A Rebuttal to ‘Sahamat’ Statement on Ayodhya Verdict

published on October 4, 2010

29, Feroze Shah Road
New Delhi 110001
[email protected]

Dear Sirs

This has reference to your Statement on Ayodhya Verdict dated 1st October 2010, signed by 61 so called ‘intellectuals’ and ’eminences’.

At the outset, let me state that by issuing such a malicious statement, you are trying to instigate the law-abiding Muslims. Also you have made a case for contempt of court, by casting aspersions on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court. 
I refute your statement that “we cannot but see the judgement as yet another blow to the secular fabric of our country“.  Secularism will be alive and kicking as long as Hindus are strong and in the majority. You need not worry about that because Hindutva is a guarantee for secularism. Therefore, when the Constitution was framed, none of the Hindu leaders insisted on the world ‘secularism’ in its Preamble. Only Smt. Indira Gandhi included it during emergency to fool the people, as though secularism was not existing from 1947 till 1975. That it has today come to mean as ‘minority appeasement’ is a different matter.
By stating that “The most objectionable part of the judgement is the legitimation it provides to violence and muscle-power” and “it accepts the destruction of the mosque in 1992“,  you are trying to mislead the general public. As is your wont, you seem to think that the people are fools. The case in question was a civil suit. The question of demolition of Babri structure on 6th Dec. 1992 is an alleged criminal act and was out of the purview of this court.
Your statement questions the findings of the Archeological Survey of India and calls it controversial. In fact, most of the signatories to your statement have all along been fooling the public by twisting the history of India and Hindus. The Allahabad High Court judgement has proved that they are all liars.  The judgement has exposed them and therefore they are running helter-skelter. They have, under your banner, shown their frustration.  Is it not ridiculous on your part to say that you are right and the ASI is wrong? Look at what Justice Sudhir Agarwal has stated in his judgement, “In our view, the conclusion drawn by the ASI in the project accomplished within an extra-ordinary brief period and with such an excellence precision and perfection deserve commendation and appreciation instead of condemnation.” But you think otherwise!
Further, J. Venkatesan, in his article in The Hindu dated 3rd October 2010 states that Hindus’ belief about Lord Rama’s birthplace is protected under Article 25. Here is what he writes:  “When Hindus believe that the place of birth of Lord Rama was within the disputed site of the Ayodhya temple, such belief partakes the nature of essential part of religion and is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution (right to profess one’s religion), the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held.
When even Muslim do not dispute that Lord Ram existed or that he was born in Ayodhya, you have always been raising the canard of ‘absence of evidence’.Although eminent persons like Shri Arun Shourie, Dr. Koenraad Elst, Dr.David Frawley, Late Shri Sita Ram Goel , Late Shri Ram Swarup, Dr. N.S. Rjaram etc., have exposed these “Eminences”  in their respective works, they (the ‘Eminences’) have always been able to ‘get away’ with their ‘fabrications’ of our history and our civilization ethos. It has taken nearly 60 years for Hindus to legally prove their claims and expose your lies. And you are now angry that the Allahabad High Court has refused to put its stamp of approval on all your fabrications and lies. After all, the court has to decide on facts and not on ‘fabrications’.
You state “Whatever happens next in the case cannot, unfortunately, make good what the country has lost.” You owe an explanation to the country as to what is lost by this judgement. If at all something is lost, it is the communal frenzy. Are you not happy about the loss of it? Further, if the ‘next’ is a negotiated settlement, what is your objection? Don’t you agree to a negotiated settlement? Does your interest lie in keeping the issue alive for a few decades more?
Or is the ‘next’ the appeal to the Supreme Court? How can the Supreme Court entertain the case? It has already decided ‘not to decide’ in this case. Look at this.

On 7th January 1993, The President of India referred the issue to the Supreme Court for a decision. The Presidential reference read: “Whether a Hindu Temple or any religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ramjanmabhoomi–Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the areas on which the structure stood?”

Chief Justice of India M.N. Venkatachaliah, Justice J.S. Verma and Justice G.N. Ray together signed a judgement dated 24th October 1994, which said, in para 100(11): “We very respectfully decline to answer it and return the same”. Justice A.M. Ahmadi and Justice S.P. Bharucha gave their judgement on the same day. Para 165 of their judgement read: “The Presidential Reference is returned respectfully, unanswered”. Haven’t they already decided ‘not to decide’? Therefore, now that the Allahabad High Court has given its verdict, it should be treated as the final verdict.

In fact, today all the fake secularists and bleeding heart liberals, who have come under your banner, stand exposed. On the basis of facts, logic and reason, the AHC has taken a logical decision.  It has put its stamp of approval on all their claims, except the 1/3rd of the land given to Muslims. This will enable Hindus to continue their campaign for getting back the 1/3rd land given to Muslims.

