Indian holy site of Ayodhya ‘to be divided’

Indian holy site of Ayodhya ‘to be divided’

A court in India has said that a disputed holy site in Ayodhya should be split between Hindus and Muslims, lawyers for the Hindu petitioners say.

However in a majority verdict, judges gave control of the main disputed section, where a mosque was torn down in 1992, to Hindus, lawyers said.

Other parts of the site will be controlled by Muslims and a Hindu sect.

Learning from Ayodhya

Learning from Ayodhya

It was irritating to watch some of the Hindu leaders gloating over the judgment on Ayodhya by the Prayag High Court.

We must clearly understand that this is not victory as yet. Even after rightfully securing Ram-Janmbhoomi; there are other two equally important sites, viz., the Krishna-Janmabhoomi, and the JnanaVyapi temple of Bhagwan Shiva , which still remain to be secured.

Afterwards too, there are innumerable mosques in India which were built by destroying temples which existed at those places.

The simplest thing that a non-Muslim must understand from the Ayodhya dispute is that Never ever allow a mosque in your land.

And now that we unfortunately have many many mosques, we must aim for getting rid of all mosques.

There has to be No mosque in India campaign. Once we clearly realize that Islam is evil, and that mosques are spreading centers of this evil, we will quickly understand that having even a single mosque is tantamount to inviting a danger in future. Remember that prevention is better than cure, preventive medicine (removing all existing mosques) is better that unsure future cure (having to fight for decades and centuries for what is rightfully yours! with no guarantee of success!!).

Ayodhya Verdict : A Perspective

Ayodhya Verdict : A Perspective

So the verdict is out on the Ayodhya dispute. Hindus are claiming victory, while the Muslims are planning to appeal the Supreme Court.

The case has many aspects, but we will concentrate on the three fundamental aspects here, viz.

1. Does the land belong to either of the Sunni Wakf Board, or the Nirmohi Akhada?

2. Was the structure built upon an earlier structure?

3. What was the nature of the earlier structure?


Answers to the above:


There is a term in legal parlance called “limitation”. This says that if you make a large delay in filing your point of view, your point of view loses its right to be recognized.

In light of this, the answer to Question 1 is that the claims of Sunni Wakf Board and Nirmohi Akhada on the site are null and void. Period.


On the basis of evidence provided by the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India), it has been concluded that the structure which was demolished on December 6, 1992, was built on an earlier structure.

So the answer to Question 2 is, Yes.

3. On the basis of the same evidence, it was further concluded that the earlier structure was a massive Hindu structure, which was used as a place of Hindu religious activity as the birth place of Bhagwan Rama.

So the answer to Question 3 is, The structure was being used by Hindus as the birth place of Bhagwan Rama.


Now we come the three judges, viz., Mr. S. U. Khan, Mr. Sudheer Agarwal, and Mr. Dharam Veer Sharma.

1. None of these can deny the above answer to Question 1.

2. None can refute the evidence (they can ask for more research, at the most) by the ASI, hence they can not dissent on the answers to Questions 2 and 3 either.

So now the issue is, why is there a divergence of opinion amongst the judges? Before that, we should also take a look at the salient points of the judgments delivered by these three.

Mr. Khan and Mr. Agarwal opine that the place must be divided into three parts, one each going to Ram Lulla, the Nirmohi Akhada, and the Board. I am given to understand that their argument is that, notwithstanding the history of the matter, the place has been ‘enjoyed’ by these parties and they must get a share!

Mr. Sharma opines that in view of the above answers, the whole of disputed land must go to Ram Lulla.


It is clear that Mr. Khan and Mr. Agarwal are on a Mohandas-Jawaharian path. The judgment must be based on reason, but they seem to be carrying the doctrine of accommodation a bit too far.

Mr. Sharma on the other hand, sticks to the point and has given a categorical opinion.

I agree with Mr. Sharma on this point.

FAQs on Ayodhya Ram Temple

FAQs on Ayodhya Ram Temple

media.syndicate correpondent came across this FAQs on Ayodhya issue circulated by email.

