Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: domani la decisione su Ayodhya

Stranamente, questa storia importantissima non è ancora apparsa nella
stampa italiana:
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article740596.ece?homepage=true
Forse domani, la giornata della decisione, quando si aspettano
reazioni violente.
--
The winding paths of a temple town
The political history of the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid conflict is
of recent vintage. However, the legal cases go back to 1885.
What are the key issues involved in the consolidated Ayodhya title
suits to be decided by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court
on September 24? How are the political movements built around the
dispute different from the civil suits, the earliest of which dates
back to 1885?
While there is much folklore around centuries-long battles fought over
the Ramjanmabhoomi and the Babri Masjid, the dispute's violent
political history culminating in the destruction of the Babri Masjid
is of very recent vintage. On December 6, 1992, the Masjid was
brutally brought down by Ram kar sevaks in the presence of a stellar
cast of Bharatiya Janata Party leaders, among whom was Lal Krishna
Advani.
The Ram temple movement was launched by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in
1982; the BJP officially adopted the issue in June 1989 with a
resolution passed at its national executive in Palampur, Himachal
Pradesh: “The BJP holds that the nature of this controversy is such
that it just cannot be sorted out by a court of law. A court of law …
cannot adjudicate as to whether Babar did actually invade Ayodhya,
destroy a temple and build a mosque in its place … The sentiments of
the people must be respected, and Ramjanmasthan handed over to the
Hindus — if possible through a negotiated settlement, or else, by
legislation. Litigation certainly is no answer.”
Two major twists
However, two major twists in the story came courtesy the Rajiv Gandhi
government. Acting with alacrity on a February 1, 1986 decision of the
Faizabad District Judge, it ordered open the locks of the Masjid, thus
paving the way for the politicisation of the movement. The unlocked
doors were a huge symbolic victory for the VHP which ramped up its
agitation with the Muslim side retaliating by forming the All-India
Babri Masjid Action Committee. On November 9, 1989, with only days to
go for the Lok Sabha election, the Rajiv Gandhi government allowed the
VHP to perform the shilanyas (foundation laying ceremony) of the
temple, thus implicitly accepting that the sangh parivar was within
its rights to build a temple on the disputed site.
For the sangh parivar and the BJP, there was no looking back after
this. Starting 1989, the movement steadily gathered pace, growing in
size and violence even as the BJP formally came into the picture. The
agitation scaled two major peaks: Mr. Advani's Ram rath yatra of 1990
and the December 6, 1992 demolition of the Masjid. Through all this,
the sangh's position remained steadfast: since Ram's birth was a
matter of faith, Hindus must be given possession of the land, either
by negotiations with Muslims or by legislation enacted in Parliament.
The legal history of the dispute (source: Babri Masjid, A.G. Noorani)
shows that other Hindu organisations, themselves deeply divided, had
no reservations about fighting out the case in court. In fact, Bhagwan
Rama Virajman (presiding deity Bhagwan Ram) was himself listed as a
party in one of the suits filed in the Court of the Civil Judge,
Faizabad (case no 236 of 1989). Arrayed against the Lord in this case
(now part of the consolidated suit and registered as original suit
number 5 of 1989 in the High Court) are Hindu as well as Muslim
defendants, among them Rajendra Singh, son of the original plaintiff,
Gopal Singh Visharad; Mahant Paramahans Ramachandra Das, regarded as
the mascot of the temple movement; Nirmohi Akhara, one of Ayodhya's
oldest religious institutions; and the Sunni Central Board of Wakfs,
the main litigant from the Muslim side.
The dispute was dragged to the court for the first time in 1885, when
Mahant Raghubar Das filed suit no 61/280 of 1885 in the Court of the
Sub-Judge, Faizabad, against the Secretary of State for India, seeking
permission to construct a temple on the Ram chabutra (adjoining the
Babri structure). The stage for the next batch of litigation was set
on December 23, 1949, when a mob of 50-60 people laid siege to the
mosque and surreptitiously placed the idols of Ram and other objects
right under the central dome. This led to the property going into the
hands of the receiver, and to puja being conducted by a pujari
appointed by the receiver.
On January 16, 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad filed a suit in the Faizabad
civil court (suit no 2 of 1950 now registered as other Original Suit
no 1 of 1989 in the High Court) seeking exclusive rights for
performing puja for Ram Lalla. He sought a restraint order on the
removal of idols on which the judge issued a temporary injunction.
This order was later confirmed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad
High Court.
On December 5, 1950, Mahant Paramahansa Ramachandra Das (now dead)
filed a suit (no 25 of 1950 now registered as other Original Suit no 2
in the High Court) for the continuation of puja and keeping the idols
in the Babri structure. In August 1990, out of sheer frustration, the
Mahant withdrew the case.
The third suit (no 26 of 1959, now registered as other Original Suit
no 3 of 1989 in the High Court) was filed on December 17, 1959 by the
Nirmohi Akhara seeking transfer of charge of the disputed site from
the receiver. The fourth suit (no 12 of 1961 now registered as other
Original suit no 4 of 1989 in the High Court) was filed on December
18, 1961 by the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Wakfs for the declaration
and possession of the Babri site. Significantly, this suit was filed
with days to go before the expiry of the 12-year limitation period.
The fifth suit, in the name of Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajman, was filed
after a gap of 28 years on July 1, 1989. While the first four suits
were filed during periods of relative political calm, the fifth suit
coincided with the escalation in the political movement. Only a month
earlier, the BJP had officially joined the movement.
With suit No 2 withdrawn, only four title suits remained in the
Faizabad civil court. In 1989, on an application by the then Advocate
General of U.P., these suits were transferred to the High Court. On
October 10, 1991, the Kalyan Singh government acquired 2.77 acres of
land around the disputed dacha. After the demolition, the Narasimha
Rao government at the Centre, with the consent of Parliament, took
over some 67 acres of land all around the disputed area and sought a
Presidential reference to the Supreme Court to find out whether a
Hindu place of worship predated the construction of the Masjid. The
Supreme Court declined to answer the reference.
Muslims claimed in their suit that the shrine had always remained a
mosque and prayers were being offered there up until 1949, when the
gates were locked following the illegal installation of idols. They
sought a declaration that the area in dispute be declared a Babri
Mosque.
On the other hand, on behalf of Hindus it was argued that the right to
worship the deity of Ram Lalla at the disputed site in Ayodhya must be
recognised by the court, as millions of Hindus believed it to be the
birthplace of Lord Ram. Further that in Hindu ethos and Hindu
customary law, unlike in other religions, the concept of deity was a
very distinguishing feature. The Hindu side quoted the Valmiki
Ramayana, the Skanda Puran, the Gita as also a whole range of other
literary and cultural evidence to claim that Ram was born in Ayodhya.
It cited many accounts by foreign travellers of the 15th, 16th, 17th
and 18th Century besides a series of Gazetteers to argue that not only
before 1528 but even thereafter Hindus held possession of the place.
Main issues
The following are the main issues (not all) framed by the Court to
decide the dispute.
— Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged
Hindu temple after demolishing the same. If so, its effect?
— Whether the building in question described as a mosque was a mosque
as claimed by the plaintiffs.
— Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as alleged by
the plaintiffs.
— Whether the building had been used by members of the Muslim
community for offering prayers from times immemorial.
— Whether the idols and objects of worship were placed inside … or
were in existence even earlier.
— Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri
Ramjanmabhoomi and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as (a
matter) of right since times immemorial?

