From: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Subject: Re: Some of Rajeev Gowda's actual views on Ayodhya ...
Reply-To: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:04:47 GMT

In reply to <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>:

Its possible that the BMAC "walas" are lying and taking the entire country for a
ride. Its also possible that the BJP-RSS-VHP "walas" are also doing
the same. I have no idea who is right and who is wrong. That is precisely what
the court is supposed to do. 

Contrary to your insinuation, I'm no supporter of the BMAC (I'm certainly no
"Babari wala") or for that matter any party in the dispute. So desist from
making wild claims.   

Notice that I'm not trying to support/refute claims of any side. Indeed I have
little knowledge of the specifics of the "evidence" each side is presenting
simply because I don't work for any side. As far as I'm concerned, as a 
citizen I'm interested in trying to ensure that disputes such as these are
settled without violence and in a court of law. Its obvious that political 
solutions are proving unworkable and will result in the type of violence seen in
recent months. 

The BMAC and the RSS-VHP-BJP may have irreconciliable differences. But they 
cannot be allowed to hold the country to ransom. That is precisely why I am
strongly in favour of a court arbitrating in this matter whose decision would
be
binding on all. The BMAC or the RSS combine may very well be trying to disallow
a court to mediate. But seeing the seriousness ofthe issue, the govt./court
must penalize the party which is doing so. The court has the power to throw out
the case of a petitioner if it feels that the party is commiting contempt of
due process of law. If the RSS "wallahs" feel that the BMAC is shirking from
its
commitment to refer the dispute to a court of law, they can get a court to pass
strictures against them and can even bring a charge of contempt of court. 


<DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
===============================================================================
 Dont you know that
the cases on these issues have been their in the court for the past four
decades, and almost all the interim judgements have gone in their favor. Does
that not prove that they have stronger evidence than their opponents. The only
thing they donot want the court to sit in the judgement on the issue of Ram's
birthplace which is a matter of faith.
===============================================================================

Thats what I'm saying. Since they believe that all the interim judgements have
gone in the favour of the RSS combine, why don't they follow it through its
logical conclusion and wait till the courts dispose off the matter. Then no 
power can stop the demolition of the mosque.

As for asking courts to sit in judgement on the issue of Ram's 
birthplace, I would oppose such a move. Such calls IMO will be rejected by
any court of law itself. Its obvious that the issue is not the event of the
birth of Ram but whether the mosque was built after demolishing a temple there.






He further writes:
===============================================================================
they are again opposing
now when such an ordinance has been issued on January 7, 1993 with the pre-cond
tion of one point reference to the SC's opinion under article 143. In fact they
have threatened to challenge the whole package in the court, in their opinion
it is against Shariat. Even Muslim Personal Law Board has also opposed the
court's opinion. Also Imam Bukhari is on the records that if a court judgement
goes against Muslims, they will not accept it since such a judgement will be
against Koran.
===============================================================================


Care to furnish some evidence for such claims.  

As I said above any such individual who is active in the negotiations must
be penalized if he/she threatens the process of law. It didn't matter what an
individual party felt about any order passed by the court, it was always carried
out as seen in the allowance of "darshan" at the site, or the unlocking of the
site, the allowance of symbolic kar-seva, performance of shila-puja etc.
The BMAC may disagree with the ruling and can appeal against such an order
but the order was carried out. That is what the state is concerned about and
that is what due process of law entails.





<DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
=============================================================================
As I said in my earlier post that for these Babari walas (which includes you
too, Mr. Javed), even if Badashah Babar resurrects from his grave and annonces
that he really did order the destruction of a temple and building of the
mosque on its ruins, he would be asked to shut up and be accused of having
gotten brain washed by RSS/VHP/BJP propaganda machinery.
==============================================================================


Well I'm really not interested in your analogies. I'm sure I don't fall into
that category. 

 
By the way Shahabuddin, Bukhari and gang in the BMMAC were sidelined in the
final stages and the BMAC led by Jawed Habib who are considered moderates
were holding center stage. 


I must again point out that as far as the muslims are concerned, they wouldn't
have bothered so much about the entire issue of legality or otherwise  of
rebuilding the temple if there was no mosque at the site. Even if the law had
to
be changed to enabe the building the temple, I don't think muslims would have
tried to throw a spanner in the wheels of BJP bandwagon as far as building
the temple was concerned. Unfortunately a mosque existed there and resulted in
such a crazy problem.


If any one can suggest a feasible method of resolving the issue other than
taking recourse to the courts, the country would be indebted.



--Javed.