Comments on: Sharing Ayodhya http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/sharing-ayodhya Powered by Webshore Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:04:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: 2010- The “Judicial” Review | Critical Twenties http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/sharing-ayodhya#comment-2271 2010- The “Judicial” Review | Critical Twenties Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:05:12 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1044#comment-2271 [...] some aspects of the legal reasoning are questionable, this was possibly the only decision that would not have caused communal unrest in the [...] [...] some aspects of the legal reasoning are questionable, this was possibly the only decision that would not have caused communal unrest in the [...]

]]> By: Defining moments of 2010 | Critical Twenties http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/sharing-ayodhya#comment-2266 Defining moments of 2010 | Critical Twenties Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:07:55 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1044#comment-2266 [...] life this year . In a judgment that was analysed and critiqued extensively elsewhere in this blog (here, here and here), the idol of the infant Ram or Bhagwan Shri Ram Lalla Virajman of Ayodhya, was held [...] [...] life this year . In a judgment that was analysed and critiqued extensively elsewhere in this blog (here, here and here), the idol of the infant Ram or Bhagwan Shri Ram Lalla Virajman of Ayodhya, was held [...]

]]> By: psychic http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/sharing-ayodhya#comment-1687 psychic Sat, 06 Nov 2010 01:45:57 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1044#comment-1687 It's not that I want to copy your website, but I really like the style and design. Could you tell me which design are you using? Or was it tailor made? It’s not that I want to copy your website, but I really like the style and design. Could you tell me which design are you using? Or was it tailor made?

]]> By: Anisha http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/sharing-ayodhya#comment-457 Anisha Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:40:06 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1044#comment-457 On the subject of upping the ante... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/BJP-demands-Ramjanmabhoomi-Bill-in-Parliament/articleshow/6684001.cms On the subject of upping the ante…

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/BJP-demands-Ramjanmabhoomi-Bill-in-Parliament/articleshow/6684001.cms

]]> By: Arghya http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/sharing-ayodhya#comment-452 Arghya Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:14:13 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1044#comment-452 Anisha, thanks for the comment. I think we should be extremely cautious before coming to the conclusion that the decision was politically motivated or based on religious beliefs. I haven't read the full judgments yet myself and I wouldn't like to comment on this aspect in too much detail based on the summaries. Having said that, prima facie, the majority judgments (Khan and Agarwal JJ) do not look like a sell-out at all; the dissenting judgment by Sharma J does, but again it may be a premature criticism. Second, I think the question of which part goes to who is a legal and factual determination. The politics of this question and the one-upmanship which may ensue as a result ("We got the dome, you only got the surrounding portions" et al) must not be allowed to become the major takeaway from the decision. This is really not what it is about; it's about recognising joint title flowing from joint ownership. Fortunately most sections of the public, including sections of the Sangh have realised it and have not upped the ante after the victory because a certain portion was allotted to them. We must ensure that it stays that way and the question of who gets what continues to be determined according to law and facts, as I believe it has been in this decision. Anisha, thanks for the comment. I think we should be extremely cautious before coming to the conclusion that the decision was politically motivated or based on religious beliefs. I haven’t read the full judgments yet myself and I wouldn’t like to comment on this aspect in too much detail based on the summaries. Having said that, prima facie, the majority judgments (Khan and Agarwal JJ) do not look like a sell-out at all; the dissenting judgment by Sharma J does, but again it may be a premature criticism.

Second, I think the question of which part goes to who is a legal and factual determination. The politics of this question and the one-upmanship which may ensue as a result (“We got the dome, you only got the surrounding portions” et al) must not be allowed to become the major takeaway from the decision. This is really not what it is about; it’s about recognising joint title flowing from joint ownership. Fortunately most sections of the public, including sections of the Sangh have realised it and have not upped the ante after the victory because a certain portion was allotted to them. We must ensure that it stays that way and the question of who gets what continues to be determined according to law and facts, as I believe it has been in this decision.

]]> By: Anisha http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/sharing-ayodhya#comment-435 Anisha Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:56:03 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1044#comment-435 Hey Arghya, thanks for the excellent piece; clarifies a lot of things to me. Question: isn't the issue of which part of the land belongs to whom more than just a legal nicety? I agree that the judges did a great job with joint possession but, for the parties concerned, which part of the plot they get is really the key issue (or, if it wasn't the key issue earlier, it is now). The basis for giving the dome to the Hindus seems to be that they believe that it is the birthplace of Rama. Would be interested to hear your views on the accusation that this decision, apparently based on religious beliefs, was something of a sell-out to the more powerful political group. Hey Arghya, thanks for the excellent piece; clarifies a lot of things to me. Question: isn’t the issue of which part of the land belongs to whom more than just a legal nicety? I agree that the judges did a great job with joint possession but, for the parties concerned, which part of the plot they get is really the key issue (or, if it wasn’t the key issue earlier, it is now). The basis for giving the dome to the Hindus seems to be that they believe that it is the birthplace of Rama. Would be interested to hear your views on the accusation that this decision, apparently based on religious beliefs, was something of a sell-out to the more powerful political group.

]]> By: Burp http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/sharing-ayodhya#comment-431 Burp Sun, 03 Oct 2010 09:03:24 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1044#comment-431 Thank you for the clarification. Thank you for the clarification.

]]> By: Arghya http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/sharing-ayodhya#comment-424 Arghya Sun, 03 Oct 2010 03:40:03 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1044#comment-424 This exact sentence I think Manish is from the judgment of the dissenting judge Justice Sharma. What Indian law does allow is a deity to be a juristic person. There is a long history to that which I can't go through here. But I can tell you that such recognition is not unexceptional. About the place of birth being a juristic person, my guess is as good as yours- would most likely be some sort of typo by the stenographer if you were to be charitable to the judge. This exact sentence I think Manish is from the judgment of the dissenting judge Justice Sharma. What Indian law does allow is a deity to be a juristic person. There is a long history to that which I can’t go through here. But I can tell you that such recognition is not unexceptional. About the place of birth being a juristic person, my guess is as good as yours- would most likely be some sort of typo by the stenographer if you were to be charitable to the judge.

]]> By: Arghya http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/sharing-ayodhya#comment-423 Arghya Sun, 03 Oct 2010 03:37:22 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1044#comment-423 Yes the Sunni Central Wakf Board is Defendant No. 10 and Nirmohi Akhara defendant no. 11 in Suit 1. Yes the Sunni Central Wakf Board is Defendant No. 10 and Nirmohi Akhara defendant no. 11 in Suit 1.

]]> By: Manish http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/sharing-ayodhya#comment-418 Manish Sat, 02 Oct 2010 21:15:56 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1044#comment-418 Personally, I am baffled by "Place of birth is a juristic person"!! Do Indian courts recognise mythological characters/ historic persons, let alone their claimed places of birth, as legal persons? And, does the law allow that? Personally, I am baffled by “Place of birth is a juristic person”!! Do Indian courts recognise mythological characters/ historic persons, let alone their claimed places of birth, as legal persons? And, does the law allow that?

]]>