AYODHYA - LIES AND SHODDY JUSTICE *** Jai Maharaj posts
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Ayodhya: lies and shoddy justice
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
http://sites.google.com/site/hindunow/ramajanmabhumi
Ayodhya: selective lies and shoddy justice
Liberhan doesn't even notice that underneath Babri structure were temples.
Here is a precise report (not from Liberhan!):
Open source literature indicates that from 1975 through 1980, the
Archaeological Survey of India under the Directorship of Professor
B.B. Lal, a former Director General of the Survey, undertook an
extensive programme of excavation at Ayodhya, including the very
mound of the Ramajanmabhumi on which the so-called "Janmasthan
Masjid" or Babri Mosque once stood and was later demolished on 6th
December 1992. He discovered a Hindu temple built on archaeological
levels formed prior to 13th century AD. Supporting Prof. Lal's
discovery was Shri K. K. Muhammad, Deputy Superintendent Archa
eologist (Madras Circle), who was a trainee at that juncture. He had
written : "I can reiterate this (ie. The existence of the Hindu
Temple before it was displaced by the Babri Masjid) with greater
authority -- for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the
Ayodhya excavations in 1976-'77 under Prof. Lal as a trainee. I have
visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated
pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted ONLY ONE PART OF
OUR FINDINGS WHILE SUPPRESSING THE OTHER."
Then came the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court mandated ASI
excavations at the site in the summer of 2001, using 'ground
penetrating radar'. Here again the ASI team discovered the ruins of a
demolished 16th Century A.D. Hindu Temple.
The fact of the matter is that the archaeological evidence is
irrefutable and has already shown the existence of two Hindu Temples
at the site -- one belonging to the Delhi Sultanate Period and the
second during Babur's reign. That these never appeared in the media
is an altogether different story.
H. Balakrishnan
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Liberties Liberhan took
By Chandan Mitra
Remember Gulzari Lal Nanda? Although he was Prime Minister twice, I
can bet only the 60-plus generation of informed citizens and quiz
show participants will recall the name, fame or lack of it. GL Nanda
last hit the news pages about 20 years ago when he was
unceremoniously thrown out bag and baggage from a flat in Delhi's
Defence Colony for non-payment of rent. The elderly Gandhian leader
died shortly thereafter in near-penury after leading a long ascetic
life. The ramrod straight Congress leader of yesteryear used to wash
his own clothes and cook his own meals till he was too old, infirm
and bed-ridden. Upon the death of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1963 and Lal
Bahadur Shastri in early 1966, Nanda was sworn in as Prime Minister
for brief periods by virtue of being the senior-most member of the
Cabinet. Although described as Acting PM by the media, his name
adorns the record books because the Constitution does not recognise
any category as 'Acting'. He dutifully resigned on both occasions
after the party chose Shastri and Indira Gandhi respectively to head
the Government and was re-inducted into the Cabinet by both his
successors.
Poor Gulzari Lal Nanda has been resurrected once more, this time in
rather unflattering light. On page 336 of the 1,000-page-plus Justice
MS Liberhan Report, there is a stinging indictment of Nanda along
with former RSS chief Prof Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiyya) and Dau
Dayal Khanna (a respected advocate of post-Partition refugee
rehabilitation). They have been blamed for being "ardent Hindus" who
created an atmosphere in which radical Hindu sentiment could grow.
Nanda's ashes must be churning in their urn at the bracketing. But
more sinisterly, Liberhan insinuates that the efforts by leaders like
GL Nanda eventually culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid!
If anyone has the patience or masochistic passion to labour through
Liberhan's voluminous essay on the state of the Indian polity since
Independence, he will discover many prize gems of this nature. Still
one thing must be said in Liberhan's favour: Loyalist ho toh aisa!
The man who appointed him to the job to which Liberhan clung on for
17 long years emerges as the silent hero of the so-called inquiry
report. And why not, for thanks to PV Narasimha Rao, the retired
Supreme Court judge was able to secure a bungalow in Central Delhi, a
posse of staff, vehicles and other facilities at his disposal. As a
result of Rao's largesse and the indecision of subsequent United
Front, NDA and UPA Governments, Liberhan's Commission cost the
exchequer a whopping Rs 8 crore in salaries alone! We don't as yet
know what the total extent of us taxpayers' money that was squandered
on producing the costliest essay in history!
