This is HUGE. Apart from probably leading to another Constitutional Judge bench case, this will have massive political ramifications. ===========================================================================================================================
1. Restore the Hindu temple that was destroyed and allot land to Muslims for a mosque in another location. Basically the Ayodhya formula given by the SC.
I get the intention of restoring the places but the main motive here is to gather votes and fool the citizens. This is a new scheme, earlier parties used to bribe for votes but now bringing a communal angle gets the job done. Even though I'm a hardcore religion person I don't want the restoration because the citizens are going to have to bear the cost of it. People don't realise how their single vote can affect the whole country.
Let's also extend this principle beyond temples. No reason Indian property law should have a temple exception. After all, what India really needs is for all current land titles to be challenged on centuries old claims
Should we also destroy all the hindu temples that were built atop jaina and buddhist temples? Just keep building new hindu temples in another location? x 10. we just build temples in this country. who needs a school or a hospital?
Senseless argument. These are very less temples like that and that too in small states far away from North India. Also Buddhism has no civilizational continuity in India.
School and hospital argument is valid, I agree. Govt should focus on those too
Temple was already restored by Maharani Ahilyabai Holkar in 1780 AD. It exists next door, right to this day. What is left to do? This seems like a non existent dispute.
In the US, California has returned land unlawfully taken by whites from blacks to the descendants of those blacks. Same principle must apply here. Kashi and Mathura must be returned to Hindus.
Why stop there? The temple was constructed on someone else's land. Give it back to their heirs. Give back everything to the indigenous people before the Aryan invasion.
Nah migration is different from invasion. And assimilation also occured so their land is a gift from their maternal side to their paternal ones. The "others" you mentioned didn't have much land at any point in history. So sorry self-proclaimed moolnivaasi
The point is very simple. By demolishing the mosque and building a temple in its place, you are taking away the right of existing and living people who worship there at present. If you think that giving them an alternate place to build another mosque is sufficient compensation for that, then why not do the same for the non existent temple instead? Why this double standard? Nobody currently living has offered worship in those temples after all, even if they used to exist.
"Nobody currently living has offered worship in those temples"
If only you read the Ayodhya Judgement, it was precisely because of continued worship that the land was given to the hindu parties.
There is historical, continued worship at Gyanvapi as well at one of the walls of the 'mosque', the suit was filed so that access to the inside would be available to worshippers who have always prayed at the walls.
Do serious law bro, even that clown Chandrachud recognized that a structure being called a mosque is not the same as the structure being a mosque provided evidence could be adduced to said effect.
People aren't offering worship at the temples because those temples don't exist as of now. If they are offering worship at a particular corner of the existing structure, then why introduce new structures at all? Just let status quo prevail and they can keep worshipping there. If they need a new structure, then why not use an alternate site?
Must you really be so ignorant of the law at play here.
Continued worship at the site indicates that the hindu side never relinquished its claim to the demolished temple. The Ayodhya judgment gave the site to the hindus because - 1. Archaeological evidence of a temple pre-dating the 'mosque'; and, 2. The evidence of continued worship at the site of the 'mosque'. Taken together it established, on a balance of probabilities, that a temple existed and the worshippers never relinquished their right to the temple, that is, the legal right over the site always resided with the deity irrespective of the structure over the site.
Now, at Gyanvapi the hindus have historically prayed at one of the original walls of the temple only because they could not access the present structure, this inability is the subject matter of the legal dispute. The district court ordered a survey to establish the status of the structure. If there is archaeological evidence that there once stood a temple and that there has been continued worship, then the site was never a mosque. Again, this is subject to the ability of the parties to adduce evidence.
Why bother? It doesn't matter what you think, for millions of believers that site holds great religious significance which cannot be 'relocated to an alternate site'. If they can establish the requisites applied in the Ayodhya judgment, they have every right to advance their claim and change the status quo. They don't 'need a new structure', they only want their original site back which they have always claimed as their own.
Except in backwater areas like Kerala there is no evidence of that being done with any major temple. Also Buddhism doesn't have an inheritor or civilizational continuity in most parts of India expect on few areas like Ladakh
The only valid restoration should be of trees. They existed way before the mosque and temple bs. I feel like I'm smoking 100 cigarettes at once when I arrive to India from any country.
The standards of India has become so low that they consider this filthy air as pure.
===========================================================================================================================
https://www.barandbench.com/news/temple-existed-site-gyanvapi-mosque-hindu-deities-buried-underneath-asi-report
==================================================================================================================
1. Restore the Hindu temple that was destroyed and allot land to Muslims for a mosque in another location. Basically the Ayodhya formula given by the SC.
2. Repeat the same for Mathura
School and hospital argument is valid, I agree. Govt should focus on those too
If only you read the Ayodhya Judgement, it was precisely because of continued worship that the land was given to the hindu parties.
There is historical, continued worship at Gyanvapi as well at one of the walls of the 'mosque', the suit was filed so that access to the inside would be available to worshippers who have always prayed at the walls.
Do serious law bro, even that clown Chandrachud recognized that a structure being called a mosque is not the same as the structure being a mosque provided evidence could be adduced to said effect.
Continued worship at the site indicates that the hindu side never relinquished its claim to the demolished temple. The Ayodhya judgment gave the site to the hindus because - 1. Archaeological evidence of a temple pre-dating the 'mosque'; and, 2. The evidence of continued worship at the site of the 'mosque'. Taken together it established, on a balance of probabilities, that a temple existed and the worshippers never relinquished their right to the temple, that is, the legal right over the site always resided with the deity irrespective of the structure over the site.
Now, at Gyanvapi the hindus have historically prayed at one of the original walls of the temple only because they could not access the present structure, this inability is the subject matter of the legal dispute. The district court ordered a survey to establish the status of the structure. If there is archaeological evidence that there once stood a temple and that there has been continued worship, then the site was never a mosque. Again, this is subject to the ability of the parties to adduce evidence.
Why bother? It doesn't matter what you think, for millions of believers that site holds great religious significance which cannot be 'relocated to an alternate site'. If they can establish the requisites applied in the Ayodhya judgment, they have every right to advance their claim and change the status quo. They don't 'need a new structure', they only want their original site back which they have always claimed as their own.
The standards of India has become so low that they consider this filthy air as pure.