06/10/2010
How each judge reached the ‘precise birthplace’ of Lord Ram
New Delhi:To arrive at their unanimous conclusion that Hindus have the right to the makeshift temple under the central dome of the Babri Masjid, each of the three judges of the Allahabad High Court relied on a blend of Hindu faith, belief and folklore but each qualified his argument in his own way.
For both Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma (now retired), Lord Ram, son of King Dashrath, was born within the 1,482.5 square yards of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid premises over 900,000 years ago during the Treta Yuga. To ask for "positive evidence" to back this, Justice Agarwal said, "is not only a futile attempt but is against all the canons of the principles of law". For Justice Sharma, the "world knows" where Ram's birthplace is.
For Justice S U Khan, the conclusion is an "informed guess"...based on "oral evidences of several Hindus and some Muslims" that establish the "precise birthplace of Ram" under the central dome.
The salient arguments of each:
Justice Sudhir Agarwal
"Whether Lord Ram was born and was a personality in history, as a matter of fact cannot be investigated in a Court of Law," Justice Agarwal begins. "Simple logic is that failing to find evidence to something does not necessarily result in that the thing does not exist."
"Nobody can dare to ask such questions for such pious and reverent beliefs in other religions like Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohammad Saheb, etc...then where is the question of asking such an evidence in the matter of religious faith and belief which is not just a few hundred years old but travels in the history of several thousands of years," he questions.
He quotes the dispute of Al Aqsa in Jerusalem where the Far Mosque is "treated the third most pious place by Muslims since they believe that Prophet Mohammad descended there after visiting Heaven". "Nobody even doubts their faith," he says.
Justice Agarwal says the court has "to uphold a faith which continued for time immemorial" and not seek for "direct evidence" of the exact birthplace.
"The place of birth cannot be proved by direct evidence; indeed no living being is capable of proving the birthplace of any of his parents four degrees or more remote in the line of ascent," he says.
"The fact, therefore, has to be judged in accordance with the meaning of the word 'proved' under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that it exists. So 'belief' and 'supposition' are perfectly legal and acceptable states which may lead to 'proof'," he says.
Justice S U Khan
Even Suit no 5 filed by Lord Rama as plaintiff No. 1 makes no effort to "identify, specify and pinpoint 'the birth place'", Justice Khan writes. His question to various counsel on the precise meaning for the terms "Janam Asthan" or "JanamBhoomi" went unanswered.
"It was inquired whether it (Janam Asthan) meant the exact site where Kaushalia, the mother of Lord Ram gave birth to him (which from its very nature could be very, very small area of 5 to 10 square yards only) or it meant the room in which the birth took place, or it meant the mansion where mother of Lord Ram resided. None of the learned counsel could give any specific reply to this query," he records.
Finally, the judge resorts to books and gazetteers to discover that the fort of Raja Dasarath was "quite big", and definitely over 1,500 square yards.
"In olden times there was not much demand on the land. The mother of Lord Ram was one of his three or four favourite queens. Accordingly, it cannot be assumed that she used to live in a mansion constructed only on an area of 1,500 square yards. At that time even the houses of medium level people must be of quite larger area," he says.
"The only thing which can be guessed, and it will be quite an informed guess taking the place of finding in a matter, which is centuries old, is that a very large area was considered to be the birthplace of Lord Ram by general Hindus in the sense that they treated that somewhere in that large area Lord Ram was born... however, they were unable to identify and ascertain the exact place of birth, and that in that large area there were ruins of several temples and at a random small spot in that large area Babar got constructed the mosque in question".
Justice D V Sharma
For Justice Sharma, "the whole world knows that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya where the temple Ram Janama Bhumi stands." Still, he adds that it is "manifestly established by public records of unimpeachable authority" that the premises in dispute is the place where "Maryada Purushottam Sri Ramachandraji Maharaj was born as the son of Maharaja Dashrath, which according to tradition and faith of the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Rama is the place where HE manifested in human form as an incarnation of Bhagwan Vishnu."
Citing the faith of the "devotees of Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala or Lord Rama the Child," it is the spirit of Ram as the "divine child," which resides at the "Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi and can be experienced by those who pray there and invoke that Spirit for their spiritual uplift."
(Next: How each judge read the ASI report)
Source: The Indian Express
K.Venugopal
#1
Wednesday, 06 October 2010 12:05:21
Muslims and Leftists are crying hoarse that the verdict was based on faith and not on facts. What they mean is that the Hindu belief that Ram was born in that particular spot cannot be taken into account in settlement of the issue because that would be bringing in the element of faith. Though faith cannot be proven like facts can, it thereby cannot be construed that faith does not constitute a part of reality. The court has only taken into account the reality that Hindus believe it is the birth place of Lord Ram. The court itself has not subscribed to any belief or faith. Faith, proverbially said to be capable of moving mountains, is verily at the crux of the Ayodhya issue. Treating the whole issue as merely a property dispute would have been what would have reduced the High Court to a panchayati office, which some people accused the court of being reduced to because it considered the question of faith!
