If Babri Masjid had not been demolished, what would have been the decision of the Supreme Court?

[MenInG]

Assume that the Masjid was till there and a law suit had been filed, would the Supreme Court have asked for it to be demolished so that the temple be built in its place?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Of course, it's Hindutva India. A nation run by extremists. Many more mosques are to follow, watch this space.
[MENTION=93712]MenInG[/MENTION] what is your personal view of this?

 

[PakLFC]

No they would have just left it. Don't think the court would have instructed for it to be demolished....then again fascist Hindu's would have done it anyway.

 

[Kroll]

The so called SC was always going to award the disputed site to Hindus so in order for the temple to be build it would have to order the demolition of the Babri Mosque.

 

[srh]

Assume that the Masjid was till there and a law suit had been filed, would the Supreme Court have asked for it to be demolished so that the temple be built in its place?

Good argument. It does not make sense for a country's Supreme Court to order demolishing of such an old mosque AND then giving the land to hindu extremists. But in current India the "rule of law" does not exist anymore so most likely Supreme Court would have ordered Masjid's demolition and then giving it to hindu extremists.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The mosque would have been shifted as it was done in case of Somnath Temple.

 

[Akki malhotra]

Good argument. It does not make sense for a country's Supreme Court to order demolishing of such an old mosque AND then giving the land to hindu extremists. But in current India the "rule of law" does not exist anymore so most likely Supreme Court would have ordered Masjid's demolition and then giving it to hindu extremists.

You know what is extremism? Do I need to write?

 

[Captain caveman]

Indian SC was always going to favour the hindu case.
SC would have given order for the mosque to be demolished.

My question is - is there no statute of limitation in indian law. Regardless of what might or might not have been present on the site before, the mosque had been on the site for 500 years, surely the hindu claim should have been rejected simply on the statutes of limitation

 

[cricketjoshila]

Indian SC was always going to favour the hindu case.
SC would have given order for the mosque to be demolished.

My question is - is there no statute of limitation in indian law. Regardless of what might or might not have been present on the site before, the mosque had been on the site for 500 years, surely the hindu claim should have been rejected simply on the statutes of limitation

Criminal cases have no statute of limitations. Grabbing someones land is a criminal offence.

Secondly this case is going on since 1857-58.

 

[Captain caveman]

Criminal cases have no statute of limitations. Grabbing someones land is a criminal offence.

Secondly this case is going on since 1857-58.

In the west some criminal cases have a statute of limitation.

Anyway, so someone has a deed for this land?
If no deed, then no case, as the mosque had been there for 500 years or something , it would have qualified by any others countrys law of being the rightful owners of that land!

Just admit it, there is no justification, stop being a hardcore extremist.
I understand you think its the location of your holiest site, but you cant even proof that!

 

[Captain caveman]

[MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]

Are land disputes even tried in criminal courts?
I would of thought it would be tried in a civil court!

 

[cricketjoshila]

In the west some criminal cases have a statute of limitation.

Anyway, so someone has a deed for this land?
If no deed, then no case, as the mosque had been there for 500 years or something , it would have qualified by any others countrys law of being the rightful owners of that land!

Just admit it, there is no justification, stop being a hardcore extremist.
I understand you think its the location of your holiest site, but you cant even proof that!

Deeds like those that exist today, didnot start fir a long time. Its for the court to decide whether its a case or not.

Grabbing someones land doesnot make it yours. Infact it was not disputed by the muslim side that both hindus and muslims kept praying at the site till 1850s, so muslims didnot have exclusive possession of the land.

The district administration of 1850s under british has documented this and when a fight broke out between the two sides, a railing was erected where muslims prayed in the inner courtyard and hindus prayed in the outer courtyard.

This led to the first case being filed by hindus.

Cant even prove what? Can a muslim prove that allah(swt) exists? Can he prove that what prophet(pbuh) said was true, except that its his faith in the religion.

Can a christian prove that god exists and Jesus(pbuh) gave out his message? Its his faith.

I know you think your faith is important and the other guy's is not. But thats not how it works in a non islamic country.