Having plodded through much of this alleged report, I was left
wondering who actually wrote the document. Almost every page reeks
with JNU's left-secularist ardour, barring the occasional bad
grammar. It seems so pre-determined that the entire purpose of
undertaking what was meant to be an "impartial inquiry" becomes a
breathless blitz against Hindu sentiment. Terms like pseudo-moderate,
used particularly to lampoon Atal Bihari Vajpayee give the game away.
It's typically JNU intelligentsia's too-clever-by-half retort to LK
Advani's famous coinage -- pseudo-secularist. There are long passages
of pedestrian political philosophy lamenting how some politicians
prioritise pursuit of power, as if politicians are supposed to
renounce politics, abjure power, migrate to the jungles and meditate
over their destiny!
Copious tears are shed over the presumed attempt by some people to
perpetuate casteism (what's that got to with Babri?) and damage
India's secular fabric although that is a basic feature of the
Constitution. (The word 'secular', incidentally, was introduced in
the Preamble of the Constitution along with 'socialist' only by an
amendment passed during the Emergency years by Indira Gandhi). Also
ironic is the fact that Justice Liberhan took nearly 182 months to
compile his report when the same thing was completed by the CBI in 9!
Cases are going on in various courts on the basis of CBI charge-
sheets since then. In other words, the Liberhan report is of mere
academic interest today although the use of 'academic' in the context
of this boring essay is rather misplaced.
It is not my intention to compete with Justice Liberhan to produce an
antidote for insomnia. I shall, therefore, refer only to something
that concerns me personally. Having just come across LK Advani's
testimony before the Commission spanning from April 2001 to January
2002, I was surprised by the number of references to my reports
regarding the fateful events of December 6, 1992, that appeared in
Hindustan Times (of which I was then Executive Editor). On several
occasions, the Commission's counsel Anupam Gupta, whose ideological
affinities are well known, attempted to trip up Advani by referring
to passages in two reports I filed from Ayodhya ("All domes collapse
under kar sewaks' onslaught" published December 7 and "Control room
that had no control", December 8, 1992). In his reply to one of
Gupta's queries, Advani said: "I would think that as Chandan Mitra
has said this, Chandan Mitra would be a very valuable witness before
the Commission because I can affirm that he was present on the
terrace (Ram Katha Kunj, makeshift dais where BJP/VHP leaders had
assembled) for most of the time. And, therefore, if the Commission
were to hear from him what precisely he saw and heard, that would be
a very valuable testimony."
Interestingly, I never got any summons from the Commission although
it questioned 1,500 witnesses and virtually every journalist who was
present in the Ram Mandir/Babri Masjid complex that day. In its
report, the Commission narrates at length the alleged manhandling of
Ruchira Gupta who was reporting for Business India those days. It
reproduces without verification her (patently false) claim that she
was manhandled by kar sewaks and her clothes torn. Had the Commission
summoned me I would have testified under oath that nothing of the
kind happened. She accompanied me, despite my pleas to the contrary,
when I decided to visit the structure under destruction. In fact, she
was saved by an assistant to Pramod Mahajan who pushed her out of the
way because some kar sewaks got agitated by her remarks and demanded
to know who she was, doubting her claim to be a kar sewak despite the
saffron bandana she wore to pretend being a member of the demolition
squad.
I was not remotely associated with the BJP those days and my reports
in HT were factual and non-commentative, unlike those of my Leftist
compatriots. Those two reports are still widely referred to by
Western researchers into the demolition and its aftermath. Yet, the
Commission never thought it fit to call me for evidence. But then, I
am in august company. Justice Liberhan who liberally savages Atal
Bihari Vajpayee in his report, never called him to testify either.
After the leak of the document, Liberhan even denied on camera that
Vajpayee had been pilloried. I can excuse the retired judge. If
anybody takes 17 years to compile a litany of half-truths and
untruths, memory can well play truant. Unless, of course, the
report's authorship itself is in some doubt!
http://dailypioneer.com/219008/Liberties-Liberhan-took.html
AUM
VISHVA HINDU PARISHAD
Sankat Mochan Ashram, Sector-6, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110022
Tel. 011-26178992, 26103495 Fax : 26195527
Dec. 1, 2009
ANALYSIS OF THE LIBERHAN AYODHYA COMMISSION OF INQUIRY REPORT
COMMISSION EXPOSED MORE THAN THE FACTS
The Commission was constituted with the following terms of reference
to enquire into the following issues:-
1. Sequence of events leading to, and all the facts and circumstances
relating to, the occurrence in the RJBM complex at Ayodhya on 6th
December, 1992 involving the destruction of the RJBM structure.
