Abusaleh Shariff explodes the myth of Muslims doing better under Modi ruleAyodhya: Negotiated settlement the best option
Submitted by admin4 on 22 October 2010 - 11:04am
By A. Faizur Rahman,
In a calculated attempt to circumvent the Ayodhya verdict Hindutva organisations have started issuing veiled threats (euphemistically called “appeals”) to the Muslims demanding that they handover for the construction of a “grand” Ram temple the land allotted to them by the Allahabad HC. Surprisingly, the latest “appeal” comes from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the three claimants of the disputed site, which until now had been engaged in negotiations initiated by Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant on the Muslim side, and Mahant Gyandas, president of the Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad. Perhaps the recent closed-door meeting between Mahant Bhaskar Das and firebrand BJP leader Vinay Katiyar was the cause for the sudden hardening of the Akhara’s attitude.
The truth is, if giving up claim to the Ayodhya land was possible it would have happened decades ago. Only because the contending parties refused to budge from their respective positions it was decided that exploring the legal option was the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Sadly, it was not to be because, the honourable judges thought it fit to by pass the rule of law and grant legitimacy to the religious faith of the majority community, to say nothing about the their inexplicable silence on the demolition of the Babri Masjid which is being interpreted as an exoneration of the criminals who pulled down the mosque. This has in a way nullified the efforts to break the deadlock and resulted in a mutually hurting stalemate once again.
Kanchi Shankaracharya, Swami Jayendra Saraswati discussing Ayodhya issue with Muslim Personal Law Board leaders in 2003 [Photo by Outlook]
The only option left before the parties now is to shed their adversarial approach and arrive at a compromise formula through negotiations. For this to happen, two confidence building measures are imperative insofar as the Muslims are concerned. First, the Supreme Court must countermand the dangerous precedent set by the Allahabad HC that makes it possible for the majority community to takeover a place of worship belonging to any minority community purely on the basis of antiquated dogma. Second, the Hindutva Parivar, in the spirit of reconciliation it is talking about, must take the first step towards it by announcing that its willingness to relinquish its claim to other mosques in the country. Such a gesture would be seen as upholding the concept of democratic fair dealing and pave the way for a negotiated settlement of the dispute.
As for the Sunni Central Wakf Board, although it may go against their claim to ownership of the entire disputed land, it should not be difficult for them to enter into a harmonious agreement with the Hindus as such a precedent (as pointed out by Justice Khan) exists in Islamic history in the form of the Hudaybiya Treaty which was signed with the Meccan polytheists by no less a person than the Prophet himself despite the fact that it was opposed by the entire Muslim community at that time for its humiliating conditions. It is hoped that in the interest of peace the Muslim leadership would follow the farsighted approach of the Prophet to resolve this seemingly intractable conflict.
But the problem is, these sentiments are not being reciprocated by the other side. Hindutva ideologues are displaying a kind of majoritanian masculinity that seems to suggest that it is below their dignity to treat the Muslims as equal citizens of this country. The demolition of the Babri Masjid is being justified by saying that it was not a mosque at all. And the latest innuendo is that a mosque is less sacred than a temple and hence it may be demolished to make way for a holier place, the Ram Temple. Persons spreading such disinformation must realise that it has the potential to disturb the remarkable Hindu-Muslim harmony that exists at the people to people level in India.
If the Sangh Parivar is honest the Ayodhya issue can be easily resolved on the basis of the values that Islam and Hinduism share. For instance, the idea of unity despite religious diversity is not against the Muslim ethos as, unlike Hindutva, Islam does not belittle the sanctity of places of worship of other religions. In a verse which could be described as the bedrock of inter-faith harmony the Quran says that if God did not check the mischief mongers “there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques where the name of God in commemorated in abundant measure” (22:40). And it has been declared in the Bhagwad Gita that absence of enmity for people (nirvairah sarvabhutesu), even though they might have done great harm, is one of the important virtues of the best of the devotees (XI-55).
Having said this, it may be misleading to see the Ayodhya dispute as purely a Hindu-Muslim issue. It actually concerns the entire nation and could seriously affect its development if allowed to continue. It is common knowledge that poverty and backwardness of African countries is mainly a result of violent conflict. And nearer home, one of our own neighbouring countries finds itself in deep trouble, financial and otherwise, for failing to contain sectarian violence and in some cases promoting it as a matter of policy to further its vested interests.