 

[Captain caveman]

Deeds like those that exist today, didnot start fir a long time. Its for the court to decide whether its a case or not.

Grabbing someones land doesnot make it yours. Infact it was not disputed by the muslim side that both hindus and muslims kept praying at the site till 1850s, so muslims didnot have exclusive possession of the land.

The district administration of 1850s under british has documented this and when a fight broke out between the two sides, a railing was erected where muslims prayed in the inner courtyard and hindus prayed in the outer courtyard.

This led to the first case being filed by hindus.

Cant even prove what? Can a muslim prove that allah(swt) exists? Can he prove that what prophet(pbuh) said was true, except that its his faith in the religion.

Can a christian prove that god exists and Jesus(pbuh) gave out his message? Its his faith.

I know you think your faith is important and the other guy's is not. But thats not how it works in a non islamic country.

So basically no proof of land ownership and no proof mandir even existed.
Thanks!
By the way, i was refering to prove of the mandir, not prove of your religion!

Anyway, i'm bored of this topic now and theres an exciting cricket match going on, so enjoy your mandir, when it is constructed.
I hope it is a beautiful mandir and all my hindu brothers and sisters can visit and pray at their holiest site.
Its just sad the way things happened, but time to move on, peace and respect!

 

[Technics 1210]

Supreme court in India is about as independent and just as secularism in India.

Time to stop adopting British terminology and say it how it is, there is no such thing as Supreme court in India, but a Saffron Court.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So basically no proof of land ownership and no proof mandir even existed.
Thanks!
By the way, i was refering to prove of the mandir, not prove of your religion!

Anyway, i'm bored of this topic now and theres an exciting cricket match going on, so enjoy your mandir, when it is constructed.
I hope it is a beautiful mandir and all my hindu brothers and sisters can visit and pray at their holiest site.
Its just sad the way things happened, but time to move on, peace and respect!

Land ownership proof is decided by the court. Not you or me. You are not the authority. Nor do you have access to all the evidence that was submitted them.

 

[MenInG]

My question is simply that the Ayodia decision became easier for SC only because the building was demolished.

 

[Captain caveman]

Land ownership proof is decided by the court. Not you or me. You are not the authority. Nor do you have access to all the evidence that was submitted them.

Forget it man, its a non case, arguing who owns the land 500 years ago!
It wouldn't even get to court in any ist world country.
Its a civil case and statutes of limitation will apply.
The only criminal case, was the destruction of the mosque in 1992 and yet still no convictions.
I'm bored now, so no need to reply.

 

[IndianHero]

Let's do a RCA (Root cause analysis) for this question..

This problem started when Babur demolished a structure (most likely to be a hindu temple as there was no conclusive archaeological evidence to say that he demolished a mosque so obviously Supreme court assumed it to be a hindu temple) -- This is first wrong by Babur to demolish a hindu temple

On 6th 1992 , BJP & gang like RSS, Bhajarang dal, shiv sena, VHP etc., took all goons & demolished babri masjid --- This is second wrong orchestrated by BJP & co


In hinduism/sanatana dharma two wrongs won't a right.

So, to answer this question , if mosque still existed there would be no way supreme court would have asked it to demolish it to construct a temple. Hardly supreme court would have allocated some land for temple construction. This was the exact reason on why BJP & co took goons on 6th dec. 1992 to demolish babri masjid as they knew that unless they are gonna destroy it there is no way they could built a hindu temple.

 

[cricketjoshila]

My question is simply that the Ayodia decision became easier for SC only because the building was demolished.

In 1948, the somnath temple was reconstructed. The temple had been destroyed and a mosque built over it by Aurangzeb.

The mosque was shifted to another spot a few kilometres away and the temple was reconstructed at it original spot.

So existence of a building is no hinderance.

 

[IndianHero]

My question is simply that the Ayodia decision became easier for SC only because the building was demolished.

Unfortunately the answer to ur point is YES. But I still believe that BJP & co did wrong in destroying babri masjid as babur did to a hindu temple. Afterall, babur is not our idol or teacher to follow his steps.


