| Author | Message | ||
     Chiru_fan Hero Username: Chiru_fan Post Number: 13851 Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 108.12.164.245 Rating: N/A |
ee lanjakodukulaki atleast 4-5 fathers vuntaaremo! CHIRU - SACHIN - FEDERER | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 5075 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.192.17 Rating: N/A |
http://dailypioneer.com/287336/Verdict-leaves-âsecular-intellectuals-aghast.html Verdict leaves âsecular' intellectuals aghast October 03, 2010 4:55:35 AM Swapan Dasgupta The suggestion that India has 'moved on' from the turbulent decade of conflict may have become the shorthand for lazy and facile thinking. Yet, there is more than a grain of truth in the deduction that India's priorities have changed significantly in the past 25 years. Last Thursday's High Court judgement on Ayodhya was followed keenly by the entire country. The authorities were apprehensive that the outcome could trigger disturbances and even rioting. But nothing untoward happened either on Thursday or after the Friday prayers. The sound and fury was confined to the tamasha in the TV studios. There were reports of simmering anger in the âMuslim streetâ and a few inflammatory sermons from the pulpit but the disquiet, if any, was internalised. The matter-of-fact way in which India digested the complex High Court judgement suggests three possibilities. Perhaps people just weren't interested â a plausible explanation in a country where the sense of history is feeble. Maybe, people had heeded the Home Minister's advice and were mulling over the verdictâs implications â an implausible explanation in an easily excitable country. Finally, it is indeed possible that most of India thought the verdict â particularly the order for a three-way partition of the contentious 2.77 acres â was fair, just and based on the one thing that counts: Robust common sense. The suggestion that the High Court verdict has enjoyed a spectacular degree of popular acceptance runs counter to the indignation in âintellectualâ circles. Not since the Supreme Courtâs Shah Bano verdict in 1986 was rubbished by clerics and some Ministers of the Rajiv Gandhi Government has any court judgement been at the receiving end of so much abuse by so few. Those who till 4 pm on September 30 were solemnly pontificating on the âmajesty of the law' and the overriding importance of the Indian Constitution went completely berserk after it became clear that the Sunni Waqf Board petition had been rejected and that the court had favoured the Ram lalla deity with possession of its perceived janmasthan. The judgement was compared to a âpanchayatiâ order and âmajoritarian conceitâ and painted as being so outrageous that it destroyed Muslim faith in the judicial process. Additionally, it was pilloried for having reduced Muslims to second class citizens. It is understandable that those convinced of a favourable verdict were deeply disappointed. Ironically, the intemperate, inflammatory and indecorous language didn't come from the representatives of either the Sunni Waqf Board or the Muslim Personal Law Board. Apart from the MP from Hyderabad's Razakar party who was his usual provocative self, it was the cream of India's liberal chic that went berserk. Some of the outburst was predictable. Those whom Arun Shourie dubbed the âeminent historiansâ were understandably agitated that the High Court judges had the effrontery to discount their âno-temple-ever' assertions in favour of the evidence culled by the Archaeological Survey of India. Their spirited attempt to reclaim the mantle of sole spokesmen for India's past was understandable. If the courts discount their fatwas, it was only a matter of time before the stifled voices of other historians would make their departmental dominance more fragile. Also following the script was the apoplectic fury of those who had hitherto been the respectable face of secularist modernity. Their apprehension was any possibility that the Hindu and Muslim leaderships would cut a deal above their heads and make redundant their franchise to speak on behalf of the minority. For two days and courtesy some TV channels, the secular modernists attempted to whip up Muslim opinion against the judgement and use the community's apparent displeasure to force the Government into using its proverbial 'good offices' with the Supreme Court. The overall idea is to build up an intellectual climate so forceful that the Supreme Court would think it prudent to overturn the HC judgement. The provocative, self-preservation tactics of the thekedars of conflict â one âsecularâ lady said that the Indian state no longer had a social contract with Muslims, an assertion that could well be construed as legitimising terrorism â would have certainly had a disorienting effect had it been backed by community pressure. Without mincing words, the professional secularists are trying to create a fresh communal schism by nurturing minority victimhood. It's a very dangerous game. Fortunately, India is a country where nothing is really ever perceived in black and white; there are