All the Indians in the House - Please Discuss

[KhalsaWarrior]

to the Muslims,
this is like our mecca, please know we showed proof and we gave 1 third of the land for your masjid.

HP, its more complex than that. What about the demolition of the mosque? How to prosecute the perpetrators of that ghastly incident?

[SinghIsKing]

Isn't India a secular nation? Why was the ruling done in favor for Hindus?

Ruling is not in the favour of Hindus. It is in favour of Indians. FYI Qutub minar was built on 27 Jain temples. In Mathura documents of the Krishna Janam Bhoomi land on which the mosque still exist(built by Aurangjeb) are in possession of Hindus. But due to THE PLACES OF WORSHIP (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1991 no body can touch the mosque now. Babri case was unique because this case has been being presented in different courts like moghuls, British, Modern Indian court, for the centuries.

[spogmai shaglay]

i always wanted to ask...but never got a a chanceor rather i did not want to hurt the sentiments of people to whom i would pose this question...but this seems the right place and right time and i think there are right people here to answer....

When Ramayana is a myth, written by Valmiki, as everyone believes, then where is the question of the birthplace of Lord Ram......its only in the mythology that he wrote that Lord Ram was born in so and so place.....but in reality??????????

whther a Temple was there or not? is another question.....

[Feroza_Banu]

awesome posts and awesome discussion.

I think there is no way for Hindus to prove it as 100% that the place is a birth place of Ram, but i am sure they can bring numberous evidence (may it be myth or fact) that he was born there. They consider this place very holly and sacred. You can not decide for people to feel what u want them to feel... if they consider it holly and sacred then they do and the judicial system had to find a very professional way to handle this situation. because lets face it, Religion has a huge impact on how our societies operate. Our Nations are always willing to sacrifice their life or to kill in the name of Religion. Keeping this in mind, they had to find a way to keep peace in the country.

I believe they have dealt with it in a very professional manner. and i hope and pray that no political party takes advantage of this 1 to 2 ratio and doesn't delcare it as a win or loss of anyone.


Thank you Sing for providing that "The place of worship Provision act 1991" I had the same question in mind regarding other mosques.

[KhalsaWarrior]

i always wanted to ask...but never got a a chanceor rather i did not want to hurt the sentiments of people to whom i would pose this question...but this seems the right place and right time and i think there are right people here to answer....

When Ramayana is a myth, written by Valmiki, as everyone believes, then where is the question of the birthplace of Lord Ram......its only in the mythology that he wrote that Lord Ram was born in so and so place.....but in reality??????????

whther a Temple was there or not? is another question.....

Sister, you have asked a perfectly valid question. There is no archeological proof but just the writings of a sage Valmiki and the poet Kalidasa, both of whom were born centuries after the entire episodes of Ramayana took place. Now lests look at other examples. Did Jesus exist? Some historians say that his teachings have a strong Buddhist lineage and he could have been a Buddhist monk. Some say that he lived and died in India. There is even a Yesu's mosque in Srinagar, Kashmir which is said to be his final resting place. You can read more about it in the book "Jesus lived in India". Even the dates of major Christian festivals like Christmas and Easter coincide with major Pagan festivals that were based on the Lunar calendar. Christmas occurs on the day of the winter solstice. So was Christianity really a new separate religion or did Roman emperor Constantine and the first Pope package the old Roman religion into a new bottle to win over the masses?

And not to offend anyone, but whats the evidence that Prophet Mohammed lived in Mecca or Medina?

The point I am trying to make is that these incidents happened so far back that there is no definite way to prove their actual occurence. Now Ramayans was certainly based on a mighty king. Probably super-natural events and mythological bearing were added later on by some poets to stress upon the divine right of Kings. We would never know. Somewhat like Mahabharata which was actually based on the war of the 10 tribes. A war fought between the older Aryans (the one who came first to the Indian subcontinent) and the new Aryans (the one who arrived later) but was there a character called Krishna, a divine incarnate or was that added later?

This is a tricky subject and you would get lots of perspectives. But I think overall, the Allahabad bench of the Lucknow HC did a good job. They tried to placate as many parties as possible while keeping the importance of their faiths in mind.

KW

[SinghIsKing]

i always wanted to ask...but never got a a chanceor rather i did not want to hurt the sentiments of people to whom i would pose this question...but this seems the right place and right time and i think there are right people here to answer....

When Ramayana is a myth, written by Valmiki, as everyone believes, then where is the question of the birthplace of Lord Ram......its only in the mythology that he wrote that Lord Ram was born in so and so place.....but in reality??????????

whther a Temple was there or not? is another question.....

