High Court exposed "secular" historians in Ayodhya verdict

[f2000560]

Oh boy ! And I thought that all right wing religious loons were confined to our parosi site . We certainly have our fair share here... Me thinks that evidence presented for Ram janambhoomi is sketchy at best !

If you actually go through the body of evidence of a temple its staggering, Koenraad Elst demolishes the frivolous and often hare brained arguments of the "secular" side. This D.Mandal's so called study which has been thoroughly exposed in this judgement was the cornerstone of the secular cause but to be honest atleast he made an attempt at rebutting the finding most other "historians" merely call people names ranging from "extremists" to "facists" to "BJP's prostitutes", write some vile op ed piece and merely claim the finding is disputed ?? I still think its too late to correct a medivial error now 400 years hence but evidence of a temple is pretty much indisputable.

[saneindian]

Historians and activists deplore Ayodhya verdict In the first civil society response in the capital to the Ayodhya verdict, eminent historians and activists deplored the "disturbing absence of the concept of secularism" in the lengthy judgment. They said the judgment read as though the judges had penned the verdict in a pre-Constitution era. Calling the verdict a "judicial reconstruction of faith" rather than interpretation, advocates noted that the judges, far from upholding the principles of a secular state, made the law subordinate to faith. "The word and concept of secularism is completely missing," said advocate Anupam Gupta, who briefed the media on behalf of the activists, academics and advocates who had met on Friday. Signatories to the statement include academics such as K N Panikkar, Uma Chakravorty, K M Shrimali, Zoya Hasan, Nandini Sundar and activists such as Harsh Mander and Syeda Hameed. "Belief won over facts. Swami Vivekananda, an orthodox Hindu, the inspiration of millions, never once spoke of Ram janambhoomi. Now, within the Allahabad-bench's non-secular approach to the judgment, a second question is raised. How do you interpret the faith?" said Gupta. The judges imposed the "belief of some Hindus" on the verdict, he said, resulting in "imagination" —- in the guise of judicial interpretation —- of what the Hindu faith is. The verdict, it was forcefully felt, sets a dangerous precedent as upholding a section's "beliefs" can also be used as an excuse to target vulnerable groups such as dalits and women. The very manner in which the judgment was approached, it was felt, showed that perceptions were placed over facts. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Historians-and-activists-deplore-Ayodhya-verdict-/articleshow/6756775.cms ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have these looneys gone through the judgement or have they been talking thorugh all their orifices just for fun? Till the time the judgement came, these eminent historians had "full faith" in the courts and the judges, but now that their long standing unsubstantiated theories have been thrown down the drain, they have started attacking the judges!! Why cant they ,for once, note what the judges have said in the judgement and then refute the facts once by one through evidences?

[ravishingravi]

Have these looneys gone through the judgement or have they been talking thorugh all their orifices just for fun? Till the time the judgement came, these eminent historians had "full faith" in the courts and the judges, but now that their long standing unsubstantiated theories have been thrown down the drain, they have started attacking the judges!! Why cant they ,for once, not what the judges have said in the judgement and then refute the facts once by one through evidences?

Pseudo secularists are the same. Here, there everywhere. The single most important part of the judgement which all of them are dodging is that WAQF board's title was quashed. They had no title to the land or any evidence to prove it.

[someone]

There are many things which I do not understand 1. The people who said they will accept verdict, are the first ones to appeal saying this is not the end. 2. Secondly, and more importantly are some of the reactions of those arguments after the verdict. There are some neutrals, who are saying this is such a old issue, place, history. That we should forget it and build a hospital. If this ever happens, it would set a dangerous trend where all temples will be demolished to make a modern Indian building with islamic monuments as India will be "newer". And the most common argument by these people is questioning the religion Hinduism and asking more proofs. Then why stop there, what about the other party? This issue will drag for years and there will many conspiracy theories like (Hindu judges, RAW...).

[straight.drive]

Historians and activists deplore Ayodhya verdict In the first civil society response in the capital to the Ayodhya verdict, eminent historians and activists deplored the "disturbing absence of the concept of secularism" in the lengthy judgment. They said the judgment read as though the judges had penned the verdict in a pre-Constitution era. Calling the verdict a "judicial reconstruction of faith" rather than interpretation, advocates noted that the judges, far from upholding the principles of a secular state, made the law subordinate to faith. "The word and concept of secularism is completely missing," said advocate Anupam Gupta, who briefed the media on behalf of the activists, academics and advocates who had met on Friday. Signatories to the statement include academics such as K N Panikkar, Uma Chakravorty, K M Shrimali, Zoya Hasan, Nandini Sundar and activists such as Harsh Mander and Syeda Hameed. "Belief won over facts. Swami Vivekananda, an orthodox Hindu, the inspiration of millions, never once spoke of Ram janambhoomi. Now, within the Allahabad-bench's non-secular approach to the judgment, a second question is raised. How do you interpret the faith?" said Gupta. The judges imposed the "belief of some Hindus" on the verdict, he said, resulting in "imagination" —- in the guise of judicial interpretation —- of what the Hindu faith is. The verdict, it was forcefully felt, sets a dangerous precedent as upholding a section's "beliefs" can also be used as an excuse to target vulnerable groups such as dalits and women. The very manner in which the judgment was approached, it was felt, showed that perceptions were placed over facts. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Historians-and-activists-deplore-Ayodhya-verdict-/articleshow/6756775.cms -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haa the speech of fools is good stimulant for a great evening laughter session. These nut cases deserve to live in kandahar under strict sharia.

[straight.drive]

Seems like your favorite reply when it comes to topics related to Hinduism. Do you have it saved somewhere for copy/paste? :giggle:

That's the reply of all leftie loonies. This reply is a statement of solidarity for those self declared intellectuals.

[f2000560]

http://www.swapan55.com/2010/10/summary-of-asi-report-on-ayodhya.html i would like the "eminent" historians try and rubbish the sheer mountain of evidence the asi has dug up some even predating the birth of islam.

[ravishingravi]

http://www.swapan55.com/2010/10/summary-of-asi-report-on-ayodhya.html i would like the "eminent" historians try and rubbish the sheer mountain of evidence the asi has dug up some even predating the birth of islam.

Arguably one of the best pieces on the subject. Thanks for that

[f2000560]

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/ is another site with some decent info unfortunately i could find nothing more than sophistry for the no temple debate on the web of course there are papers like these http://www.jisha.in/art1/17dmandal5wt2546wf.pdf the very same d mandal who has been shown as shallow in fact his works are the bulwark of the no temple argument