2. The role played by the Chief Minister, Members of the Council of
Ministers, Officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and by the
individuals, concerned organizations and agencies in or in connection
with the destruction of the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid structure.
3. The deficiencies in the security measures and other arrangements
as prescribed or operated in practice by the Government of Uttar
Pradesh which might have contributed to the events that took place in
the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid complex, Ayodhya town and Faizabad
on 6th December, 1992.
4. The sequence of events leading to, and all the facts and
circumstances relating to, the assault on media persons at Ayodhya on
6th of December, 1992 and
5. Any other matter related to the subject of enquiry.
Preliminary observations:
The Commission took seventeen long years to present its final report.
The Commission has cost the nation tens of crores of rupees. It has
failed to come up to the expectations of the people. It has failed to
dig out facts and serve the purpose for which it was constituted. The
report appears to be the handiwork of a prejudiced mind that had made
up his mind to give the report on a particular persons &/or
institutions. The Commission seems to have decided beforehand to give
a report of guilty to some individuals and organizations and to give
a clean chit to others. In the process, the Commission has ended in
exposing itself more than exposing the truth behind the episode. The
report stands punctured with numerous contradictions and anomalies.
It is important to note that the Commission has rarely visited the
spot where the alleged incident took place. Its report is paralyzed
with the absence of detailed visit of Ayodhya and the fact that it
has been written only in office. Further, the office of the
Commission was declared by the Government of India to be in Lucknow,
but he never functioned from there but from Delhi.
Went beyond the terms of reference:
1. The Commission in its report in Chapter No. 14 (Conclusions)
on Page 942, Paragraph No. 166.8 says...."The much repeated and much
denied remarks attributed to Govindacharya ----------------------
Comments: It is absolutely misplaced and irrelevant to the terms of
reference. The alleged comments are also reported to have been made
(and also denied) much after December, 1992.
2. At Page No. 958, Para No. 171, the Commission has listed,
among others, the some persons as culpable, viz., Deoraha Baba, A.B.
Vajpayee, Badri Prasad Toshniwal, Moropant Pingle, Onkar Bhave, Prof.
Rajendra Singh, Gurjan Singh, G.M. Lodha, Champat Rai and so many
others.
Comments: But all these persons were never called to defend
themselves by the Commission. If there was any evidence or proof
against any individual, then it was a legal and moral binding on the
Commission to have called them to present their case and defend
themselves. As a judge of High Court he should have known that this
was a primary requirement for justice under the law of jurisprudence
and nobody could be held guilty unless he was called to defend
himself.
3. In this list, Commission has mentioned the name of Shri Pravin
Togadiya also. On or before December 06, 1992, the sphere of
activities of Shri Togadiya was limited to Gujarat only. And so, he
was neither on the dais nor amongst the speakers of the day.
4. At Page 931, Para 162.2 Commission says: "There is no
requirement that the media must be unbiased or independent or that it
must not take sides"
Comment: Everywhere in the world in any form of govt. has anybody so
far said that the media should not be free, fair, impartial and
objective. The above comment of the commission ventures to promote a
fourth estate that is unethical, irresponsible and not honest to
itself.
5. At Page No. 935, Para No. 163.2 the commission says
"For instance, the intransigent stance of the High Court of Uttar
Pradesh, the obdurate attitude of the Governor, the inexplicable
irresponsibility of the Supreme Court's observer and the
shortsightedness of the Supreme Court itself are fascinating and
complex stories, the depths of which I must not plumb."
Comment: This is a highly irresponsible comment by the Chairman of
the Commission who himself was a judge of the High Court. This
unbecoming comment amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court.
Interestingly, the Commission did not call the then Governor of Uttar
Pradesh to appear before him. Yet, he made these disparaging remarks
against the Governor. The Commission also failed to understand that
he was only a judge of the High Court and a judge of the High Court
has no right to comment on the Apex court, that is the Supreme Court.