I am an atheist but born in a Hindu Family so I think I can answer your question in a more pragmatic way.
I am not sure that Ramayana is a complete myth or not. IMO there may had been two kings Ram and Rawana. Ram may had been a very pious person. You know that We worship Idols and in ancient times any pious person was treated as God by Indians so People may had been started to believe that Ram is an incarnation of God. So Writes of those time started to write his autobiography with various added fiction to glorify Ram like a God.
However Above paragraph is my imagination and one possibility but I don't have any scientific or archaeological proof of that. So Now you will say that then what is the fuss about that particular place. I am going to present logic behind that.
You know Gupta Period is golden period of Indian civilization. In gupta period King wanted to re-established RamRajya (Kingdom of Ram) so they appointed Brahmins to find the place of birth of Lord Ram. Brahmins found that place(How?? I don't know. In those days people used not to question authority of Brahmins) and Gupta Knigs re founded the Ayodhya city and built a temple there, which was mentioned in Ramayana.
Now all educated Hindus know that Ram was not a god.(I even think god doesn't exist) But main question here is that whether that place is the same place, where Hindus used to believe that Ram was born and a temple was built by Gupta Kings. The existence of temple has been proved by ASI but many people are also questioning that report. So no body is arguing here that whether Ram was born or not but Hindus only want to make sure that whether that is the same place or not where they believe a temple of Ram was demolished for construction of a mosque.

However I don't agree with this logic of Hindus because constitution of modern India should not go in Historical disputes which existed before Modern India's existence. Past is past so no need to dig past. All Indian should behave according to constitution of India which came into existence 0n 26th November 1949.

[drona]

Now all educated Hindus know that Ram was not a god.(I even think god doesn't exist

I know a lot of PHD holders who worship L. Rama.

The existence of temple has been proved by ASI but many people are also questioning that report.

The people who are questioning reports have a vested interest in doing that. It was these very "historians" who gave statements that there was no temple in the court. But their conclusions were rejected by the court, on the basis of evidence given by other experts. If you want I can post the relevant texts of the judgment that prove how these "historians" base their conclusions on opinions rather than facts.

However I don't agree with this logic of Hindus because constitution of modern India should not go in Historical disputes which existed before Modern India's existence

For a devout Hindu, this is a religious issue rather than a historical one.

The problem in our country is whilst the faith of the majority gets rubbished by the "intellectuals" of all tribes, these very same worthies will never criticize even the most archaic and obscurantist interpretations of Islam. IMHO All faiths should be given equal respect or criticism. Otherwise a groundswell of discontent and anger grows within the majority, which one party or another is going to capitalize on. The tragic demolition of Babri Masjid was the direct consequence of this phenomenon.


Regards,
Drona

[drona]

BTW there's a insidious campaign going on in mainstream media to create a sense of victimhood amongst the Muslims and disturb Hindu-Muslim harmony. All kinds of articles are being published, but not a single newspaper has published this particular picture. Believe me I have been to many mosques, but I don't think this pillar belongs in a mosque.

[drona]

shlombay,
1/3 was given to Sunni Waqf Board which controls all Mosque properties in India.
1/3 was given to Nirmohi Akhada which is a sect of Hindu Sadhus who were fighting for this land since 19th century
1/3 was given to organizations representing L. Rama.

Regards,
Drona

[Feroza_Banu]

BTW there's a insidious campaign going on in mainstream media to create a sense of victimhood amongst the Muslims and disturb Hindu-Muslim harmony. All kinds of articles are being published, but not a single newspaper has published this particular picture. Believe me I have been to many mosques, but I don't think this pillar belongs in a mosque.

Thanks for suaring. it does look like a mandir post.

[Feroza_Banu]

shlombay,
1/3 was given to Sunni Waqf Board which controls all Mosque properties in India.
1/3 was given to Nirmohi Akhada which is a sect of Hindu Sadhus who were fighting for this land since 19th century
1/3 was given to organizations representing L. Rama.

Regards,
Drona

how is this place sacred to "Nirmohi Akhada" group?
the existance of temple?

[KhalsaWarrior]

Does Hinduism itself have sect cause I read 1/3 was given to another sect or something.

You cant keep a count of 'em!

The fight between the Nirmohi Akhara (the sect in question) and the other Hindu faction is also about control of the monetary offerings to the temple/shrine. Add to it the politics of the VHP/RSS and you have a complex mixture.