Therefore, if Central government wants India to maintain its position as one of the fastest growing economies in the world it must assume the role of a genuine mediator to help the Hindu and Muslims resolve this dispute amicably. The Sangh Parivar too must realise that it would be unwise to prolong this conflict at a time when all our energies are required to be focused on the equitable distribution of the fruits of our economic growth. In other words, we need to go beyond idea of conflict resolution into the realm of conflict transformation by which both the communities join hands to work towards the larger goal of making India an epitome of peace, stability and progress.
(The author is secretary-general, Forum for the Promotion of Moderate Thought among Muslims. He may be reached at faizz@rocketmail.com. Article was first published in the Indian Express)
FREE REPRINTS
Unless otherwise noted, you can republish our articles for free. You just have to credit TwoCircles.net and link it back to us, and you can’t edit our material or sell it separately. (We're licensed under Creative Commons, which provides the legal details.). For publishing TwoCircles.net photos please contact info@twocircles.net.
Brahminism
I am appalled at antipathy towards Brahmins (and Brahminism) shown by various commentators on this website.
Some have called upon all Brahmins to embrace Islam and assume the leadership of Islamic Society in Akhand Bharat. And there are several who claim that root-cause of all evils in India are Brahmins who are not only cunning but also coward.
What category should one this type of comments be put in ? Is it not "Hate Speech", similar to one witnessed in 1940s in Germany against Jews ?
If Brahmins are coward and root-cause of all evils, why do you want them to convert to Islam en-mass and assume its leadership ?
This website is NOT "Two Circles" but has been reduced to "TWO ZEROs"...
The State Must Change Sincerely Its Attitude Religiously
Ayodhya verdict not based on faith, gives platform for dialogue: Khursheed
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Ayodhya-verdict-not-based-on-faith--gi...
Subject: The State Must Change Sincerely Its Attitude Religiously
Learned Union Minister of Corporate Affairs & Minority Affairs Salman Khursheed said the verdict (?) offered “more persuasive platform for dialogue” than ever in the past, may be very right to say so.
But, as to how he can justify it as a judicial verdict in face of the criticism so far by the eminent juristic personalities?
The so-called verdict is neither a Judgment nor a compromise, but it is a suggestive compromise formula, and the Judges were not honest and sincere enough to mention it so in their respective conclusions and Salman Khursheed seems in agreement with this observation.
In nutshell, the government of India has to play the major role to shape it as a final compromise reached amicably between the parties, duly accepted as correct and signed by the parties before the Apex Court in the appeal (s) without any ambiguity, keeping its custodian status intact, so that no future controversy is caused or raised about any other such building and religious place(s) in future also.
Comment by
Balbir Singh Sooch, Advocate, Ludhiana
Chief and Spokesperson, Sikh Vichar Manch
http://www.sikhvicharmanch.com/
http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000753376567
RELATED:
Ayodhya Verdict: A lesson for the coming generation
http://twocircles.net/2010oct01/ayodhya_verdict_lesson_coming_generation...
Ayodhya: Negotiated settlement the best option
http://twocircles.net/2010oct22/ayodhya_negotiated_settlement_best_optio...
Ayodhya Interlocutors
Unfortunately the Ayodhya issue has been co-opted by the most rigid elements in both communities. Extreme right wing Hindu organizations RSS, VHP and the Hindu Mahasabha are the interlocutors for the Hindu side. Ultra-conservative sharia-obsessed Waqf Board and AIMPLB speak for the Muslims. It seems moderate and progressive Hindus and Muslims have decided to sit this one out except for writing articles for newspapers and magazines.
RSS Root Cause of Violence and Terrorism in India
Brahmanism versus Human Rights
RSS Root Cause of Violence and Terrorism in India
Balbir Singh Sooch, Advocate, Ludhiana
Indian nationalism in different forms is a name of obedience to Brahmanism and the Indian rulers following the discriminatory treatments to rule over their people ruthlessly, methodically and consciously minus human rights and the disobedience to it in the name of human rights or the rule of law in any form is named or called terrorism, which is considered anti to the ruler and the State in India.
The more or less, the concept of Brahmanism is nothing to do much with majority or minority, but it is system of minority class (Brahmans) created to rule over the masses ruthlessly and discriminatory, and the system is being openly preached very cunningly and being said, “The concept of Brahmanism is very beneficial and helpful to every ruler irrespective of his background”.
