The Nirmukta Freethought Community

Todays Allahabad High Court verdict is a lesson in bad judicial practice. Let me cast aside the other short comings and go straight to the part on Ram's birthplace. In a so-called secular state I find it hard to believe that a court of law, a constitutional court nonetheless, can decide it prudent to decide on a matter that has no other proof than the faith of mislead people on the veracity of the claim that the plot of land is the birthplace of Ram. I am very angry.

(30-09-2010 10:17 PM)rahuldsouza Wrote:  Todays Allahabad High Court verdict is a lesson in bad judicial practice. Let me cast aside the other short comings and go straight to the part on Ram's birthplace. In a so-called secular state I find it hard to believe that a court of law, a constitutional court nonetheless, can decide it prudent to decide on a matter that has no other proof than the faith of mislead people on the veracity of the claim that the plot of land is the birthplace of Ram. I am very angry.

I was surprised, ashamed and angry hearing the decision !

(30-09-2010 10:17 PM)rahuldsouza Wrote:  Todays Allahabad High Court verdict is a lesson in bad judicial practice. Let me cast aside the other short comings and go straight to the part on Ram's birthplace. In a so-called secular state I find it hard to believe that a court of law, a constitutional court nonetheless, can decide it prudent to decide on a matter that has no other proof than the faith of mislead people on the veracity of the claim that the plot of land is the birthplace of Ram. I am very angry.

While it is quite true that the birthplace of Ram cannot be proved in a court of law, the court's judgement might just be a way to settle the dispute. In any case, I think it is too early to say what the judges had in mind when they made their rulings. I haven't seen any news about the details of the judgement yet. Are their rulings out and available to the general public yet?

At the very least, let us keep our freethinking heads together and not use this forum as a place to rant incoherently.

(30-09-2010 11:32 PM)donatello Wrote:  While it is quite true that the birthplace of Ram cannot be proved in a court of law, the court's judgement might just be a way to settle the dispute.
At the very least, let us keep our freethinking heads together and not use this forum as a place to rant incoherently.

I agree.
Any freethinker would say 'How does a land become holy in the first place'? If you say your 'God' was born there, you got to be kidding me.
Our country's Legal system isnt built on modern-day freethought, so as long as the judgements are pragmatic enough to settle this idotic dispute in the first place, I am happy.

(30-09-2010 11:32 PM)donatello Wrote:  I haven't seen any news about the details of the judgement yet. Are their rulings out and available to the general public yet?

The complete judgment is available here.

What would have gone legally wrong if the land was not given to anyone? The land could have been kept as govt. property where anyone can enter and pray by oneself without interfering with each other.I am probably very naive in the statement, but what could have gone wrong in such a decision.

Gist of Judgements:
http://rjbm.nic.in/

Brief Summary of Judgement by Justice Sharma:
http://rjbm.nic.in/dv1.pdf

From pg. 18:

"Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman & Ors. Vs. Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors.
The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri
Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the
defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the
temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are
perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.
This Court is of the view that place of birth that is Ram Janm
Bhumi is a juristic person. The deity also attained the divinity like
Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of
divine worshipped as the birth place of Ram Lala or Lord Ram as
a child . Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all
times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance
with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
Case has been decided on the basis of decision of Hon'ble the Apex
Court specially the law as laid down in 1999(5) SCC page 50,
Ram Janki Deity Vs. State of Bihar, Gokul Nath Ji Mahraj Vs.
Nathji Bhogilal AIR 1953 Allahabad 552, AIR 1967 Supreme
Court 1044 Bishwanath and another Vs. Shri Thakur
Radhabhallabhji and others & other decisions of Privy Council."

(I find this appalling. The suit has been filed on behalf of a deity and accepted by a court of law and the judgement is based on the judge's beliefs. Further, the judge has given his ruling based on the ASI's report of an earlier structure. This report has been contested by historians. Elsewhere the judge goes on to accept and mention beliefs of Hindus in general, while finding technical snags in the Waqf board's suit.
As rationalists, we should be concerned about the faith part, but as a minority group ourselves, also about the rights of minorities as the only thing that protects their lives and property is the rule of law.)

Justice Sharma's interview to a television channel:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Video/0/42/Videos


http://origin-indiatoday.intoday.in/site...judge.html

I didn't know the details when I posted my previous response on this thread. Thanks, Lije for the link. It is surprising that the government thought that a separate site is required just to host the judgement. I was waiting for the court website to come up (it was down all day yesterday).

They have "found" that the birthplace of Ram is at the site of the Babri mosque. How deplorable! I hope the supreme court amends it, and hopefully even censures this judgement.

(01-10-2010 09:35 PM)donatello Wrote:  I hope the supreme court amends it, and hopefully even censures this judgement.

Yes. The Supreme Court in the past has sided with reason and not mob demands. But it will be interesting to see how they judge this. This time the mob they will be dealing with is a lot more powerful than the ones they've dealt before.

This is not the first time Puranic protagonists have made their presence felt in an Indian court. Before the Allahabad HC let the baby Ram crawl to his birthplace, the Supreme Court itself had let the adolescent Krishna prance into his live-in apartment.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_no-...rt_1362499

We did not know what hit us this time, because this time the damage was done not by the mobs but by the courts themselves! As Hitch would say: "This is how deep the termites have spread!"

We also seem to be facing a setback in the 'information war'. The Indian Right which was until recently reduced to whining the spent chant of 'pseudo-secularism' now has discovered fresh potent phrases. They now accuse us of 'convenient Constitutionalism' or 'selective Constitutionalism' and say that our disappointment with this verdict betrays a disregard for the Constitution!

So that we don't play into their hands and also don't cede a field day to them, we must be careful in our choice of tone to convey consternation but not condemnation, dismay but not disapproval. While doing so we must also convey that this is not an isolated example causing a knee-jerk response, but only one of many instances of faith trumping the Law. And to all those peace-loving Indians who may complain that our laments jar against the 'remarkable maturity' being shown by the Indian masses, we only need to ask "Do you want our nation's peace to be based on such insecure foundations as myth?

Donatello takes for the rebuke, i should have posted the verdict (though no link was available when i posted the thread). A lawyer friend of mine had given me a gist of what it contained at the time. Anyway I too hope that the Supreme Court quashes the verdict as it sets a very bad precedent for lower courts to follow when deciding matters that should ideally be beyond its purview. This was a property dispute and should have been solved taking into account real, material things that can be proved rather than relying on shaky "evidence" to come to a almost metaphysical conclusion. On a funny note maybe now Richard Dawkins can confirm his suspicion about the non-existence of fairies in his garden by consulting the High Court Bench in question

(05-10-2010 07:59 PM)rahuldsouza Wrote:  On a funny note maybe now Richard Dawkins can confirm his suspicion about the non-existence of fairies in his garden by consulting the High Court Bench in question

That shouldn't be a problem if a fairy is a 'juristic person'!