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4440362&page=0
How each judge reached the ‘precise birthplace’ of Lord Ram
New Delhi:To arrive at their unanimous conclusion that Hindus have the right to the makeshift temple under the central dome of the Babri Masjid, each of the three judges of the Allahabad High Court relied on a blend of Hindu faith, belief and folklore but each qualified his argument in his own way.
For both Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma (now retired), Lord Ram, son of King Dashrath, was born within the 1,482.5 square yards of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid premises over 900,000 years ago during the Treta Yuga. To ask for "positive evidence" to back this, Justice Agarwal said, "is not only a futile attempt but is against all the canons of the principles of law". For Justice Sharma, the "world knows" where Ram's birthplace is.
For Justice S U Khan, the conclusion is an "informed guess"...based on "oral evidences of several Hindus and some Muslims" that establish the "precise birthplace of Ram" under the central dome.
The salient arguments of each:
Justice Sudhir Agarwal
"Whether Lord Ram was born and was a personality in history, as a matter of fact cannot be investigated in a Court of Law," Justice Agarwal begins. "Simple logic is that failing to find evidence to something does not necessarily result in that the thing does not exist."
"Nobody can dare to ask such questions for such pious and reverent beliefs in other religions like Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohammad Saheb, etc...then where is the question of asking such an evidence in the matter of religious faith and belief which is not just a few hundred years old but travels in the history of several thousands of years," he questions.
He quotes the dispute of Al Aqsa in Jerusalem where the Far Mosque is "treated the third most pious place by Muslims since they believe that Prophet Mohammad descended there after visiting Heaven". "Nobody even doubts their faith," he says.
Justice Agarwal says the court has "to uphold a faith which continued for time immemorial" and not seek for "direct evidence" of the exact birthplace.
"The place of birth cannot be proved by direct evidence; indeed no living being is capable of proving the birthplace of any of his parents four degrees or more remote in the line of ascent," he says.
"The fact, therefore, has to be judged in accordance with the meaning of the word 'proved' under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that it exists. So 'belief' and 'supposition' are perfectly legal and acceptable states which may lead to 'proof'," he says.
Justice S U Khan
Even Suit no 5 filed by Lord Rama as plaintiff No. 1 makes no effort to "identify, specify and pinpoint 'the birth place'", Justice Khan writes. His question to various counsel on the precise meaning for the terms "Janam Asthan" or "JanamBhoomi" went unanswered.
"It was inquired whether it (Janam Asthan) meant the exact site where Kaushalia, the mother of Lord Ram gave birth to him (which from its very nature could be very, very small area of 5 to 10 square yards only) or it meant the room in which the birth took place, or it meant the mansion where mother of Lord Ram resided. None of the learned counsel could give any specific reply to this query," he records.
Finally, the judge resorts to books and gazetteers to discover that the fort of Raja Dasarath was "quite big", and definitely over 1,500 square yards.
"In olden times there was not much demand on the land. The mother of Lord Ram was one of his three or four favourite queens. Accordingly, it cannot be assumed that she used to live in a mansion constructed only on an area of 1,500 square yards. At that time even the houses of medium level people must be of quite larger area," he says.
"The only thing which can be guessed, and it will be quite an informed guess taking the place of finding in a matter, which is centuries old, is that a very large area was considered to be the birthplace of Lord Ram by general Hindus in the sense that they treated that somewhere in that large area Lord Ram was born... however, they were unable to identify and ascertain the exact place of birth, and that in that large area there were ruins of several temples and at a random small spot in that large area Babar got constructed the mosque in question".
Justice D V Sharma
For Justice Sharma, "the whole world knows that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya where the temple Ram Janama Bhumi stands." Still, he adds that it is "manifestly established by public records of unimpeachable authority" that the premises in dispute is the place where "Maryada Purushottam Sri Ramachandraji Maharaj was born as the son of Maharaja Dashrath, which according to tradition and faith of the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Rama is the place where HE manifested in human form as an incarnation of Bhagwan Vishnu."
Citing the faith of the "devotees of Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala or Lord Rama the Child," it is the spirit of Ram as the "divine child," which resides at the "Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi and can be experienced by those who pray there and invoke that Spirit for their spiritual uplift."
(Next: How each judge read the ASI report)
Source: The Indian Express
K.Venugopal
#1
Wednesday, 06 October 2010 12:05:21
Muslims and Leftists are crying hoarse that the verdict was based on faith and not on facts. What they mean is that the Hindu belief that Ram was born in that particular spot cannot be taken into account in settlement of the issue because that would be bringing in the element of faith. Though faith cannot be proven like facts can, it thereby cannot be construed that faith does not constitute a part of reality. The court has only taken into account the reality that Hindus believe it is the birth place of Lord Ram. The court itself has not subscribed to any belief or faith. Faith, proverbially said to be capable of moving mountains, is verily at the crux of the Ayodhya issue. Treating the whole issue as merely a property dispute would have been what would have reduced the High Court to a panchayati office, which some people accused the court of being reduced to because it considered the question of faith!
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4440362&page=0
No comments:
Post a Comment