Not only babri masjid for example there is one mosque in varanasi by name 'Gnanavapi mosque' which is built by destroying a temple by Aurangazeb to construct a mosque

<a href="https://imgbb.com/"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/wCS3yVk/gyanvapi-mosque.jpg" alt="gyanvapi-mosque" border="0"></a><br /><a target='_blank' href='https://imgbb.com/'>upload pictures url</a><br />


Looking at the above image , one can easily see that half of the side is hindu style architecture with different mode of pillars, other half is of different style architecture. There is no need for any archaeological people to have say in this case as one can see the destruction of hindu temple done by aurangazeb with a naked eye.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Unfortunately the answer to ur point is YES. But I still believe that BJP & co did wrong in destroying babri masjid as babur did to a hindu temple. Afterall, babur is not our idol or teacher to follow his steps.


Not only babri masjid for example there is one mosque in varanasi by name 'Gnanavapi mosque' which is built by destroying a temple by Aurangazeb to construct a mosque

<a href="https://imgbb.com/"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/wCS3yVk/gyanvapi-mosque.jpg" alt="gyanvapi-mosque" border="0"></a><br /><a target='_blank' href='https://imgbb.com/'>upload pictures url</a><br />


Looking at the above image , one can easily see that half of the side is hindu style architecture with different mode of pillars, other half is of different style architecture. There is no need for any archaeological people to have say in this case as one can see the destruction of hindu temple done by aurangazeb with a naked eye.

Fascinating image. But looks to me like that temple might already have been in disrepair, and Aurangzeb has used the remaining structure to build the mosque. Otherwise, if he was going to demolish it, why leave one side of it standing?

 

[IndianHero]

Fascinating image. But looks to me like that temple might already have been in disrepair, and Aurangzeb has used the remaining structure to build the mosque. Otherwise, if he was going to demolish it, why leave one side of it standing?

Before destruction of temple , some local hindus in his kingdom helped Shivaji maharaj of Maratha kingdom to escape from aurangazeb's custody. It was intentionally done so as to send a message to hindus to not to indulge in any anti-moghul acts.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

The only criminal case, was the destruction of the mosque in 1992 and yet still no convictions.

Poor soul ran away from one of the other Ayodhya threads because he couldn’t answer questions related to criminal convictions of the politicians involved and you had to raise it again in this thread.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Let's do a RCA (Root cause analysis) for this question..

This problem started when Babur demolished a structure ...

Stopped reading at this point, seriously how old are you?

 

[Birdman]

Had Babri Masjid still been there, supreme court would not have given the land to the Hindus. It was shameful that the Government of India did not protect this building in 1992. This was a 500 year old building and they should have protected at least for it's architectural significance.

It's asinine to see how humans try to protect this omnipotent and all powerful Gods by killing each other and destroying property.Would Lord Ram be upset and throw a hissy fit if he is worshiped in a temple couple miles down the road or would Allah and Mohammed care if they are insulted by insignificant humans?

These behaviors show that religion and Gods was created by us.

 

[Captain caveman]

Had Babri Masjid still been there, supreme court would not have given the land to the Hindus. It was shameful that the Government of India did not protect this building in 1992. This was a 500 year old building and they should have protected at least for it's architectural significance.

It's asinine to see how humans try to protect this omnipotent and all powerful Gods by killing each other and destroying property.Would Lord Ram be upset and throw a hissy fit if he is worshiped in a temple couple miles down the road or would Allah and Mohammed care if they are insulted by insignificant humans?

These behaviors show that religion and Gods was created by us.

Very good post!

So there is hope for Pakistan and India, if more people start to think the way you do.

Well said brother!

 

[MenInG]

In 1948, the somnath temple was reconstructed. The temple had been destroyed and a mosque built over it by Aurangzeb.

The mosque was shifted to another spot a few kilometres away and the temple was reconstructed at it original spot.

So existence of a building is no hinderance.

Then why wasnt this done before?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Then why wasnt this done before?

The matter was in the court. So no one could interfere

See MIG, you cannot look at this in isolation.

Since 1947 there have been quiet a few cases. I told you about one.

