The best decision Modi has made. Get fecked Tavleen, the only bad thing is that it's your son and not you.
They further say there is no proof that the structure under the mosque was a temple. Infact, they rely on the travelogue of a european who says the hindus used to worship in the outer courtyard whilst ignoring the part where he further said that aurangzeb demolished a fort and built the mosque.
The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) on Saturday described the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya land dispute as a "decisive step" towards construction of a "grand" Ram temple and urged the central government to take speedy steps on the directions issued by the top court.
Agreed. However, the verdict itself says there is no proof that a temple was demolished to build a mosque.
This was a title suit wherein the court decides who the owner is. If all the parties before the court could not prove ownership then the land goes to the state.
That last bit takes the piss, as if she never bothered to think of them before.
She has been worshipping BJP and markets and hating NREGA, RTI, and any welfare measure since I started reading Express in 2005. Couldn't have happened to a nicer person.
It's a little late for this:
The best decision Modi has made. Get fecked Tavleen, the only bad thing is that it's your son and not you.
You forgot the part where sonia gandhi gave clothes to her and she's been bitching about the gandhis for years. She just seems like a very selfish person in general.
She has been worshipping BJP and markets and hating NREGA, RTI, and any welfare measure since I started reading Express in 2005. Couldn't have happened to a nicer person.
It's a little late for this:
The best decision Modi has made. Get fecked Tavleen, the only bad thing is that it's your son and not you.
The Jama masjid in delhi is also on the hit list.
all her political views are because she had a falling-out with sonia in the early 00s and then became a committed bjp supporter. i've been hate-reading her articles for 15 years and the first one i remember, from 2005, was called something like "wake up bjp, the country needs you."
So basically a toned down female subramanium swami.
I heard from a lawyer on "India Today" quoting a law built in the constitution something to the effect not to demolish or exchange any place of worship. Ayodhya was the only place of worship exempt from this above law.
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 -> http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.pdf
Thanks!
There's can be a thin line between optimism and delusion but I don't think the movement to replace other mosques will resonate anywhere near as strongly with Hindus as Ayodhya did. Ram is a hugely important figure for Hindus which was why the BJP was so successful in mobilizing a movement around it.
The difference is that we had a vision of secularism earlier even though it's implementation at times was sorely lacking. Now we don't even have that.
Completely agree.
I'd like to think that the SC realized the country is too far down the saffron road to go against BJP's juggernaut or the Hindutva goons. They couldn't go against Modi, but they understood it was because of communal talking points like this that Modi came into power. This ruling ensures there can't be another Advani for Ayodhya. We may end up with an equivalent of 'Mandir Wahi Banega' elsewhere, but not for Ayodhya, not anymore.
Yep, I've encountered this too. My research advisor, a very well educated man who I had taken to be extremely liberal (he heads the Mental Health panel at college, and is defending the rights of his research student who's taking time off to go through a female-to-male transition) is suddenly very pleased and vocal about how our religious beliefs have been upheld by the ruling. He states how many temples were destroyed under Mughal rule, and talks how he's glad we're not going down the Democrat route of moral posturing when trying to defend our beliefs. Absolutely baffling.
My history lessons in schools had a chunk of Muslim kinds invasions into India. So when BJP presents this as Hindus taking their stuff back people don't see real nonsense and buy into it's just a balancing act idiocy.
Just curious. What would you have liked to see as the ruling?
It wasn't a choice from one or two options going one way or the other. A ruling along the lines of building a public library or a monument in memory of all those who have struggled and died in the communal struggle for Ayodhya would have been a far more secular result.
I mean, I'm not even bothered by Hindus who are happy with this ruling. But I know extremely well educated elders whose views/sentiments are grating to hear. The dislike for Muslims is apparent and abhorent. I guess it was always there. Now the veil has been lifted.
They've done exactly what Trump has done in the US - made the majority feel like the minority/betrayed/hard done by. Intelligent people lapping up Modi as a statesman who will bring development while RSS reshapes the country in the background with their rubbish ideology.
Being a minority i can attest that India was a secular country once upon a time. Although one could argue it wasn't secular in the european sense since the state wasn't irreligious. Our secularism meant pandering to all religions which makes more sense since most Indians are religious while most europeans aren't. That all changed in 1992, im a 80's kid and i know how things changed in the 90's and then in the 00's (9/11 and 2002). My parents and there generation faced nothing of the sort that was faced 1992 onwards.
I have hindu relatives in my family, they have told us things about our common family friends that we wouldn't have otherwise believed to be true. Even my friends who are hindus tell me no one is going to say it to your face but behind your back most detest muslims.
The findings of the SC say no one could prove ownership based on title therefore they decided ownership based on possession. The court said hindus worshipped in the outer courtyard and therefore had possesion of the outer courtyard while the muslims worshipped in the inner courtyard. Therefore, they should have given the outer courtyard to the hindus and the inner courtyard to the muslims. However, the hindus claimed that ram was born in the inner courtyard (no proof was presented) therefore, for the sake of future cordial relations the court could have switched it up and given muslims the outer courtyard and hindus the inner courtyard.
Meanwhile...
Godi mediaIf you don't mind me asking what has been the difference pre and post 1992. You can PM me as I'm genuinely interested to know.
This picture should be remembered for a while, really. It is the perfect symbol of Modi's India. Desh badal raha hai, aage bad raha hai.Meanwhile...
Yeah, I agree now. Never had irritation in eyes and all due to this, which I'm having this year
Yeah man its real bad. Today was a bit better though.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
There's a good book called "mothering a muslim" which should satiate your curiosity.
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/a-abraham-lincoln-moment-narendra-modi-6124545/
