Muslims Should Reject Indian Supreme Court’s Land Offer

Columbia College of Arts & Sciences History News Network

Credit: Free Press Journal. Timeline of Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir case dispute in Ayodhya: From 1528 to 2017; Attack photos.

by B. Z. Khasru 12 November 2019

U.S.-based journalist B. Z. Khasru is author of “Bangladesh Liberation War, How India, U.S., China and the USSR Shaped the Outcome.” His new book, “One Eleven Minus Two, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s War on Yunus an America,” will be published shortly.

India has just set an example of how a nation can retreat into darkness, with its Supreme Court ruling on Saturday that a Hindu temple be built to honor fictitious God Ram on the disputed site of a historic 400-year-old Muslim mosque, named after the first Mughal emperor.

The top court agreed with Hindus that a structure existed under the mosque, i.e. the Babri Masjib was not built on vacant land. It decided to give Muslims land elsewhere to construct a mosque, a consolation prize that seems akin to giving the United States back to the Indians and resettling the Americans in Hawaii. 

Indian Muslims should reject the land offer and not build any mosque at all in protest. To defy Hindu extremists, they should start holding weekly Friday congregations under open skies whenever possible.

They also should forcefully assert their equal rights under India’s constitution, but must shun violence. Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence creed is the most powerful weapon civilians ever invented. 

The verdict capped years of legal wrangling, which reached India’s highest court in 2011 when Hindus appealed a lower court order that the site be shared by the two religions. In 2018, a three-judge panel declined to send the case to a constitution bench, prompting the chief justice to form a body to decide who owns the property.

The five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, ordered the government on Saturday to set up in three months a trust to manage the site on behalf of Ram Lalla Virajman, the child deity, worshiped by Hindus at the site in Ayodha, Uttar Pradesh 

Now the Hindu ultra-nationalist government will form a board to erect the Ram temple where once stood the Babri Masjid. This action ends India’s secular tradition by patronizing one religion against another. India, a nation of 1.3 billion people with 200 million Muslims, is to treat all religions equally under the constitution.

The verdict is faulty because it ordered the government to construct a temple, even though the court admitted there is no evidence that one ever existed at the site. The court overstepped its jurisdiction, too; its task is to decide the ownership. What will be done with the property that is no business of the court — that will be decided by the owner.

Hindus, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s supporters, claim that Emperor Babur, whose dynasty ruled India from 1526 to 1857, built the mosque on top of a temple at the birthplace of Ram, a character in the Ramayana, an epic written by sage Valmiki at 200 BCE. An archaeological survey found no evidence of this, only that an unspecified structure existed before the mosque. 

Court Errs on Evidence

In deciding the case in favor of Hindus, the justices accepted infant Ram as a perpetual minor under law, an ill-conceived legal doctrine without precedence outside India. It is beyond a modern man’s imagination how learned jurists of an ancient civilization can accord legal status to a fictitious deity. Only the dark mind of India seems to be at work.

This judgment has irreparably damaged the Supreme Court and undermined minority confidence in the judiciary. The court made a mistake by deciding the case based on whether Hindus worshiped at the site, which has been used as a mosque since 1528. It ignored the main instrument of ownership — the title to the land. 

The court said “there is clear evidence to indicate that the worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard continued unimpeded in spite of the setting up of a grill-brick wall in 1857,” which means the Hindus were in possession of a part of the land and hence have a valid ownership claim. 

By this logic, Muslims in the United States can rightfully claim ownership of many churches, where they held weekly Friday prayers. No one in the United States can claim ownership of a house just by virtue of using it for some time.

The court contradicted itself in saying that titles can’t be decided on faith when it actually ruled in favor of Hindus because of the evidence that Hindus continuously worshiped at the site for a long period. 

The pendulum of justice cannot swing according to political wisdom or pragmatism. Justice upholds legal principles. The court should have given the land to its valid title holder. Even better would have been for the apex court to stay above the fray and send the case back to the lower court to settle the ownership dispute.

Like the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of India should be minimally interventionist, hearing only the cases that involve serious constitutional issues. Indian justices decide as many as 700 cases a year, against 70 by their U.S. peers.

The unanimous landmark verdict is pure politics, and it has voided respect for history, which India’s founding leaders treasured as mythical Cobras protect their pots of gold. This ruling relegates India’s Muslims into perpetual discrimination based on religion, an idea Hindu ultra-nationalist Hindu guru V. D. Savarkar espoused a century ago.

