div style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-cli
9.26 PM: T
100% temple and nothing else
In the given times this can be the only judgement though it has gaping loopholes but still it gives the two communities to sort out the dispute amicably and move on
In the given times this can be the only judgement though it has gaping loopholes but still it gives the two communities to sort out the dispute amicably and movr on
@11 - \"One mosque will not matter for Mohammedans but it\'s very holy for the Hindus.\"I am a Hindu, and I disagree with you completely. Who are we or anyone else to say the disputed land is not equally sacred to the Muslims? I think it was the right call to make on the part of the courts - this was the only peaceful solution. And that\'s what we need - peace!
It is a typical judgement by a High Court on matters of politics. In 1895 itself, the land was held to be a Temple but the suit was dismissed for limitation since the events were traced to 16th century. It is an accepted fact that there existed temple on that land. In 21st century democractic India, we are still grappling with Ayodhya issue when the same can be resolved by way of Mohammedans relinquishing their interest in the land on the legendary temple considered Holy to all Hindus. The High Court should have decided the issue in favour of Hindus only and not deliver a wishy washy judgement like this. One mosque will not matter for Mohammedans but it very holy for the Hindus.
Tweets by @barandbench
Follow us on
Follow us on