Conspiracy
6. At Page 917, Para 158.9 the commission says
".........Prognosis of evidence leads to the conclusion that the
mobilisation of the Karsevaks and their convergence to Ayodhya and
Faizabad was neither spontaneous nor voluntary. It was well-
orchestrated and planned......"
But, the same report states:-
At Chapter No. 1, Page No. 15, Para No. 7.4, the Commission states
.."...no evidence was lead or information provided to the Commission
with respect to the conspiracy or pre-planning or the joint common
enterprise by any of these counsels..." (of the Muslim
organisations).
Of the above same chapter in Para 7.5, "......there was no effective
participation on behalf of Muslims as a community or otherwise. No
alternative theory or any version was put forth on behalf of the
Muslims before the Commission..."
In the same paragraph 7.5, it states "...responsible educated
literate citizens claiming to be the leaders of a particular
community or the ones who participated in negotiations preceding the
demolition etc. never came forward to disclose any material or fact
in any form....."
At Chapter 10, page 775, para 130.5
"No documentary or direct evidence is possible in a conspiracy of
this nature, nor unimpeachable and firm evidence of some action of
planning of demolition was obtainable"
At page 782 para 130.24 commission says:
"....Home secretary Godbole stated that there was No information of
planning and as such it could not be inferred that there was a
conspiracy of the Congress & BJP for demolition,..."
Comment: Then, on what grounds, evidence and justification has the
Commission come to the conclusion that it "was well-orchestrated and
planned".
At the same time it needs to be taken note of the fact that after
demolition of the alleged structure on December 06, 1992 three
organizations namely RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal were banned through
Government notifications under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 on 10th December, 1992. As per the requirement of this Act,
a Tribunal headed by Justice P.K. Bahri, the sitting Judge of Delhi
High Court was constituted on 30th December, 1992. Being a
constitutional body, after due trial, the tribunal delivered its
verdict on 18th June, 1993 which has been published by the Government
in official gazette (The Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part-II,
Section-3, Sub-section-II).
At Page 71 of this gazette, the tribunal holds "...It is pertinent to
mention that PW-7 has categorically admitted that there was no
material evidence to show that these associations had pre-planned the
destruction of the disputed structure. It is admitted by PW-7 again
that a video recording of the events which took place on the fateful
day on December 06, 1992 at Ayodhya was prepared by the IB..."
On page No. 72 in the same verdict Justice Bahri states "...even the
white paper prepared by the Central Government does not support this
theory of pre-planning for destruction of the disputed structure by
these associations or their workers..."
It is worth mentioning that PW-7 Mr. Padhi was a very senior officer
of the Intelligence Bureau and authorised by the Government of India
to present the case before the Bahri Tribunal.
The above facts clearly shows the prejudiced mind of the Commission
which has written its report in a pre-meditated manner. Justice Bahri
was a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal he was
heading, was a judicial body whose verdict was binding on the
Government. On \the other hand, the report of the Liberhan Commission
has no legal binding on the Government and is just recommendatory in
nature which the Government may or may not accept.
The Commission seems to have been suffering from the same ailments
which he mentions in Page No. 1, Chapter No. 1 (Introduction), Para
No. 1.1 "...For some, the temptation of power is supreme. The usual
means for acquiring power is through politics. There is always an
urge and quest to use politics for acquiring power and for one's own
purpose -- nothing matters beyond political desirable results,
however achieved. In the process of acquisition of power the
consequence of the process on the institution, the nation,
individuals and society as a whole does not matter. Life itself
becomes politicised. Objectivity or intellectual honesty or logic is
lost in the process..."
Comment: His words apply more aptly to the Commission itself.
Despite government orders and wish, he never functioned from Lucknow.
He stuck to Delhi with "an urge and quest to use politics for
acquiring power and for one's own purpose".
Supports Ramjanambhoomi
By accident or design, the Commission seems to have made some
inadvertent observations which cannot be contradicted or
controverted. He has ended up supporting the Ramjanambhoomi case:
In Chapter No. 2 (Ayodhya & its Geography)
page No. 23 the Report says:
Para 9.1: "Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the
birth place of the Hindu God Rama and is therefore regarded as a holy
and historical city."