The projected privileged scholars, activists and the men forced or voluntarily ready with an idea in mind to rule over the masses or doing so inadvertently or stand surrendered before injustice since ages from the minorities, those may be tribal and the caste based people were seen adamant to stop the preaching of such nationalism i.e. Brahmanism for their own reasons, despite the opposition by the voiceless people who did possess awareness, had the intellect and were able to understand helplessly the danger of preaching of this inhuman concept i.e. Brahmanism.
The author of this note and like minded others about 80 % of the present in the seminar did counter such malafide efforts, cleverly organized under the garb and in the name of a seminar,"Neo-Brahmanism, Human Rights and Social Democracy" organized under the aegis of ‘Voices For Freedom’ on December 6, 2008 held in Krishi Bhawan, at Chandigarh and with the result the second afternoon session of the seminar was to be cancelled.
Do you think without the idea of promoting the Indian brahamnical system, was it possible to hold the seminar with the approval of the government in Krishi Bhawan, at Chandigarh?
By the statement, “Asserting that the disputed land in Ayodhya was the birthplace of Ram and could not be divided, saffron leaders including RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat say that no power on earth can stop the construction of a grand temple at the site” has said nothing new and only reminded that in India, the rule of law or Constitution of India is not supreme, only the system of Brahmanism is supreme and applicable in India.
Now, it is up to the Indians within and the outside world as whole, consider the statement, “Asserting that the disputed land in Ayodhya was the birthplace of Ram and could not be divided, saffron leaders including RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat say that no power on earth can stop the construction of a grand temple at the site” as an admission or confession that there shall never be any rule of law and the constitution of India is a waste paper and ought to be so in India.
You to take the statement as a notice, for keeping continue the system in one or in the other form, and that has always to be taken by law abiding citizens as a root cause of violence and terrorism in India.
It is already said citing an example as such “RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has criticised those who have questioned the Allahabad high court judgment in the Ayodhya title suit, saying he found it strange that his organization was being pilloried for welcoming the verdict. In almost in the same language, Congress president Sonia Gandhi criticizes those who are distorting Ayodhya verdict,” and she emphasised that any distortion of the verdict by communal forces was detrimental to the larger national interest and would cause harm to the nation's mood and desire for peace and harmony.”
As now, who can make out the difference between the communal forces and non-communal forces in the prevailing system in India?
Has anybody any remedy to it?
By
Balbir Singh Sooch, Advocate, Ludhiana
Chief and Spokesperson, Sikh Vichar Manch
http://www.sikhvicharmanch.com/
http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000753376567
Brahmin Govt.since Independence is Communal.
The author is promoting the argument of Brahmins *Saam,Daam,Dund,Bhead-Accept Ayodhya verdict‘.Pakistan has once again faired better in its respect of rule of Law.[In the Shahidganj masjid case, there was incontrovertible proof of a 1722 waqf (trust) to build a mosque. But it came under the possession of Sikhs after 1762. In the 20th century from the District Court, the High Court of Lahore and the Privy Council ruled against the Muslims on the ground of adverse possession. The Premier of Punjab Sikander Hyat Khan rejected pleas for legislation to overturn the verdict. Jinnah supported him fully. The mosque, now a Sikh gurdwara, still stands in Lahore undemolished. http://www.bismillahnews.in/?page_id=47
f we go soft on RSS., Idea of India dies.
RSS is the world’s largest terrorist organization with its institutionalized riot systems. This is the ugly truth. Let’s face it. RSS has planned and executed riots and bomb blasts thru-out India. Their terrorists wearing green kurtas and skull caps have created havoc thru-out India. Hemant Karkare IPS had to give his life., to bring this ugly reality to surface.
Ban Hate Speech and Mob Violence (Planning/Executing Riots killing un-armed innocents; and indoctrination of hatred for "others" in hate-factory run Schools). Hate speech and rumour-mongering precedes riot execution. Ban the freedoms of 100 people so that 1.2 billion indians live and sleep peacefully. Togadia, Singhal, Narendra Modi, Babu Bajrangi, Uma Bharti, Sadhvi Rithambara, and their likes should be behind bars... or atleast... not have the rights to indulge in hate-speech and rumour-mongering to incite people to mob violence. Of course they have "freedom of speech" which we respect., but freedom of speech does not mean "freedom of hate speech".