[SinghIsKing]

I know a lot of PHD holders who worship L. Rama.

The people who are questioning reports have a vested interest in doing that. It was these very "historians" who gave statements that there was no temple in the court. But their conclusions were rejected by the court, on the basis of evidence given by other experts. If you want I can post the relevant texts of the judgment that prove how these "historians" base their conclusions on opinions rather than facts.

For a devout Hindu, this is a religious issue rather than a historical one.

The problem in our country is whilst the faith of the majority gets rubbished by the "intellectuals" of all tribes, these very same worthies will never criticize even the most archaic and obscurantist interpretations of Islam. IMHO All faiths should be given equal respect or criticism. Otherwise a groundswell of discontent and anger grows within the majority, which one party or another is going to capitalize on. The tragic demolition of Babri Masjid was the direct consequence of this phenomenon.


Regards,
Drona

Bro, I am only saying that Present India came into existence on 15th August 1947 and adopted a new constitution on 26th January 1950. So It should not go in cases of British India or Moghul India. Our country is a secular country so at least It should have maintained the status-quo in case of Babri mosque. It is jurisdiction of court to proof title of that land but removing a mosque was not in the constitutional framework.

[SinghIsKing]

how is this place sacred to "Nirmohi Akhada" group?
the existance of temple?

No they have shared this land with muslims for centuries so they also wanted there right to build home of sadhus. Total land is 67 acre. Some of that land was in possession of Muslims, majority of the land was in possession of Nirmohi akhada. So In this situation Nirmohi Akhada is sacrificing some of its land for Lord Ram and muslims are getting extra land but they have to sacrifice the central dome of the mosque.

[spogmai shaglay]

Sister, you have asked a perfectly valid question. There is no archeological proof but just the writings of a sage Valmiki and the poet Kalidasa, both of whom were born centuries after the entire episodes of Ramayana took place. Now lests look at other examples. Did Jesus exist? Some historians say that his teachings have a strong Buddhist lineage and he could have been a Buddhist monk. Some say that he lived and died in India. There is even a Yesu's mosque in Srinagar, Kashmir which is said to be his final resting place. You can read more about it in the book "Jesus lived in India". Even the dates of major Christian festivals like Christmas and Easter coincide with major Pagan festivals that were based on the Lunar calendar. Christmas occurs on the day of the winter solstice. So was Christianity really a new separate religion or did Roman emperor Constantine and the first Pope package the old Roman religion into a new bottle to win over the masses?

And not to offend anyone, but whats the evidence that Prophet Mohammed lived in Mecca or Medina?

The point I am trying to make is that these incidents happened so far back that there is no definite way to prove their actual occurence. Now Ramayans was certainly based on a mighty king. Probably super-natural events and mythological bearing were added later on by some poets to stress upon the divine right of Kings. We would never know. Somewhat like Mahabharata which was actually based on the war of the 10 tribes. A war fought between the older Aryans (the one who came first to the Indian subcontinent) and the new Aryans (the one who arrived later) but was there a character called Krishna, a divine incarnate or was that added later?

This is a tricky subject and you would get lots of perspectives. But I think overall, the Allahabad bench of the Lucknow HC did a good job. They tried to placate as many parties as possible while keeping the importance of their faiths in mind.

KW

I have no problem with the final verdict of the Babri Masjid case.....justice is done...we are talking about how people have takenit so well.... no cases of disharmony or riots anywhere... this has happened because we say people want peace, want to go ahead, dontwant dig the past,,,,i also had mentione something lik ethis.,..

but now i think what if the verdict would have been one sided??????? likeonly in favour of muslims (which of course wasnt possible at all) or only in favour of Hindus????????

and we do have archeological proof of the existence of Prophet Mohommad......and whther he was in Makka or Madina.....

Mulsims have never themselves said things like whether Hazrat Isa (Jesus)existed or not or prophet Mohommad was inMakka or not ( i am not talking about the muslims who turned into Atheist)......

when Ramayan was made on TV the 1st if u remember, which i use to watch with so much of interest as i loveto watch mythological programs...
mythological serial which means myth,,,,,,,andnot fact......this question is to clarify my doubt......

Mahabharta too i have seen,,,,,where Krishna takes the side of Kauravs who are suppose to villians......

also Draupadi who had 5 husbands that to all husbands were brothers.....when hinduism doesnt allow polygamy then how was this possible that too under time Lord Krishna....there would have been some reason for it.......can u please throw some light onthis??????? itsonly for my knowledge thats all....