Para 9.2: "Ancient Ayodhya was traditionally the epitome of Hindu
life, culture and a paradigm of coexistence of a multi-religious
society. It was a peaceful place with a regular influx of visitors,
pilgrims, Sadhus and Sants, monks, travellers, tourists."
Para 9.3 : "Ayodhya was also known variously as Vishala,
khosla(sic) or Maha Khosla, Ikshvaku, Ram Puri, Ra Janam Bhoomi"
Para 9.4: "Ayodhya is of special and specific importance for the
sect of Ram believers or those loosely term as the Ramanandis in
Hindu Religion. The place was the place of unequaled pilgrimage for
Hindus, Monks, travelers, pilgrims,sadhus & sants irrespective of
their region & faith."
Para 9.5 : ..."This Place had become emotive issue owing to its
position as the birth place of Ram, a theme present in every facet of
the culture, connecting the past with the present & the future. this
religious fervour had kept the town for centuries alive after success
ruler had gone by.
Page 25, Para-10.3 :
"On the East of Ayodhya is Faizabad town with a population of about
2,10,000. It has a large number of temples mostly dedicated to the
Hindu God Vishnu."
Page-26, Para-10.10
"The town is currently inhibited (sic) (inhabited!) With a multi-
religious population consisting of Muslims, Buddhist, Sikhs,
Christians, Jains, etc., but the majority of the population is Hindu.
The temples were open to public of all denominations."
Page 29, Para 12.1
"There are large numbers of temples, mosques, shrines, tombs, gardens
and other religious monuments spread over a large area; rather,
metaphorically it is said that in Ayodhya every house is a temple."
Page 29, Para 12.2
"Prominent temples were Sankat Mochan Mandir, Shakti Gopal Mandir,
Shesh Avatar temple, Ved Mandir, Maniram Ki Chawni, Hanuman Garhi,
Preethi Ke Thakur, Kanak Bhawan, Rang Mahal, Anand Bhawan, and
Kasushalya Bhawan........"
Page 32, Para 12.12
"The topography and facts about Ram Katha Kunj, Ayodhya town or the
Ram Janambhoomi complex or Ram Katha Kunj or the disputed structure
are however not disputed. The facts are corroborated by NC Padhi in
his statement with no contradiction."
Chapter-4 (Sequence of Events)
Page 61, Para 18.6
"In the year 1528, the Mughal Emperor Babar ordered his commander Mir
Baqi to erect a mosque at Ayodhya. Protagonists of the present
movement claimed that after demolishing the temple at the birth place
of Ram, Mir Baqi constructed the mosque i.e. the "disputed
structure."
Page 61, Para 18.8
"Worship of idols installed on the Ram Chabutra by Hindu devotees in
general was performed for a considerable period. There was no
objection from the Muslims staking the counter claim prior to the
shifting of idols into the disputed structure in 1949."
Page 62, Para 18.9
"It is, however, not the Commission's mandate to record a finding
with respect to the exact question of history and a discourse on
whether a mosque was constructed at the place of temple is outside
the Commission's purview. Suffice to say, the construction of the
mosque by Mir Baqi in 1528 is now an admitted fact."
Page 63, Para 18.13
"Although, there was no order restraining the Muslims from going to
the disputed structure or from offering Namaz therein either by the
judiciary or from the administration, yet namaz was not offered at
the disputed structure since 1934. No processions were taken out
inside the disputed structure nor any grave dug there about."
Comment: This clearly shows that the Commission indirectly confirms
that a mosque was constructed at the site of the temple. Ayodhya is
in existence from times immemorial while Babur came much afterwards
and the mosque was constructed in 1528 CE.
Page 88, para 26.2 say:
"...It is noteworthy that no member of the Muslim community from
Ayodhya was a member of the Babri Masjid Action committee or other
committee protesting the opening of locks at the disputed structure.
Sultan Shahabuddin Owaisi, aMember of Parliament from Hyderabad
challenged the opening of locks alongwith some others became a
forerunner for taking on the Hindu organisation"
Page 89 Para 26.4 says:
"Muslims variously protested between 1st of January to the 30th of
March, 1987. Apart from giving calls for, boycotting Republic Day
(which call was later withdrawn), Bandhs were observed and a public
rally held at Boat Club in Delhi.Public threats of violence were made
by personalities no less than the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid,
Shahabuddin and Suleiman Sait, etc."