Secularism Fails in India

Muslims prayed at the mosque for generations until 1949, when Hindu activists placed idols of Ram inside the complex. The mosque was demolished in 1992 by Hindu mobs triggering nationwide religious violence that killed about 2,000 people, most of them Muslims.

This destruction of the mosque highlighted the failure of secularism in India, and divided the country along religious lines, giving politicians an opportunity to appeal to base instincts of Hindu masses to win elections.

Modi’s political organization, the Bharatiya Janata Party, which wishes to create a Muslim-free India, vowed decades ago to build the temple at Ayodhya. Behind this movement has been the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a militant umbrella group with a tax-exempt affiliate in the United States, which works to reconvert Muslims and Christians into Hindu.

The verdict gave a major victory to the 69-year-old Modi, who was blamed for the Muslim massacre in 2002 and has been under fire since August for scrapping special autonomy for Muslim-majority Kashmir, a picturesque Himalayan region.

Since Modi came to power in 2014, India has passed laws against Muslims, and several states are planning to deny government jobs to people with more than two children. Muslim birth rate exceeds Hindu, and India has a phobia that Muslims will outnumber Hindus and reestablish the Muslim empire. Muslim history has been removed from school textbooks. Modi is considering a law to grant refugee status to everybody but Muslims

With the verdict, India is now a Hindu nation, which means that Muslims are free to leave if they so choose, or stay as subservient to Hindus. This is how Hindus want to avenge their humiliation under Muslim rule for a thousand years.

The court decision will create chilling effects among Muslims and intensify simmering Hindu-Muslim tensions inside India and out. Moderate Muslims in Bangladesh and Pakistan, for example, will stumble to cite India as a model to fight extremism. Muslims rather will point to extremism of Buddhas and Hindus as well as Christians as an existentialist threat to their religion and identify.

Posts Carousel

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

1 Comment

  • sam555sardana@rediffmail.com'
    samir sardana
    February 8, 2020, 5:40 am

    Y a temple for Rama – who could not protect his wife from being raped ?

    Hindoos are squeamish about the rape of Seeta Maiya.The fact is that Seeya Maiya was raped by Ravana and she performed fellatio on Ravana !

    Hindoo poetry has a poetic way of describing rape – as we will see later.dindooohindoo

    Seeta herself states in the Yuddha Kanda that she was banged by Ravana

    PHASE 1 – RAMA OPENLY TELLS SEETA MAIYA THAT SHE MUST HAVE BEEN FUCKED BY RAVANA

    Book VI : Yuddha Kanda – Book Of War
    Chapter [Sarga] 115

    कः पुमांस्तु कुले जातह् स्त्रियं परगृहोषिताम् |
    तेजस्वी पुनरादद्यात् सुहृल्लेख्येन चेतसा || ६-११५-१९

    "Which noble man, born in an illustrious race, will take back a woman who lived in another’s abode, with an eager mind?"

    न हि त्वां रावणो दृष्ट्वो दिव्यरूपां मनोरमाम् |
    मर्षयेत चिरं सीते स्वगृहे पर्यवस्थिताम् || ६-११५-२४

    "Seeing you, who are endowed with a beautiful form and attractive to the sense, detained for long in his abode, Ravana could not have endured your separation."

    PHASE 2 – SEETA HERSELF ADMITS THAT SHE WAS DRY FUCKED BY RAVANA – BUT WHILE SHE WAS LAID – HER HEART HAD ONLY RAMA THE LIMPDICK ! THESE ARE THE WORDS OF SEETA MAIYA !

    Book VI : Yuddha Kanda – Book Of War
    Chapter [Sarga] 116

    यद्यहं गात्रसंस्पर्शं गतास्मि विवशा प्रभो |
    कामकारो न मे तत्र दैवं तत्रापराध्यति || ६-११६-८

    "O lord! It was not my willfulness, when I came into contact with the person of Ravana. I was helpless. My adverse fate was to blame on that score."

    मदधीनं तु यत्तन्मे हृदयं त्वयि वर्तते |
    पराधीनेषु गात्रेषु किं करिष्याम्यनीश्वरा || ६-११६-९

    "My heart, which was subservient to me, was abiding in you. What could I do, helpless as I was, with regard to my limbs which had fallen under the sway of another?"

    PHASE 3 – THE CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF SEETA’S RAPE 30000 FEET IN THE SKY !