always enough shades of grey to muddy the search for total clarity. There is a constant search for compromise â what is colloquially called âadjustâ â to cope with lifeâs difficulties. True, the quest for harmonious equilibrium does break down occasionally â as it did during the Ayodhya movement â but the desire for unflinching certitudes is usually short-lived. By coupling the letter of the law with the spirit of reconciliation, the High Court has set the framework of a solution. It is important that Middle India is unflinching in its determination to herald a compromise that accommodates both the desire for a Ram temple and an undisputed mosque. For that it is important to not rise to the secularist provocation and keep faith in the good sense of an India that wants to be at peace with all its citizens. If both the Congress and the BJP can keep its nerve and maintain composure, India will soon be witnessing the end of the Ayodhya dispute. | ||
| Kamal Hero Username: Kamal Post Number: 17544 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 24.0.123.37 Rating: N/A |
next judgment varaku calm ga unte muslims ki bokka .. already mulayam/paswan kurrol ninna jarantha petrol posaru .. choostu undandi .. next 1-2 years lo moderate ga aina sare .. sandarbam chusukuni riots chestaru .. for sure .. Jai Sri Ram - Jai Hind  | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 5074 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.192.17 Rating: N/A |
An Hindu americans article on the verdict in washington post http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/aseem_sh ukla/2010/09/a_mosque_a_temple_and_a_court_verdict_in_india. html | ||
| Telugu_times Moderator Username: Telugu_times Post Number: 19105 Registered: 02-2008 Rating: N/A |
Undadhu. eee issue...calm gaa settle avuthey cong ki laabham. Mess avuthey....cong kay bokka | ||
| Kamal Hero Username: Kamal Post Number: 17541 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 24.0.123.37 Rating: N/A |
Supreme Court lo case judgment ki vachelopu .. oka round of bloodshed untundi annai .. dont worry .. judiciary ni threaten chestaru .. ee roju Vjavasi pettina Big Fight video choodandi .. Muslims are invoking "Shariat" in this case now .. so that means .. next round lo Supreme Court lo .. "Muslim faith" ni kooda consider cheyyali annamata .. the confrontation lies ahead .. in different dimensions .. anthe theda .. Jai Sri Ram - Jai Hind | ||
| Telugu_times Moderator Username: Telugu_times Post Number: 19103 Registered: 02-2008 Rating: N/A |
I doubt it, coz ...If the supreme court changes the verdict of last week...there will be tension in Hindu/Muslim groups If the supreme court maintains status quo...(People are already mentally prepared with the last week's decision...), no riots, no TV programs I think...whatever was the judgement of last week is the final, even after Supreme Court | ||
| Kamal Hero Username: Kamal Post Number: 17538 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 24.0.123.37 Rating: N/A |
Supreme Court lo kuda 99% temple construction ki judgment vastundi .. kakapothe the land instead of being divided 1/3 eachway .. will be divided 1/2 into Hindu-Muslim parts anedi naa guess .. ika verdict totally going opposite way is Hindus fear as well .. true .. kaanii ade jarigithe .. BJP or some party with Hindu inclination has to override the judgment with a legislation aka Shah Bano case .. Congress is being accused of "Soft Hindutva" wrt to this case in the last 2-3 days .. as a Hindu .. I fail to understand what did Congress do to be accused of such acts? All they did was sit silently and say they welcome the judgment Jai Sri Ram - Jai Hind | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 5071 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.192.17 Rating: N/A |
another gem by swapandas gupta http://dailypioneer.com/287336/Verdict-leaves-âsecular-intellectuals-aghast.html | ||
| Pplsuck Side Hero Username: Pplsuck Post Number: 2282 Registered: 07-2008 Posted From: 99.229.92.178 Rating: N/A |
hope so...just playing devil's advocate....benefit of doubt to the judge...and my stupid doubts to hell... | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 5064 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.192.17 Rating: N/A |
the judge is addresing muslim constituency....he advised muslim communtiy not to take it as a defeat citing prohet's surrender before he triumphed in mecca....i don't think he is referring to SC here, if you take it positively he may be suggesting it may lead to something good for community in future...in negative sense he may be assuring muslim community they will win the final war http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2010/09/hudaibiya-ownership-o f-ayodhya-hindu.html As of now i take his comment in positive sense | ||
| Pplsuck Side Hero Username: Pplsuck Post Number: 2278 Registered: 07-2008 Posted From: 99.229.92.178 Rating: N/A |
vja, yeah that can be the downside.....just throwing out some ideas..... BTW, ee hudliliyah story enti? may be I am confused and refering to a wrong story.....not intentionally....but trying to understand the story behind this.........first abject surrender and then get it all back....and why he said that in this context..... | ||