Comment: Yet the Commission fails to make any adverse comment on
these individuals.
In Paragraph 158.3 the Commission says that it "...never became a
movement...". Whereas, in Para 158.9 & 159.10, it contradicted itself
with the contention as to "...entire process of the movement" and
"...leaders of the movement".
Chapter 1 (INTRODUCTION)
Page 15, Para 7.3
"Prominent members of the Muslim community claimed on behalf of their
constituents, to be adversely affected by the demolition, in their
sentiments and emotions. They claimed that their religious feelings
were hurt. Initially various councils (sic) (counsels) representing
the Babri Masjid Action Committee, Waqf Board, other Muslim
organizations and individuals appeared and associated with the
Commission before and during the framing of the Commission's rules."
Page 15, Para 7.4
"Thereafter, it was in the last stages, i.e., almost after a decade,
that the counsel for the Muslim Law Board joined the proceedings.
Mushtaq Ahmed started appearing before the Commission after half a
decade of its existence; before the joining or associating of the
Muslim Law Board before the Commission. Azad Makhmal representing
Shahabuddin and another lawyer A. Haq showed up once or twice but
made no worthwhile contribution to the inquiry. Mushtaq Ahmed did,
however, cross-examined some witnesses intermittently. After a decade
of the Commission's inquiry, one Bahar-ul-Barki representing the
AIMLB appeared along with senior Counsel, Yusuf Muchhala representing
the Muslim Personal Law Board and cross-examined some key witnesses
like L.K. Adjani in part. No evidence was led or information provided
to the Commission with respect to the conspiracy or pre-planning or
the joint common enterprise, by any of these counsels. O.P. Sharma,
advocate who also joined almost the fag end of the inquiry conducted
himself equally ineffectually."
At Page 17 Para 8.3 the Commission says:
"The dispute with respect to disputed structure is proclaimed to be
as ancient as history. Innumerable writings in books and research
papers, commission proceedings were placed on the record of the
commission. The title of the property was never settled much less
finally by any civil court which is still pending before the
honourable high court till date. From time to time rulers of the time
permitted the people of their faith the possession."
Story of acquisition of 2.77 acres of land surrounding the structure:
The 2.77 acres land was acquired by the UP Govt. on Oct. 1991 for
public purpose. This acquisition was challenged in the Lucknow bench
of Allahabad High court by a local Muslim. The case was heard by
full bench comprising of Hon'ble justice H.C. Mathur, Hon. Justice
Brijesh Kumar & Hon. Justice S.H.A. Raza. The arguments were over by
Nov.04, 1992. The date fixed for the pronouncement of the judgement
was 4th December 1992. Justice Mathur & Justice Brijesh Kumar had
already written their openion regarding this acquisition order. But
the justice Raza delayed the pronouncement of its Judgement to the
11th of December 1992 which was after the 6th December, date fixed
for commencement of karsewa.
This deliberate delay in pronouncement of the order infused a sense
of disappointment in the mind of the people to get justice and
ultimately led to the incidents. The Kar sevaks broke loose and
climbed up the disputed structure. The structure was made to collepse
in five hours and a temporary canopy (makeshift structure) was
errected on the debris of the disputed structure where the Pooja is
going on.
A few words regarding the civil suites:
The first civil suit regarding the title of Ram Janambhoomi was filed
in 1950 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 1/1989). The second suit was
filed in 1959 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 3/1989). The third
suit was filed in 1961 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 4/1989). The
fourth suit was filed in 1989 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No.
5/1989). For 40 years the cases remained hanging fire in district
court of Faizabad.
After 40 years, in 1989 these cases were transferred to the Lucknow
bench of the Allahabad High Court. Since then another twenty years
have passed. Due to the retirement of one or the other judge, the
bench had to be reconstituted eleven times and consequently the
justice is not only been delayed but also derailed and denied.
Conclusion:
Even after 40+ extensions during seventeen long years of the
country's valuable time and wasting four years in marely preparing
huge volume of useless report, the commission declared many
prominent personalities as culpable without giving them a chance of
hearing. It is shameful that in its long list of culprits one had
already been died before the date of incident and seventeen therafter
before submission of its report. The adverse comments made towards
the apex judiciary of the country, Media, head of the state(governor)
and other respectable segments of the society are highly
unacceptable.