"The criminal liberties of a few have to be curtailed to preserve the civil liberties of many.” - Sardar Vallabhai Patel – 1950
One of The Top domestic news of the week
One of The Top domestic news of the week
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/top-domestic-newsthe-week/11...
Vrindavan: Asserting that the disputed land in Ayodhya was the birthplace of Ram and could not be divided, saffron leaders including RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat say that no power on earth can stop the construction of a grand temple at the site.
Ban Hate Speech to Nip Riots in The bud
Mr. Rahul Gandhi : This is 2010. India should not be a country of drought / floods / communal riots. Period. A very firm step is needed. Do not care for the next elections - care for the next generation. A few thoughts... i want Rahul to ponder upon in all seriousness. Take the hard path... the difficult path.
Ban Hate Speech and Mob Violence (Planning/Executing Riots killing un-armed innocents; and indoctrination of hatred for "others" in hate-factory run Schools). Hate speech and rumour-mongering precedes riot execution. Ban the freedoms of 100 people so that 1.2 billion indians live and sleep peacefully. Togadia, Singhal, Narendra Modi, Babu Bajrangi, Uma Bharti, Sadhvi Rithambara, and their likes should be behind bars... or atleast... not have the rights to indulge in hate-speech and rumour-mongering to incite people to mob violence. Of course they have "freedom of speech" which we respect., but freedom of speech does not mean "freedom of hate speech".
"The criminal liberties of a few have to be curtailed to preserve the civil liberties of many.” - Sardar Vallabhai Patel - 1950
REMEDY WORSE THAN THE DISEASE
I AGREE WITH BROTHER BALBIR SINGH SOOCH SAHEB THAT A LEGAL SOLUTION IS THE BEST SOLUTION. BTOTHER FAIZUR RAHMAN'S SUGGETION IS WELL-MEANT BUT NOT PRACTICAL. UMPTEEN ATTEMPTS MADE IN THE PAST BY WELL-WISHERS OF BOTY MUSLIMS AND HINDUS HAVE FAILED, CAUSING, THEREBY, MORE MUD=SLINGINGS, MISUNDERSTADINGS AND BITTERNESS. THUS, THE REMEDY SUGGESTED BY HIM IS WORSE THAN THE DISEASE
S.M.PASHA
Dialogue, a must and only way out.
No serious effort has been done for the two communities to sit across the table. Since Muslims are in minority and are vulnerable they should be on a look-out for reasons for reconciliation. Instead Muslim leaders have been putting the shutters down. Even now w, Farouqui, Hashim Ansari and others are trying to keep the track two open for dialogue, the people holding positions refuse to talkbefore Supreme court judgment.
THAT "NO SERIOUS EFFORT HAS
THAT "NO SERIOUS EFFORT HAS DONE BETWEEN FOR TWO COMMUNITIES TO SIT ACCOSS THE TABLE." IS A STRANGE STATEMENT. DOES IT MEAN TO SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT OUGHT YO HAVE PERSUADED THEM.DID IT PREVENT THE PARTIES COMING TO SUCH AN UNDERSTANDING? NO. SIR, THERE CAN'T BE AN AGREEMENT BECAUSE EAST IS EAST AND WEST IS WEST. THE TWAIN CAN NEVER MEET.AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED ONLY BETWEEN EQUALS. HERE ONE PARTY WHICH IS CONTESTING IS BACKED BY A PARTY WHICH I FORBY AND OF THE MAJOPITY COMMUNITY AND HENCE RABIDLY COMMUNAL iT WANTS MINORITIES TO LIVE AS THE SLAVES OF THE MAJORITY COMMUNITY AND LIVE ON THE MORSALS OCCASIONALLY THROWN TO THEM. WHEN SUCH IS CASE, THE POSSIBILITY OF A COMPROMISE IS ONE IN ONE BILLION.
S.M.PASHA
Has RSS any Faith and Trust in the Constitution of India?
Has RSS any Faith and Trust in the Constitution of India?
Ayodhya site cannot be divided: Mohan Bhagwat
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ayodhya-site-cannot-be-divided-mohan-b...
RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat’s statement, “Ayodhya site cannot be divided: Mohan Bhagwat” on Friday, 22, 2010 as reported left no further scope for the implementation of ‘The Verdict On the Ayodhya Title Suits’ or of any negotiations or to agree with the Supreme Court of India Judgement in appeals to be filed on the subject for the legal decision except according to him that no power on earth could stop the construction of a grand temple at the site.
