'As it attempted to sort out a century-old Hindu-Muslim issue with its 1045-page judgment on the Ayodhya land dispute, the Supreme Court has inadvertently riled Sikhs. It has described their religion as a ‘cult’ and seems to have relied on the testimony of someone who Sikhs believe has “misinterpreted the purpose of Guru Nanak Dev’s visit to Ayodhya in 1510-1511”.
The Supreme Court judgment on Babri Mosque-Ram Janmbhumi dispute gave the verdict that the whole land where the mosque stood from 1528 to 6th December 1992 be given to the ‘Hindu Side’, Ram Janmbhoomi Nyas, set up by VHP. Just to recall it was demolished in broad day light by the RSS combine led by Lal Krishna Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati on that day. As per verdict Government should make a trust which should supervise the temple construction and Muslims, Sunni Waqf Board, should be given five acres of land in a prominent site in Ayodhya.
'The Supreme Court's judgment in the Babri Masjid title suit is dishonest and hypocritical. Why do I say so? On the one hand, the "unanimous" judgment of the Supreme Court asserts that it is deciding this case strictly in accordance with the law and on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. On the other, it is very obvious that the way in which the Supreme Court has applied the law and assessed the evidence, it has used the lens of religion and faith to determine the validity of one claim over the other...'
'Like many Indians, I was glued to the television set on Saturday, awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision about the site of the Babri Masjid, an important mosque and monument of faith for Indian Muslims demolished in 1992 by right-wing Hindu nationalists. The court delivered a huge victory for the nationalist government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, by awarding the land at the heart of the clash to a Hindu litigant over Muslim objections. I watched the verdict in Washington with a Muslim family from India who had migrated to the United States in 1993.
'NRC, communal citizenship laws or the instituting of a uniform law code for all communities: the decks are clear for the BJP to move forward on its agenda... On Saturday, the Supreme Court decided on the Ayodhya dispute, ruling that a Ram temple will come up on the disputed spot where, till 1992, the Babri Masjid stood. The judgment is hugely significant, revolving around an intersection of faith and politics that has gripped and driven India for the past three decades. Now that the legal dispute is over, what does this point of inflection mean for Indian politics going forward?
'The main beneficiaries of the Supreme Court's verdict on Saturday are organically linked to the main accused in the crime of demolishing the mosque. And that's not good for India... The Supreme Court’s verdict in the Ayodhya matter has settled the ‘title suit’ in favour of the main Hindu plaintiff – essentially the Vishwa Hindu Parishad – but it is clear that there is much more at stake for the country than the ownership of 2.77 acres of land on which a mosque stood for 470 years until it was demolished in an act of political vandalism unparalleled in the modern world.
'The Supreme Court has pronounced its “unanimous” verdict in the Ayodhya title dispute case, saying that the Hindu parties will be given the disputed land where the Babri Masjid once stood. The Sunni Waqf Board, the biggest Muslim litigant in the case, will be given five acres at a separate “prominent” location in Ayodhya...'
'Eminent historian Dwijendra Narayan Jha pioneered studies on material culture in early Indian history. In his academic career spanning more than 35 years, he undertook extensive research on society and the economy in ancient India, and probed different dimensions of feudalism in early medieval India. As a professional historian, he actively intervened in contemporary political debates that derived their relevance from historical studies.
'Ram Mandir and Kashmir (hyphenated with Pakistan) have obsessed TV news channels like no other issue. It won’t be an exaggeration to say that over the last two years at least, the twin issues have received more airtime than any other matter of national concern, even as the country was battling calamitous flooding, economic decline, rising unemployment, infant deaths, sexual crimes involving politicians.
