims'?

You're offering an explanation which touts the number of characters used as the reason for twisting the facts? On an online forum? One can understand the print media's limitations but a website?

You're being a smartass. I would strongly urge you to change the headline Kian before it complicates matters further. NOW.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
8
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-13 22:04
@ 7 - chill !! your point taken dude ...
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
9
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-13 23:12
Kian this is #2 (and #4). Just to clarify, #7 isnt my comment.

#7 - how about maintaining some decorum on choice of words. Further, your analogies are ridiculous. Get a life!!
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
10
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-14 01:01
@ #9

"I am disappointed on the title to this article"

How about taking some grammar classes? Further you

@#8

Chill? Tell that to the thousands that have died because of communal violence which has flared up in the past because of sensitive issues being dealt with through the making of inappropriate statements.

Kian could re-post this article with a different headline. He knows it. We know it. Not doing so will not make things better but changing it will.

I expect Kian to regurgitate his stale arguments why he will not. But then why call this site legallyindia? I mean why not focus on the religion of the guy who administers the site? What's your religion Kian?
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
11
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-14 02:04
I too think that the title is indeed regrettable. Especially in a country where everyone who is not Muslim or Christian is virtually thrown into the hotchpotch of being "Hindu" (legally speaking that is).

And I agree that condensing facts is appropriate for headlines. But clearly what has happened here is a insensitive misrepresentation of facts, rather than condensing.

I too urge that you change the headline, though I don't think it's befitting for readers to be rude or threatening about it. I think on an intellectual level, the writer / editor should realize that this is a factual error and rectify it. There is no losing face on that. Nor should this really be a topic of heated debate that it's become.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
12
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 kianganz 2010-10-14 02:13
Thanks for your comments and apologies for the late reply, I've been travelling.

As I said I take this criticism on board but in this case I believe it to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. The headline does not state "Hindus attack Muslims" - all it says is that Hindus approach SC for a fairly procedural and innocuous order, which anyone else could have also made.

I agree that lumping a people together just by religion is not right, but this case is very much a religious dispute and the parties happen to be most easily identifiable by their religion rather than their lengthy monikers. Therefore any reference to Hindus or Muslims will to any reasonable reader identify a party to the dispute, rather than referring to all members of the religion.

Anyway, despite the most vitriolic comments coming from a (regularly vitriolic and trolling) minority, we have changed the headline to "Hindu party approaches SC". I trust that this is more acceptable, bearing in mind that no headline can tell the full story while still being readable, and that we can move on to other discussions.

Best regards,
Kian
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
13
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-14 03:57
Dude, you are really sick. I mean its pathetic the way you're conducting yourself. You should learn from others like #2 and #5. What #2 lacks in grammar (although I'm sure it was probably just a typo) he/she makes up for in constructively putting across his/her point. Stop getting personal and indulge in some proper debate with sound logic and analogies. If you want to get personal, have the guts to put your name on your post.

Kian has a point. As far as other issues are concerned, I am still quizzed about how can the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha file a caveat? Were they a party in this matter? If not, then how does this work? Any ideas?

Sameer
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
14
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-14 04:23
Considering LI as a online newspaper for the law frat, I dont think statements like "Hindus approaching SC" will tickle the mass unlike TOI news which may excite the common mass as the readers are not niche enough compared to LI readers. So, @ 7 and 10 once again I shall say - jus chill !!
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
15
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-14 06:27
@10- as for 'the thousands that have died because of communal violence which has flared up in the past because of sensitive issues being dealt with through the making of inappropriate statements', i would just like to point out that their death was not caused by words, their death resulted from certain idiots who were offended by those words and thought that this gave them the right to commit mass murder. So kindly quit the non sequiturs.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
16
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-14 19:32
Heh...Label the views of those that are not in consonance with yours' as trolling. Very well reasoned Kian. Using that excuse you can go your whole life without ever having an intelligent conversation.

Others had pointed out the ridiculous statement that you tried to pass off as a headline. This kind of statement would never be seriously uttered by anyone else who didn't stand to get more eyeballs on his website.

You had even gone as far as admitting that you will bear that in the future - a kind of an meaningless statement when you can edit hte present article - something which you have done since then.

So I hope you have a good dental surgery after putting your foot in your mouth.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
17
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-14 23:22
"...that their death was not caused by words, their death resulted from certain idiots who were offended by those words..."

Yes, a fine distinction, indeed. As they say in America, guns do not kill people - people kill people. I will remember this distinction, when I go to buy my .357 magnum rifle.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
18
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-15 00:00
we will allow a mosque in ayodhya the day saudi arabia allows a temple in mecca
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
19
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-15 21:56
@ 18 - Saudi Arabia is a theocratic state, India is a secular one ... so dont compare Saudi with India.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
20
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-15 23:18
The Supreme Court had ruled that "Hindutva" can be understood as "way of life or a state of mind". (Not to be confused with "Tatva Legal").

@18. You are wrong. India is secular de jure...but pseudo or a phoney secular state de facto...

Curiously, in Pakistan, every politician, army general and jehadi vociferously proclaim that they are NOT secular - and never wish to be (seen as "haraam" or grave sin).

In India, we have vacuous grandstanding by Hindus, mainly in the English language press, on who can be more abusive and insulting to Hindus and their religion. The more they are accomplished in this, the more secular they are.

Time and time, the tree of pseudo secularism has to be replenished by the rantings and outpourings of these phoney secularists - otherwise it will whither and die.

Kian, glad to note that you have burnished your sickular (sic) credentials by the title you originally gave to your article. (But I must say you are faltering....a pseudo-sickular never gets cowed down by the feeble protest to their terribly slanted views and writings by the few Hindus who can locate their spine..).
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
21
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Anonymous guest 2010-10-25 01:16
For sometime now I have started to believe that religion is indeed the opium of masses.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link

Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.

Add comment (Alt+Shift+A)

We and fellow readers love when you share your thoughts in a comment but please:
  • be nice to other readers and humans who likely have feelings,
  • use full English sentences and words, and
  • abide by Legally India's full terms and conditions in using the site.