reazioni violente.
è una storia anche abbastanza ridicola se ci pensiamo bene dato che ha 
smosso mari e monti e ha chiamato in causa storici ed archeologi per una 
disputa che solo in India ha ragione di esistere e di diventare caso 
nazionale ultrasecolare. Vediamo pure come va a finire... :-) Che pensassero 
piuttosto a rattoppare lo stadio... ;-)) 

 piuttosto a rattoppare lo stadio... ;-))
Sì!  Così si dice qui!  Sai, generalmente ai giovani indiani questa
faccenda di Ayodhya significa poco o nulla oramai.  Forse avrai
sentito che ieri venne annunziato che la decisione non verrà
pubblicata oggi, ma dopo una settimana.  La solita non-decisione,
indica cosa c'è da aspettare: ben poco, e così, la continuazione del
conflitto.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/article788639.ece
Supreme Court defers verdict on Ayodhya suits till Tuesday
The Supreme Court on Thursday, by an interim order, stayed the
pronouncement of verdict by the Allahabad High Court on Friday on four
title suits relating to the Ayodhya dispute.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale stayed till
Tuesday, September 28, the High Court verdict that dismissed a special
leave petition (SLP) seeking a direction to defer the judgment for
exploring the possibility of an amicable solution to the dispute
through negotiations and mediation.
Taking into consideration the fact that Justice D.V. Sharma, on the
special three-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court, is due to
retire on October 1, the Supreme Court directed that the matter be
listed for further hearing on September 28.
The proceedings witnessed differences between Justice Raveendran,
heading the Bench, and Justice Gokhale. While the former wanted the
High Court to be allowed to deliver the judgment on Friday as
scheduled, the latter said one more opportunity should be explored to
find an amicable solution.
At the end of arguments for about an hour, the Bench, in its brief
order, said: “One of the members of the Bench is of the view that the
SLP should be dismissed. Another member is of the view that the order
should be stayed and notice issued. Tradition of this court is when
one member says that notice be issued, another says that it should not
be issued, the notice should be issued.”
Accordingly, the Bench stayed the September 17 order of the High Court
till September 28 and issued notice to the parties as also to Attorney-
General G.E. Vahanvati for assisting the court.
In view of the differences between Justices Raveendran and Gokhale,
the Bench referred the matter to Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia
for posting it before a larger Bench.
On Wednesday, a Bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir said the SLP
would be posted before an appropriate Bench.
Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for petitioner Ramesh Chandra
Tripathi, submitted that if the judgment was not deferred it could
lead to serious problems. When the country was facing problems in
Jammu and Kashmir and most of the northern States were in the grip of
rain and floods, pronouncement of the judgment would further worsen
the situation and revive tensions.
“Let there be an attempt for an amicable solution. We have all seen
the aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992.”
Hundreds of chances
Justice Raveendran asked counsel: “Is this the ground for postponement
of a judgment? For 50 years you have not been able to solve the
problem. The High Court had given hundreds of opportunities for
settlement but nothing worked.”
He said: “One way or the other it will have to be decided. Why do you
assume that the people in this country are so immature? Religious
passion will rise if people raise it. If people don't raise it, it
will not rise. If you are able to persuade one of the parties to the
dispute to support your stand, we could have considered it. But not
even one of them is supporting you. It should not be a publicity
exercise”
Mr. Rohatgi said one of them, Nirmohi Akhara, was supporting the
petitioner for a settlement.
Senior Counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad, appearing for Baba Dharamdas, and
senior counsel Anup George Chaudhary, appearing for the U.P. Sunni
Central Wakf Board (both plaintiffs in the suits). They wanted the
High Court to pronounce the judgment as scheduled.