1. What is the significance of Ayodhya the city?
Ayodhya is situated on the banks of the Saryu river in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India. The Brahamanda Purana dentifies Ayodhya as the premier amongst the six holy cities for the Hindus. The other five are Mathura, Haridwar, Kashi, Kanchi, and Ujjain. These holy cities are places of pilgrimage from where the Hindus seek inspiration of their great civilisation and culture. Visits to these places also assure them of Moksha or Nirvana.

2. Was Shri Ram a person or a mythical figure?
According to the Hindu tradition, Shri Ram is the seventh avtaar (incarnation) of Lord Vishnu. He was born to King Dashratha of Ayodhya to deal with the setting of adharma (unrighteousness) in the trethta Yug, the second of the four Yugas. Hence he is not a mythical figure. In every nook and corner of India there is a unique citation of Shri Ram having visited their place.

The belief in Shri Ram as a person has an antiquity of more than 3000 years, and this tradition is a continuous one. Shri Ram is accepted as a maryada purushottam all over the country, and also wherever Hindu civilisation had spread, as in Indonesia. Many of the incidents that have been mentioned in the Ramayana are being established on the basis of archaeology, attesting to the historicity of the various events that live today in the traditions relating to Shri Rama.

3. Why is Shri Ram called a Maryada Purushottam?
As a person, Shri Ram personifies the characteristics of an ideal person who is to be emulated. He had within him all the desirable virtues that any individual would seek to aspire. For example, he gave up his rightful claim to the throne, and agreed to go into exile (vanvas) for fourteen years, to fulfil the vow that his father had given to Kaikeyi, one of King Dashratha’s wives. This is in spite of the fact that Kaikeyi’s son, Bharat, begged him to return back to Ayodhya and said that he did not want to rule in place of Shri Rama. But Shri Ram considered his dharma as a son above that of his own birthright and his life’s ambition. For such supreme sacrifices, and many other qualities, Shri Ram is considered a maryada purushottam.

4. How long is the antiquity of the belief in Shri Ram prevalent?
Archaeology has established that the antiquity of the belief in Shri Ram to be more than 3000 years, and that too on a continuous basis. However, the Hindu literature places the date back even further. Even the later figure would make the belief to be based on history, and not myth. The submerged city of Dwarka, which was recently discovered by a marine archaeological survey, has always existed in the collective consciousness of the Hindus. Many other events in different parts of the world have been accepted as facts on the basis of traditions (parampara) which are even younger than the belief in Shri Rama.

5. Is there any archaeological evidence to establish the antiquity of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site?
Yes. In 1975-80, the Archaeological Survey of India, under the leadership of Prof B B Lal, took up extensive excavations, in different parts of India, to establish the various sites mentioned in Ramayan. Similar excavations were undertaken in Ayodhya, including in two places around the Babri structure. The team was able to establish that the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site was occupied prior to 7th century BC.

6. Is there any proof of destruction of a mandir in honour of Shri Ram at Ayodhya in 1528 AD?
Yes. Muslim records attest to the fact of the destruction. European visitors, prior to the British rule, mention the fact of the destruction. Archaeological studies have found the existence of buildings prior to the construction of the Babri structure. Land revenue records, maintained by the British, have identified the site as Janmasthan. There is even legal judgement of 1886 that avers the fact that the structure was constructed on a site that was holy to Hindus.
In December 1990, the above facts, along with many others, were compiled by the VHP and presented to the Government of India. A copy was given to the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee, and was also published by the VHP. Neither the committee, nor the so-called secular historians have refuted the evidence.

Ayodhya lawyer Ranjana Agnihotri walks out of Barkha Dutt show

Ayodhya lawyer Ranjana Agnihotri walks out of Barkha Dutt show

Hindu Mahasabha lawer Ranjana Agnihotri walked out of the NDTV show hosted by the journalist Barkha Dutt. This happened when Barkha pressed for the apology from L K Advani saying Advani’s “saddest day of my life” statement is not sufficient. Barkha later on called Ranjana’s walking away “an inflammable example of extremism”

Japan refuses to apologise to China

Japan refuses to apologise to China

Japan has refused to apologise to Beijing for detaining a Chinese boat captain in disputed waters after Tokyo gave ground and released him.