Since a majority of the Muslims seem to accept the AHC judgement, your motive in issuing such a statement is obviously to provoke them. Perverted secularists like you and the signatories do not want communal harmony, because that will lead to the closure of their shops. Therefore, by issuing such statements, you are trying to rekindle the communal frenzy. And I am sure, you will be defeated in these nefarious designs, as you have been in the AHC judgement.

This letter of mine will be published in Hindu Voice and National Spirit. If you reply to this letter, that too will be published, if I find it worth publishing. I would love to receive your rebuttal.

P. Deivamuthu

Editor, Hindu Voice (Monthly) – Espousing the cause of Hindutva

Editor, National Spirit (Weekly) – Stirring up the Soul of Bharat

Founder-President, Hindu Journalists & Intellectuals Forum (Regd.)

Statement on Ayodhya Verdict by SAHAMAT

Date 1.10.2010

Statement on Ayodhya Verdict

The judgement delivered by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Dispute on 30 September 2010 has raised serious concerns because of the way history, reason and secular values have been treated in it. First of all, the view that the Babri Masjid was built at the site of a Hindu temple, which has been maintained by two of the three judges, takes no account of all the evidence contrary to this fact turned up by the Archaeological Survey of India’s own excavations: the presence of animal bones throughout as well as of the use of ‘surkhi’ and lime mortar (all characteristic of Muslim presence) rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque. The ASI’s controversial Report which claimed otherwise on the basis of ‘pillar bases’ was manifestly fraudulent in its assertions since no pillars were found, and the alleged existence of ‘pillar bases’ has been debated by archaeologists. It is now imperative that the site notebooks, artefacts and other material evidence relating to the ASI’s excavation be made available for scrutiny by scholars, historians and archaeologists.

No proof has been offered even of the fact that a Hindu belief in Lord Rama’s birth-site being the same as the site of the mosque had at all existed before very recent times, let alone since ‘time immemorial’. Not only is the judgement wrong in accepting the antiquity of this belief, but it is gravely disturbing that such acceptance should then be converted into an argument for deciding property entitlement. This seems to be against all principles of law and equity.

The most objectionable part of the judgement is the legitimation it provides to violence and muscle-power. While it recognizes the forcible break-in of 1949 which led to placing the idols under the mosque-dome, it now recognizes, without any rational basis, that the transfer put the idols in their rightful place. Even more astonishingly, it accepts the destruction of the mosque in 1992 (in defiance, let it be remembered, of the Supreme Court’s own orders) as an act whose consequences are to be accepted, by transferring the main parts of the mosque to those clamouring for a temple to be built.

For all these reasons we cannot but see the judgement as yet another blow to the secular fabric of our country and the repute of our judiciary. Whatever happens next in the case cannot, unfortunately, make good what the country has lost.

Romila Thapar

K.M. Shrimali

D.N. Jha

K.N. Panikkar

Amiya Kumar Bagchi

Iqtidar Alam Khan

Shireen Moosvi

Jaya Menon

Irfan Habib

Suvira Jaiswal

Kesavan Veluthat

D. Mandal

Ramakrishna Chatterjee

Aniruddha Ray

Arun Bandopadhyaya

A. Murali

V. Ramakrishna

Arjun Dev

R.C. Thakran

H.C. Satyarthi

Amar Farooqui

B.P. Sahu

Biswamoy Pati

Lata Singh

Utsa Patnaik

Zoya Hasan

Prabhat Patnaik

C.P. Chandrasekhar

Jayati Ghosh

Archana Prasad

Shakti Kak

V.M. Jha

Prabhat Shukla

Indira Arjun Dev

Mahendra Pratap Singh

Ram Rahman

M.K. Raina

Sohail Hashmi

Parthiv Shah

Madan Gopal Singh

Madhu Prasad

Vivan Sundaram

Geeta Kapur

Rajendra Prasad

Anil Chandra

Rahul Verma

Indira Chandrasekhar

Sukumar Muralidharan

Supriya Verma

N.K. Sharma

S.Z.H. Jafri

Farhat Hasan

Shalini Jain

Santosh Rai

Najaf Haider

R. Gopinath

R.P. Bahuguna

G.P. Sharma

Sitaram Roy

O.P. Jaiswal

K.K. Sharma


29, Feroze Shah Road,

New Delhi-110001

Telephone- 23381276/ 23070787

e-mail-sahmat8@ yahoo.com


Welcome to Haindava Keralam! Register for Free or Login as a privileged HK member to enjoy auto-approval of your comments and to receive periodic updates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

nine − 7 =


Latest Articles from Bharath Focus

Did You Know?