| Pplsuck Side Hero Username: Pplsuck Post Number: 2277 Registered: 07-2008 Posted From: 99.229.92.178 Rating: N/A |
>>>>>> nee posts evo nuveeskoka DB members meeda brand veyadaniki nuvvevaru? >>>>>>>>> naa posts kadaa brother vestondi....nee posts etlaa vesthaa???.....brand enti baabu?.......ippudu chiru fan ni chiru fan antaaru....thats not branding......ninna nuvvu, jp_rocks secularism ki for gaa argue chesaaru kadaa....so secular annaa...... and you are definitely not a fundamentalist guy....so liberal annaa...... if you are not them, I take back my words....this is what I understood from your posts.... as part of free speech, I call a chiru fan as a chiru fan....if u think its branding, you are way too sensitive....I am sorry I can't help it....complain to mods.... | ||
| Indiarocks Side Hero Username: Indiarocks Post Number: 5174 Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 96.18.85.62 Rating: N/A |
nee posts evo nuveeskoka DB members meeda brand veyadaniki nuvvevaru? Political parties, at least now, please leave our RAM alone. TIA. | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 5063 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.192.17 Rating: N/A |
If they do that they shoot in their foot....many in india at heart know that it's birth place of RAM.....many are not open on this issue because of characteristic hindu self hatred.....the evidence for Ramajanmabhoomi is overwhelming for any court to ignore....because of media overkill before and after judgement a large section of Hindus came to know about the issues behind RJB.....if supreme court decides on the basis of pseudo-secularism neglecting evidence,tradition and faith it will boomerang and the issue can once gain manifest poltically with much wider support than in 90's and could lead to overturning judgement by legislation | ||
| Pplsuck Side Hero Username: Pplsuck Post Number: 2276 Registered: 07-2008 Posted From: 99.229.92.178 Rating: |
"tondara padi oka koyila mundey koosindi....chindulu vesindi.." Hindus ee verdict ni too much gaa accept chesi, we have to abide by the courts ani statements isthooo.......vaalla goyyi vaaley tavvukuntunnaaru anipistondi....we want that other part that is ours ani fight cheyyadam best strategy kadaa... repu supreme court muslims ki for gaa ichchesthey, anni moosukuni koorchovaali........is it possible hindus are being played by this favorable verdict by high court? and making them utter/accept those statements that we have to stand by the courts decision etc etc....... Look at Judge Khan's statement......first surrender by Mohammad and then getting it all back.....I can't find the references to this story....But if I remember my conversation a while back........there was a story, where these guys accept a treaty to leave the place....and then ambushing the unsuspecting rivals and occupying the place in the middle ofthe night........although the judge says no blood spilled...I am not able to verify....but backstabbing was how they got it....Does history repeat? god knows......hope nobody is celebrating way too early.... that too with liberal secularists like Mulayam, Burkha, Indiarocks, Jp_rocks etc etc........if supreme court gives a verdict against hindus, even god can't save hindus.......and can congress cement their explosively growing vote bank as their own forever???? | ||
| Kamal Hero Username: Kamal Post Number: 17527 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 24.0.123.37 Rating: N/A |
well said .. Jai Sri Ram - Jai Hind | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 5058 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 192.127.94.7 Rating: |
http://www.dailypioneer.com/287020/Ayodhya-triumph-of-Truth. html Ayodhya: triumph of Truth October 02, 2010 1:52:21 AM Sandhya Jain Justice delayed is not necessarily justice denied. The main issues have now been sorted out and Muslim activists should know that going in for long-drawn appeals at the egging of pseudo-secular ideologues would hardly constitute reconciliation If there is a clear winner in the vexatious dispute over the Ram Janmabhoomi, it is Truth (satya), which has triumphed in the face of formidable obstacles placed by cussed political actors nurturing communal vote banks, aided and abetted by an army of rapidly secular (read viciously anti-Hindu) fellow travellers in media, academia, and of course, the west-centric activists/busybodies. Thursdayâs fractured verdict, unsurprising for a court judging around 20 different issues over a span of six decades, is laudable for the fact that the three-judge bench exuded unanimity on the essential issues â that the disputed spot was the birthplace of Sri Ram; that a temple preceded the mosque removed by mob action on December 6, 1992; and that Lord Ram would not be dislodged from His abode. From 1528 to 1992 to 2010, it has been a long journey. The delivery of the judgment virtually on the eve of Diwali is fraught with poignant symbolism. The judgment