http://groups.google.it/group/it.politica.internazionale/browse_thread/thread/0d577b13f0d23c30/19cb3ca88d7fc9e6?hl=it#19cb3ca88d7fc9e6
No more than a breather
Administrations at the Centre and in the States that have their hands
full with daunting law and order challenges have obtained a breather
from the Supreme Court's order deferring the Allahabad High Court's
verdict on the Ayodhya title suits. Among the issues to be decided in
the suits are: whether the Babri Masjid was built on the site of a
Hindu temple after demolishing it and what the legal effect of such an
action is; and whether Muslims had offered prayers from time
immemorial at the Babri Masjid and if Hindu idols were placed inside.
Some of the suits date back to 1950 and after consolidation in 1989,
four have survived and it was in these four that judgments were to be
pronounced today. The plea before the Supreme Court was that, given
the implications of the impending high court decision for communal
harmony and in the circumstances in which the Central and the State
security forces were overstretched in dealing with the Maoists, the
situation in Kashmir and the security for the Commonwealth Games, the
parties should be given one more chance to work out a settlement
through negotiations. This unusual last minute plea on a matter that
has defied a negotiated settlement for over 60 years, and more
particularly since it flared up in the 1990s, hinges on the hope that
the parties would change their attitude and work towards an agreement
when the Supreme Court takes up the matter. If that hope fails to
materialise, the relief for the administrations would be short lived.
It was with some reluctance that the Supreme Court bench decided to
order the high court to defer its verdict for five days, with one of
the two judges inclined to dismiss the petition.
The Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi issue would no longer seem to inflame
passions to the extent that it did in the 1990s, although the court
verdict could still have a significant impact on communal harmony. No
one would quarrel with the desirability of a fair and equitable
negotiated settlement if only that were possible. Yet, if the judicial
process itself were to be held hostage to fears of disturbances, it
would amount to giving rioters a veto over the law-abiding and would
have disturbing implications for the rule of law. The country has come
a long way since the turbulent 1990s, and the lessons of that period
have hopefully been learnt — the appeals for calm from all parts of
the political spectrum are a good augury. Reasonable people on both
sides of the communal divide should have no problems in accepting the
judicial verdict whichever way it goes, and it would in any case be
open to appeal. The nation as a whole should face the Allahabad High
Court verdict squarely and demonstrate its commitment to the rule of
law, with issues being resolved in judicial and other institutions of
the state rather than on the streets.

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:d2696909-25cc-4b28...@e20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...


fra l'altro questo voler continuare a conferire un peso ad una questione che 
non ha una reale importanza concreta lo trovo poco serio da parte di una 
classe dirigente che dovrebbe cercare di amalgamare le due parti invece di 
rinfocolare i contrasti. Mi immagino che dietro ci sia solo una questione di 
voti e di interessi di parte che non sanno guardare al di la del proprio 
particolare. A mio parere in India questo tipo di controversie andrebbero 
proibite per legge :-)

piuttosto a rattoppare lo stadio... ;-)) 
References such as the 1986 edition of the Encyclop鎑ia Britannica
reported that "Rama抯 birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the
Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple".[4]
According to the Hindu view, the ancient temple could have been
destroyed on the orders of Mughal  emperor Babur. This view has been
supported by findings of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which
carried out an excavation in Ayodhya.[5]
%-)