Was the statement not a direct warning or threat to Muslims and the country to be ready to face the consequences hereafter?
Does it mean RSS and its associating organisations have no faith and trust in the Constitution of India and they believe in uncontitutional means only?
Who to decide now?
RELATED:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101023/jsp/frontpage/story_13090862.jsp
Ayodhya surprise
Asked how he (Stefano Allievi) viewed Hindu-Muslim integration —or the lack of it — in India, he said: “It’s completely different from European models. Muslims have been in India for centuries; they (Muslim immigrants) are relatively new to Europe, three decades or so, even less in Italy.
“In India, Muslims are part of the nation... in Europe, they are not. In Italy, most immigrants are not citizens, they can’t vote. Even today, politicians can say the worst things about Muslims and get away with it. It would be unacceptable to say the same things about Jews,” he said.
By
Balbir Singh Sooch, Advocate, Ludhiana
Chief and Spokesperson, Sikh Vichar Manch
http://www.sikhvicharmanch.com/
http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000753376567
A Compromise Solution
I agree with Mr Faizur Rahman that a compromise solution reached through negotiations is the most mature and amicable way to proceed. However in my opinion such a resolution should preferably be reached before the case goes to the Supreme Court. We should not get too confident when it comes to predicting what the Supreme Court will rule.
Find the Legal Way For the Ayodhya: Settlement!
Find the Legal Way For the Ayodhya: Settlement!
Is ‘What Can Be the Remedy to Do Justice?’ not an answer being the ‘Legal Way for the Ayodhya: Settlement’!
‘The Ayodhya Title Suits’
What Can Be the Remedy to Do Justice?
The Verdict On the Ayodhya Title Suits’ is neither a Judgment nor a compromise, but it is a suggestive compromise formula, and the Judges were not honest and sincere enough to mention it so in their respective conclusions as reports suggest and published so far.
First: All parties should file an appeal collectively or separately with their proposed compromise, keeping in mind and on the basis of the suggestive compromise formula enshrined in ‘The Verdict On the Ayodhya Title Suits’. Or by rejecting the same, the appeal(s) be filed before the Supreme Court of India only for the legal solution of the disputed land.
Second: All parties to the suit including the ‘Receiver’ central government of India ultimately, the central government of India has to remain custodian and must be declared so of the entire disputed land by the Supreme Court of India, should settle the way complete land or in parts to be used by the parties collectively or separately or by the public in general and the same settlement be given a shape of final compromise with the free consent of the parties to the suits, without any ambiguity so that no future controversy be raised about any other similar or such building and or religious place, duly accepted as correct and signed by the parties, before the Supreme Court of India in the appeal(s) filed against ‘The Verdict On the Ayodhya Title Suits’, otherwise, the decision shall never be acceptable especially by the Hindu leaders as a just verdict under the Constitution of India.
Third: The out come of the Supreme Court of India’s legal Judgment without the compromise, legally pronounced, and the legal implications of the Judgment, as it is very likely to go against the majoritism under the Constitution of India, that may not be acceptable to the majoritism without controlling the religious heads within and outside India.
In nutshell, the government of India has to play the major role to decide the dispute amicably without any ambiguity so that no future controversy is caused or raised about any other similar or such building and or religious place(s) also.
The State Must Change Sincerely Its Attitude Religiously
http://www.sikhvicharmanch.com/Religiou%20Politics-The%20State%20Must%20...
In absence of the above, it was rightly concluded in the article, ‘Justice in Ayodhya’ The Allahabad judgment disempowers India's largest religious minority. This will cause strife and discontent rooted in rightful anger at its illegality and irrationality. India can afford neither communal biases in the judiciary and terrible abuse of law nor large-scale popular disaffection if it is to survive as a democracy.
Justice in Ayodhya
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=158825
Submission by
Balbir Singh Sooch, Advocate, Ludhiana
Chief and Spokesperson, Sikh Vichar Manch
http://www.sikhvicharmanch.com/
http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000753376567
Ayodhya Verdict: A lesson for the coming generation | TwoCircles.net
http://twocircles.net/2010oct01/ayodhya_verdict_lesson_coming_generation...
Post new comment