China’s foreign ministry said it was angry at the detention of the captain, arrested by Japan over two weeks ago after his trawler collided with two Japanese patrol boats in waters near islands that both sides claim.

The ministry demanded an apology and compensation and said China’s claim to the islands, which it calls the Diaoyu and Japan calls the Senkaku, was “indisputable”.

In response, Japan’s foreign ministry said: “There is no territorial issue that needs to be resolved over the Senkaku.

“China calling for apology or compensation is groundless and is absolutely not acceptable.”

Katsuya Okada, who was Japan’s foreign minister until a cabinet reshuffle on September 17, criticised China over its demands, Japan’s Kyodo news agency reported.

“Everybody knows that China is not a democratic country, but [the latest demand] will make that explicit,” Okada, who is now secretary-general of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan, was quoted as saying.

Zhan Qixiong, a fishing trawler captain, flew out of Japan to the coastal Chinese city of Fuzhou on Saturday after being set free on Friday.

The release follows the detention of four Japanese nationals on suspicion of violating Chinese law regarding the protection of military facilities earlier this week.

Kyodo said Japanese diplomats met the four detainees on Saturday but Yoshito Sengoku, Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, has denied a link between the two incidents.

The four have been under residential surveillance, meaning they were likely restricted at a hotel or lodging, the agency quoted an official at the Japanese embassy in Beijing as saying.

Japan ‘weak’

The statement from China’s foreign ministry said that the two countries should solve their disputes through dialogue.

Naoto Kan, Japan’s prime minister, also said it was time for Asia’s two biggest economies to put relations back on a steady footing.

“I believe it is necessary for Japan and China to handle matters calmly,” he said in New York, where he was attending the UN general assembly.

The dispute has underscored the brittleness of ties long troubled by Chinese memories of Japanese wartime occupation and territorial disputes over parts of the East China Sea that could hold rich reserves of gas.

Some Japanese newspapers decried Zhan’s release as a backdown that would encourage Chinese assertiveness.

“There is a possibility that it has left an impression that Japan will cave in when pressured,” Asahi Shimbun, a leading daily, said in an editorial.

Sun Cheng, an expert on relations between the two countries at the China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, said it would take time for relations to improve.

“China will want to keep up its case over the Diaoyu islands. Whether Japan actually apologies or gives compensation is not so much the point as making it clear that China won’t compromise on sovereignty,” he said.

CWG fiasco inspite of Hindu culture

CWG fiasco inspite of Hindu culture

Arrangements for Commonwealth Games (CWG – 2010) hosted by India appears to be disorganized. Indian image is taking a beating. Some people attribute to the fiasco to Indian culture. Hindu philosophy. Indirectly associate efficiency and meticuolousness to Christianity or materialism or to something else. Arun Maira is a Member of the Planning Commission, cites examples of Kumbh Mela and Jupiter project of Tata Motors to refute this line of thinking.

CRPF jawan, Maoist killed in encounter

CRPF jawan, Maoist killed in encounter

One CRPF jawan and a Maoist were killed in an encounter that took place at Bandarbani forest in the Binpur area of West Midnapore early hours of 26th Sept 2010.

The jawan received bullet injury in his head and died on the spot. Later, during combing operation, the police recovered the body of a Maoist squad member from the forest.

Six companies of security forces including CoBRA and The CRPF conducted combing operations yesterday at midnight, after receiving a tip-off that a Maoist squad led by Sasadhar Mahato was camping there. According to the Jhargram police, the Maoists first opened fire on the security forces, who then retaliated.

Mahato — brother of PCAPA leader Chhatradhar Mahato — was also named in the Jnaneswari train carnage case by the CBI. He had been operating in the Lagarh-Binpur area at for five-six years, said police.

The exchange of fire continued till early morning, said Pravin Tripathy, Superintendent of Police, Jhargram. Tripathy said that the squad led by Mahato had taken shelter inside the forest. There were at least 15-20 armed Maoists in the squad, he added. The Maoists, however, escaped from the area. The forest is located between Binpur and Lalgarh. Recently, the Maoist groups have been operating from these areas, said an officer.