has taken the friendless Hindu community towards closure, even though the verdict divided the land among the Hindu Mahasabha, Nirmohi Akhara, and Sunni Central Waqf Board. The central dome, where Ram Lalla Virajman, is housed has been given to the Hindu Mahasabha. Sites known as Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutra have been given to Nirmohi Akhara, a Panchayati Math of Ramanandi Bairagi panth, founded by Swami Ramanand at Varanasi in the 14th-15th centuries. The panth claims direct descent from Swami Ramanuja; its greatest proponent was Gosain Tulsidas, who immortalised the Lord in the Ramcharitmanas, written in the reign of Emperor Akbar. Gosain ji popularised the enactment of Ramlila in public, and personally participated in the performances. The panth appeared at Ayodhya sometime after 1734 AD. There was no way such a contentious case could be perfectly unanimous. Thus, Their Lordships Sudhir Agarwal and Dharam Veer Sharma dismissed the title suits filed by the Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara as time barred, being filed in 1961 for an event which took place in 1949; this automatically confirmed the title on the Ram Janmabhoomi petitioners. Justice DV Sharma further ruled that the building constructed by emperor Babur was built against the tenets of Islam (being a place of dispute) and did not have the character of the mosque (being without minarets). It was constructed over a massive Hindu religious structure as proved by the Archaeological Survey of India; Hindus have been worshipping the place as Janmasthan (birthplace) and making pilgrimages there from time immemorial. The murtis were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of December 22/23, 1949. Justice Agarwal noted there was no clear evidence when the mosque was built and by whom, but it existed when Joseph Tieffenthaler visited Oudh area between 1766 and 1771. Justice SU Khan agreed the mosque was built by Babur, but on the ruins of a temple, and some temple material was incorporated in the mosque. While Justice Sharma conferred the entire land on the Ram Janmabhoomi petitioners, Judges Aggarwal and Khan distributed it among the three disputants arguing that Hindu pujas and Muslim namaaz were offered in the same premises for many years; there was no formal partition of the land between them; hence they were held to be in joint possession. The last namaaz offered in the Masjid was on December 16, 1949. The case is complicated enough to vex the most acute legal eagle. To my mind, what is most striking about Ayodhya and recent high-profile cases like the Jessica Lal murder, Ruchika molestation, Nitish Katara murder, etc, is that the prolonged delay in the judicial process ultimately gave justice to the beleaguered litigants. This is because the cover-up/tampering with evidence and witnesses that could have resulted in miscarriage of justice if rapid trials were held could not be sustained in prolonged litigation and petered out, even as the social and political environment changed. It is a sobering lesson for those in a hurry. The greatest vindication at Ayodhya is of the Archaeological Survey of India, whose experts work diligently to excavate and preserve the truth of our heritage in the face of extreme nastiness from arid Lib-Left academicians who grab state funding and western patronage to denigrate Indiaâs civilisation and culture. At Supreme Court direction in 2003, the ASI worked under the glare of a hostile media disinformation campaign, to unearth the truth that recovered the Ram Janmabhoomi as a Hindu heritage and validated Hindu civilisational memory. Special gratitude is owed to late Prof BR Grover, who single-handedly researched the medieval archives in Faizabad and discovered that Mughal-era revenue records listed the site as Masjid-e-Janmasthan â a direct reference to Sri Ram. Late Prof Swaraj Gupta assisted Prof BB Lal in his seminal work in Ayodhya, and had the brainwave of bringing a radar team to scan the surface below the ruins. The finding that there were man-made structures below prompted the apex court to order excavations; the rest is history⦠The most positive aspect of the judgment is that a peaceful settlement can be reached without political parties or Parliament. Both the Hindu Mahasabha and Sunni Wakf Board are aggrieved and plan to move the Supreme Court. The Muslim community would do well to resist overt and covert incitement by badly beaten and bruised secular fundamentalists who could barely conceal their rage in television studios. Muslims must accept with grace the basic letter and spirit of the judgment â that the land belongs to Sri Ram. The Sunni Wakf Board is open to negotiations, which is welcome, as it is difficult to perceive a situation in which the apex court will overturn this verdict and order ouster of Ram Lalla Virajman. We could borrow a solution from the old Arab practice (enshrined in Islamic law) wherein compensation can be offered to aggrieved parties. This would bring closure to all without aggravating the sentiments of any community. --The writer is a columnist and author |