    THE HINDU SANSKRIT POETRY OF RAPE ! dindooohindoo

    Book III : Aranya Kanda – The Forest Trek
    Chapter [Sarga] 52

    उद्धूतेन च वस्त्रेण तस्याः पीतेन रावणः |
    अधिकम् परिबभ्राज गिरिः दीप इव अग्निना || ३-५२-१५

    When her ochreish silk sari’s upper fringe is upheaved by air onto to Ravana, Ravana looked blazing like a mountain set ablaze, muchly and overly. [3-52-15]

    NOTE – SEETA’S "UPPER FRINGE SARI" (wHICH COVERS HER BREASTS) IS "UPHEAVED ON TO RAVANA".RAVANA LOVED SEETA’S BREASTS – AS WE READ IN THE ARANYA KANDAM BEFORE.

    तस्याः परम कल्याण्याः ताम्राणि सुरभीणि च |
    पद्म पत्राणि वैदेह्या अभ्यकीर्यन्त रावणम् – यद्वा –
    – च्युतानि पद्म पत्राणि रावणम् समावाकिरन् – || ३-५२-१६

    Reddish and scented lotus-petals adorning that highly auspicious Seetha have slithered, but again upheaved by air they are bestrewn on Ravana. [3-52-16]

    NOTE – WHILE RAVANA IS BANGING SEETA – THE PETALS THAT SEETA WORE ARE NOW ON RAVANA ! HOW DID THAT HAPPEN ? HOW CAN THE AIR PLACE THE PETALS AND THE UPPER SAREE OF SEETA ON RAVANA ? IT AIN’T MAGIC ! IT IS SIMPLE SEX ON THE LAP !

    तस्याः कौशेयम् उद्धूतम् आकाशे कनक प्रभम् |
    बभौ च आदित्य रागेण ताम्रम् अभ्रम् इव आतपे || ३-५२-१७

    Upper fringe of Seetha’s silk sari with golden glitter is upheaved in the sky, and with the reddish hue of sun in red heat of midday it beamed forth like a reddish cloud. [3-52-17]

    NOTE – THIS VERSE MEANS THAT RAVANA "REMOVED" SEETA MAIYA’S SAREE AND SHE WAS "STARK NAKED".A reddish cloud is acceptable either in morning or in evening but not in midday since it is a bad omen. A BAD OMEN FOR SEETA MAIYA

    सा पद्म पीता हेम आभा रावणम् जनक आत्मजा |
    विद्युत् घनम् इव आविश्य शुशुभे तप्त भूषणा || ३-५२-२४

    Seetha, the daughter of Janaka, with a complexion that is goldenly yellowish in the tinge of a lotus, moreover with her ornaments of purified gold, flashed like a lightning possessed in a dark-cloud, when that stonehearted Ravana possessed her. [3-52-24]

    NOTE – RAVANA "POSSESSED SEETA MAIYA"

    तरु प्रवाल रक्ता सा नील अंगम् राक्षस ईश्वरम् |
    प्राशोभयत वैदेही गजम् कक्ष्या इव कांचनी || ३-५२-३०

    She that Vaidehi who is so delicate like reddish leaflets of trees made that blackish bodied lord of demons, Ravana, well and truly lambent, herself becoming a golden girdle girded around the elephant like Ravana.

    NOTE – LAMBENT MEANS HAPPY AND SMILING AND SEETA IS LIKE A GIRDLE CLASPING THE ELEPHANT ORGAN OF RAVANA

    IT IS DUE TO THE ABOVESAID RAPE OF SEETA MAIYA THAT THE GODS "SHUDDERED"

    Book III : Aranya Kanda – The Forest Trek
    Chapter [Sarga] 52

    सुप्रवेपित गात्राः च बभूवुः वन देवताः || ३-५२-४१
    विक्रोशन्तीम् दृढम् सीताम् दृष्ट्वा दुःखम् तथा गताम् |

    On seeing Seetha who is undergoing anguish in that way the sylvan deities physically shuddered in a worst way. [3-52-41b, 42a]

    BUT IS IT RAPE ?

    SEETA WAS A LONELY SEXUALLY FRUSTRATED WOMAN !

    SHE GOT LOVE,SEX AND RESPECT ONLY FROM RAVANA !

    RAMA WAS AN IMPOTENT,COWARD AND A GAY PANSY !

    REPLY

SAJ on Facebook

SAJ Socials

   

Top Authors