• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Ayodhya : SC prefers mediation due to the religious sensitivity of the matter


Well-known member
Agree. Most acceptable solution for both the communities for an otherwise intractable problem. But our right wingers are on a different world trip !!

They don't realise their masters don't care about building any temple, they are using this to whip up sentiments and win the election !!

i agreed...the mandir issue ONLY for election purposes....the mandir issue ONLY remember during

election time....election over ..mandir problem over...


Well-known member
When it comes to Kashmir, some Indians like to invoke the memory of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel with a wistful ‘what if’ question. But they seldom remember Sardar Patel when arguing on Ayodhya.
As the Supreme Court kick starts a mediation process to resolve the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute, it is worth recalling how Sardar Patel wished to resolve the issue ‘amicably in a spirit of mutual toleration and goodwill between the two communities.’

More importantly, he was on the same page with former Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru on how to tackle this issue. Sardar Patel, who is remembered today as a tough Hindu Hriday Samrat – and hailed for his role in rebuilding Somnath temple – did not want Ayodhya to be politicised. In fact, he did not want a solution without the ‘willing consent’ of Muslims. (Sardar Patel’s Correspondence, Edited by Durga Das, Vol.9)

The trouble started in November 1949 as graphically noted in ‘Harijan’ by its editor and veteran Gandhian philosopher Kishorelal Mashruwala. He quoted Akshay Brahmachari’s account at length. Brahmachari was a sadhu from Ayodhya, a Gandhian and secretary of the Faizabad district Congress committee. According to Brahmachari, on 13 November 1949, the tombs in the burial ground were being dug out. He himself went to the spot. ‘In the middle of the graveyard, there was a foundation, known among Muslims as Kanati Masjid. A platform was being raised on its site.’ (Harijan, August 19, 1950, p. 212. Muslims of Ayodhya, K. G. Mashruwala)

Even though section 144 was imposed in the city, the district magistrate intimated Brahmachari on 23 December 1949 at 9 a.m., ‘that an idol of Rama had been placed in the Babari Masjid during the night. He himself had visited the place and seen it.’

Brahmachari thought the district magistrate didn’t act swiftly. ‘Till 12 in the noon that day, there were only a few men present at the place and had he (DM) meant it, the removal of the idol could have been easily effected.’

Next day, it was announced with great fanfare that the Lord himself had manifested and people were invited for darshan. During the gathering, ‘the speakers said that there was not a temple left in Pakistan and so in Ayodhya too they should allow no masjid or burial ground to remain.’
Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Congress governments were also the target of attack in their speeches. Brahmachari also noted about the participation of old Congressmen in inciting propaganda. ‘Even some members of the Congress party in the Legislative Assembly indulged in this kind of irresponsible talk.’ (Harijan, 19 August 1950, p. 212. Muslims of Ayodhya, K. G. Mashruwala)



Active member
First off, the archeological report has been disputed by many independent observers.
The Allahabad HC, comprising of a Muslim Judge among others, made their judgments after verifying and accepting that the archaeological findings are valid. If, according to you, some "independent observers" dispute it outside the court, let them join the case as party and present their observations before the Court. What is preventing them from approaching the court? The archaeological excavation has been done under the direction of the Court. Let the SC examine their objections, and decide on the future course of action. If these people haven't done that any time in the past 9 yrs, their "disputation" is circumspect and should be rejected. I am guessing that these so-called "independent observers" will have their own agenda and perhaps want to create more confusion in the minds of the public and foment communal tensions.

Keeping that aside, all of us need to understand, building a temple on the same place where the mosque was demolished will lead to unprecedented communal tensions and riots.
Who are 'all of us' here? If you mean the SC, then the Court has to judge based on the evidence placed before it, and not based on arbitrary beliefs. There is always a possibility of communal tensions, irrespective of whether a temple or mosque or hospital or university is built there. It is the job of the Government to maintain law and order.

Any solution has to be acceptable to the Muslim community. and there are only 2 options.
Fair minded Muslims would never want to worship in a mosque that, by all scientific evidence, accepted by the Courts, has been built over the ruins of a massive non-muslim place of worship, most likely by demolishing the said non-muslim place of worship, and in a place that has a connection in the minds of millions of adherents of that non-muslim religion, just like the Muslims have a connection with Mecca and Medina. I have seen interviews wherein Muslims themselves stated that their religious texts ban the building of an Islamic place of worship over the ruins of a non-muslim place of worship. So I don't think that these few litigants who oppose the Temple, in any way represent the "Muslim community" in general.

Show irrefutable solid evidence that Lord Raman was born in that place and then discuss with the the Muslim leaders.
This will have a higher chance of success. There are many moderate Muslim leaders today who will support this.
The evidence already placed before the Courts is available for all to access. Hindus are not preventing any Muslim, whether leader or follower, moderate or otherwise, from perusing them and in expressing their support for the Hindu Cause. If some Muslims are keeping silent on this issue because they are afraid of some radical elements of the Muslim community, that is a challenge that they will have to face on their own. As far as the Hindu litigants is concerned,
  1. This is a matter sub-judice.
  2. The irrefutable, solid evidence for their claims has been placed before the Courts, long ago.
  3. Hindu litigants are confident that, once the Courts peruse the evidence placed before the court, and apply the normal court 'process', a decision in their favour is guaranteed.
  4. Their only prayer is that enough delay has already occurred in the matter, and without further ado, the Hon'ble SC may sift through the irrefutable, solid evidence placed before Courts and decide as per the law and natural justice.
  5. Hindu litigants have no faith in outside talks with muslim litigants, because the same has been done many times already, and that it is merely one of those tactics used by that side to waste time and to delay decisions, fully knowing that the evidence is totally against their weak claims. And those who speak on behalf of these Muslim litigants are yet to produce "irrefutable solid evidence" to show that these Muslim litigants will be ready and willing to give up their claims through mediation.

Follow Tamil Brahmins on Social Media

Latest posts