Another one is the Mathura,Krishna Jansmbhoomi and Shahi idgah case.

The Birthplace of Krishna had a temple and it was demolished by Aurangzeb, mosque was made there.

The court handed over the land to Hindus. But since the sanc sanctorum, the place where hindus believed Krishna was born, was not encroached by the masjid, an agreement was reached that hindus will build their temple on that part and while the masjid will remain as it is, though land rights will remain with hindus.

The 1991 places of worship act states that no change in any place of worship can be done. The act ofcourse was not applicable to Ayodhya as the case was with the courts.

Its not a one sided matter. Its a very complex matter where both sides have made concessions.

 

[GBK_Fan]

Then why wasnt this done before?

Because the Muslim board was misled by people who saw this as strengthening the Hindu organisations politically. It backfired brilliantly with the BJP being the behemoth it currently is. For reference you can read the book “Eminent Historians” by Modi critic, Arun Shourie.

The interference resulted in the proceedings being taken over by hardliners on both the Muslim and Hindu sides, with the ultimate destruction of the Babri Masjid in1992.

 

[Captain caveman]

Regardless if you are in favour or against the indian SC decision on the land that was occupied by the babri masjid, the one thing that is undeniable, is that the indian SC has made the indian legal system a laughing stock around the world.

Forget about any statutes of limitations regarding the owneship of the land which was the home of a mosque for 500 years.
The real embarassing aspect of the SC decision is not that they have awarded the land to the hindus but the fact that they have also awarded a different piece of land to the muslims to build a new mosque on.
What sort of judgement is this? The SC have decided the land belongs to the hindus, so why give the muslims compensation for something that did not belong to them?
This is a complete joke, makes a mockery of the indian legal system

Obviously, if we are honest, the reason for the SC giving the muslims this land as compensation is out of guilt, the SC judges know what they have decided is not a legal decision but in fact a religious decision. The cost of this decision, is the worlds laughter and mockery of the indian legal system and of india itself.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Regardless if you are in favour or against the indian SC decision on the land that was occupied by the babri masjid, the one thing that is undeniable, is that the indian SC has made the indian legal system a laughing stock around the world.

Forget about any statutes of limitations regarding the owneship of the land which was the home of a mosque for 500 years.
The real embarassing aspect of the SC decision is not that they have awarded the land to the hindus but the fact that they have also awarded a different piece of land to the muslims to build a new mosque on.
What sort of judgement is this? The SC have decided the land belongs to the hindus, so why give the muslims compensation for something that did not belong to them?
This is a complete joke, makes a mockery of the indian legal system

Obviously, if we are honest, the reason for the SC giving the muslims this land as compensation is out of guilt, the SC judges know what they have decided is not a legal decision but in fact a religious decision. The cost of this decision, is the worlds laughter and mockery of the indian legal system and of india itself.

Obviously you are not the authority to judge the Indian legal system or the Supreme Court.

The case is over 130year old and in the courts. It cannot be thrown out. Both hindus and muslims had been praying in the mosque since then.

If babri masjid was not demolished, it would have been shifted to another spot, like the somenath mosque, so muslims would have got a piece of land anyway. Thats why they are given this land, as thats the precedence.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Because the Muslim board was misled by people who saw this as strengthening the Hindu organisations politically. It backfired brilliantly with the BJP being the behemoth it currently is.

So the Muslim board were proven right then.

 

[Captain caveman]

Obviously you are not the authority to judge the Indian legal system or the Supreme Court.

The case is over 130year old and in the courts. It cannot be thrown out. Both hindus and muslims had been praying in the mosque since then.

If babri masjid was not demolished, it would have been shifted to another spot, like the somenath mosque, so muslims would have got a piece of land anyway. Thats why they are given this land, as thats the precedence.

Anyone can have an opinion of the outcome of a court case, however, in this case , law professionals on the bbc lamented the indian SC decision.

Why give land to people who lose the case in a land dispute? More ridicule upon the indian legal system


If this case was not a joke before, you add that the case is over 130 years old!
Must be one of the longest cases in the world,.more humiliation upon india.