Convened by Chamapat Rai, Joint General Secretary-VHP, and compiled
by members of the team i.e. Amba Charan Vashisth, K.K. Sharma, Vinod
Bansal, Rakesh Upadhyay.
Kindly Note & Circulate to all your contacts.
REGARDS
VINOD BANSAL
(MEDIA COORDINATOR)
VISHWA HINDU PARISHAD, Delhi
M - 98109 49109
ivhp...@gmail.com
End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
hari....@indero.com
of the tribals, the original people of the area and with the original
religions of s. asia.
I say return all tribal sacred places to them and their control.
Mirza Ghalib
Till recently you were straight and simple anti-Hindu. Now
overnight you have become pro-tribal. Have you discovered
your roots finally?
hari....@indero.com
> of the tribals, the original people of the area and with the original
> religions of s. asia.
>
> I say return all tribal sacred places to them and their control.
"Till recently you were straight and simple anti-Hindu. Now overnight
you have become pro-tribal. Have you discovered your roots finally?"
Don't be silly, I'm not anti any ethnic group. I'm pro human rights and
rule of law and moral justice. To that end I'm accused of all manner of
things, of being of this ethnic group or another. The curse of s. asia,
one must, must we demand, be a label so we can make sense of you and
find your proper place.
It so happens that tribals are on the short end too often of human
rights and equal treatment before the law and moral justice.
That they exist is often refutation of many of the self glory claims and
revisionist history some want to apply to themselves.
António Marques
thread.)
There *are* 'tribal' communities in India preserving ancient
cultures/religions? I had no idea of that (aside from the Andaman islands,
of course).
hari....@indero.com
cultures/religions? I had no idea of that (aside from the Andaman
islands, of course)."
Yes, there are hundreds depending on how one defines them.
M. Ranjit Mathews
Did these ancient cultures/religions have caste systems? If not, how
do tribals escape a caste system by converting to another religion
with no caste system?
M. Ranjit Mathews
Did these ancient cultures/religions have caste systems? If not, how
hari....@indero.com
> cultures/religions? I had no idea of that (aside from the Andaman
> islands, of course)."
>
> Yes, there are hundreds depending on how one defines them.
"Did these ancient cultures/religions have caste systems? If not, how"
No, egalitarianism is one of the common hallmarks for them. do tribals
"escape a caste system by converting to another religion "with no caste
system?"
Depends on which religion one assumes? My remarks about the existence
of them in s. asia had nothing to do with conversion.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> > "There *are* 'tribal' communities in India preserving ancient
> > cultures/religions? I had no idea of that (aside from the Andaman
> > islands, of course)."
>
> > Yes, there are hundreds depending on how one defines them.
>
> "Did these ancient cultures/religions have caste systems? If not, how"
>
> No, egalitarianism is one of the common hallmarks for them.
Ah, so? Do people of one tribe treat people of a different tribe as
equals regardless of their being from a different ancient culture and/
or their practising a different ancient religion?
> do tribals escape a caste system by converting to another religion "with no caste
> system?"
>
> Depends on which religion one assumes? My remarks about the existence
> of them in s. asia had nothing to do with conversion.
True. Your remarks had nothing to do with conversion. My question,
however, has something to do with claims about the sociology of
tribals, that people other than you have made in the context of their
supposition that conversion gives relief to tribals, from the caste
system.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
> "uNmaiviLambi" <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2eb75eda-44ae-4e06...@s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 31, 10:00 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 8:49 am, hari.ku...@indero.com wrote:
>
> > Why is it often claimed that unlike other religions, Hinduism has a
> > caste system and that tribals convert to Christianity to escape a
> > caste system? How can people of a non-Hindu religion with no caste
> > system escape a caste system that they don't have by converting to
> > another religion with no caste system?
> <<Europeans referred to all Hindus as tribals! Any one does not submit
> to them is a tribal and pagan!
>
> Not just st/sc but all Hindus and even others in other lands! These
> are words used by crooks>>
> smartly said.
> and of course, the brown kirastanistas are not left behind their white
> european masters.
To whom they are worse than used toilet paper.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> ..."...no evidence was lead or information provided to the Commission