And lets not forget that all modern.judicial systems would have a statute of limitation on cases like these, OVER 500 YEARS OLD CLAIM, more ridicule for the indian legal system and to india!

 

[GBK_Fan]

So the Muslim board were proven right then.

No this entire issue would and should have been resolved amicably. Not that difficult to converse with people you live with.

Also the guys who advised the Muslim board against negotiating were not Muslims but were leftists/Congress supporters who disliked the RSS.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

No this entire issue would and should have been resolved amicably. Not that difficult to converse with people you live with.

Also the guys who advised the Muslim board against negotiating were not Muslims but were leftists/Congress supporters who disliked the RSS.

RSS were already there planting statues in the Babri Masjid before any Muslim board started objecting.

 

[GBK_Fan]

RSS were already there planting statues in the Babri Masjid before any Muslim board started objecting.

The history of this conflict predates the RSS.

There is documented evidence of Hindus worshipping in the shrine as far back as 1850s. The first Idols and Ram Puja in the mosque was done by Sikhs in 1850s.

The Hindu side even shared travellers chronicles from 1700s to prove that the site was constantly venerated.

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/ac...-worshipped-pre-1857/articleshow/71989488.cms

RSS benefitted as the moderates on both sides failed to reach an agreement and the Muslim side were misled despite documented and archaeological records against their claim.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The history of this conflict predates the RSS.

So why did you try to pin the blame on the Muslim board in the 20th century then?

 

[GBK_Fan]

So why did you try to pin the blame on the Muslim board in the 20th century then?

I never blamed the Muslim board. I blamed the historians who ill-adviced the board, when they had no records to show it. The Shia board btw, which was not overrun by hardliners supported the Hindu claim.

After the 80s it was a pure slugfest between the hardliners on either side.

 

[Captain caveman]

In answer to the OP question, they could have thought about sharing the mosque i.e. building a partition in the mosque, where one half was a mosque and the other half a mandir.

I think an earlier poster said something like this used to happen before, but then the two childish sides starting arguing and bickering , which lead to the destruction of the mosque and where we are today!

But if the mosque was still present and neither side was willing to relocate, then i think this would be the next best solution, provided that there was security present always, to avoid any trouble!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I never blamed the Muslim board. I blamed the historians who ill-adviced the board, when they had no records to show it. The Shia board btw, which was not overrun by hardliners supported the Hindu claim.

After the 80s it was a pure slugfest between the hardliners on either side.

You can blame the leftists or Congress, but clearly there were longstanding underlying issues which led to the outcome.

 

[Arya]

In 1948, the somnath temple was reconstructed. The temple had been destroyed and a mosque built over it by Aurangzeb.

The mosque was shifted to another spot a few kilometres away and the temple was reconstructed at it original spot.

So existence of a building is no hinderance.

How do you shift a mosque? By destroying the original structure and rebuilding it elsewhere?

 

[cricketjoshila]

How do you shift a mosque? By destroying the original structure and rebuilding it elsewhere?

Think something like how Abu Simbel temple was shifted.

 

[GBK_Fan]

You can blame the leftists or Congress, but clearly there were longstanding underlying issues which led to the outcome.

Unlike you, my statements are not based on conjecture. The below link is from the Allahabad high court, which criticised the experts (who mislead the Waqf board) for lying about their findings. Note their lies were exposed in 2010, when they had managed to break down the negotiations decades earlier.

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/Ho...spousing-Masjid-cause/articleshow/6716643.cms

 

[cricketjoshila]

You can blame the leftists or Congress, but clearly there were longstanding underlying issues which led to the outcome.

In 1948 the mosque at Somnath was shifted and a temple built.

In 1968 Hindus despite having won the land rights in court, agreed to have the mosque and Temple side by side in Mathura.

But things never worked out in Ayodhya. Wonder why?

This despite both sides accepting in court that Hindus and Muslims were praying together in the structure till 1850s.

80s, the death of Indira Gandhi is a watershed moment in Indian politics. After the sympathy wave of 1984 elections. It took 30yrs for a PM to get outright majority.