“Secular” Gibberish!!

via H Balakrishnan published on October 5, 2010

Dear Sir,

Reference the ‘unadultrated Hogwash’ of Seema Mustafa in her ” Juggling with justice ” – (TNIE – 05 Oct).

Longtime readers of your paper are quite used to Seema Mustafa’s ‘outrageous logic’, ‘ secular spins ‘ and  ‘ downright LYING ‘. The present  ‘ OPINION ‘ also falls under the same
footprint !! She wrote : ” Travesty of justice? Or justice? Was the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in place to determine sentiments based on faith, or was its brief to give a ruling on the basis of evidence and the law? Can a god, or for that matter a Prophet or even a Son of God, be made a party to a case pending in the courts? Can a petition be dismissed by a court, and even then a ruling benefiting the particular petitioner be passed by a court? The answers to all these questions, by even a junior lawyer in the courts, would be a resounding ‘no’.”

Unfortunately for the likes of  ‘ disinformation campaigners ‘ like Seema Mustafa – the  answer happens to be a RESOUNDING ‘YES’ – which any ‘junior lawyer’ worth his/her salt  will know !! Here’s why.

Even the ‘ very-very-secular ‘ – ‘ People’s Daily of Chennai’ – oops! – The Hindu, had come out with a report on 03 Oct, entitled : ” Hindus’ belief about Lord Rama’s birthplace
protected under Article 25 ”. The report went to state : ” 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 “.

Further. ” The court said, ‘The place of birth of Lord Rama is not to be searched elsewhere in Ayodhya but it has to be in the disputed site or near about is evident from pleadings of the Muslim parties, which shows that they also do not dispute the existence of the place of birth of Lord Rama along with the temple, though an attempt is made that such temple is not the disputed one but one existing on the north side at about 200 metres.”  

(Ref: http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2010100362631000.htm&date=2010/10/03/&prd=th&)

That is not all. Open source literature reveals enough evidence of  ‘ settled case laws ‘ on Courts adjudicating in matters of faith. All matters pertaining to Hindu deities, temples, endowments, etc are determined from the days of the British Raj to the present by various aspects of Hindu Law. A person who has read Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts,  the oft quoted treatise by the celebrated Chief Justice of India, BK Mukherjea, the Privy
Council’s judgement in Pramatha Nath Mullick Vs Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1925), the Supreme Court’s judgement in Bishwanath and another Vs Shri Thakur Radhabhallabhji ( 1967), the Allahabad High Court’s Full Bench judgement in Jodhi Rai Vs Basdeo Prasad (1911), and, more recently, the Supreme Court’s verdict in Dr M Ismail Farooqui Vs Union of India (1994) would be far more circumspect while dealing with this issue. NOT THE SECULARS !!

In the present case before the Lucknow Bench, of the four title suits that were decided , only one suit filed on behalf of lord Ram was accepted by the court. All the other suits (filed by Sunni Central Board of Wakfs and others; Sri Gopal Singh Visharad and Nirmohi Akhara and Another) were dismissed. In the suit filed on behalf of lord Ram (Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman & Ors vs Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors – OOS No. 5 of 1989), lord Ram was the first plaintiff (Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman), the second plaintiff was Sthan Sri Ram Janma Bhumi, Ayodhya (the place known as Ram Janmabhoomi),  and the third plaintiff was Deoki Nandan Agarwal, a retired judge who became the “next friend” of the deities in 1989. Following Agarwal’s demise, the baton passed on to TP Verma and then on to Trilokinath Pandey, who was appointed the “next friend” of the deities by the Supreme Court.

KN Bhat, former Additional Solicitor-General who represented lord Ram and the Janmasthan — acting through the “next friend” Pandey, argued that a Hindu deity is a juristic person
who can sue and be sued and can possess properties and that this is well established through judgements of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court; that the Janmasthan is itself a deity; and that the suit is not barred by limitation because the deity (lord Ram) is in the position of a perpetual minor. The final outcome of the case depended substantially on whether the court accepted these averments made on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Quoting from Mukherjea’s Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, the plaint said lord Ram was a “juristic entity” with a juridical status: “Its (the deity’s) interests are attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who in law is its manager, with all the powers which would…be given to the manager of the estate of an infant heir. This doctrine…is firmly established.” Such a deity, deemed to be a perpetual minor, can sue through a “next friend” appointed by the courts.

The court upheld these contentions. It said that lord Ram and Ram Janmabhoomi, the place of his birth, were juristic persons and that the “next friend” of the deities was entitled to represent them.  It said that the suit filed on behalf of the deities was not barred by limitation and that the premises in question (or any part thereof) is by tradition, belief and faith the birthplace of lord Ram.

Thus, the present case was adjudicated on the basis of  ‘settled case law ‘ and the  Constitution. And yet, ” The answers to all these questions, by even a junior lawyer in the  courts, would be a resounding ‘no’.”  Then, in the light of the foregoing, the junior lawyers ‘Law Degree’ MUST be annulled forthwith !!  The ‘crap’ Seema Mustafa writes !!

Next, our ‘ learned OPINIM maker ‘ wrote : “  For clearly as Supreme Court advocate Rajeev Dhawan wrote, the judgment was that of a panchayat wanting to keep everyone happy, and not that of a high court whose learned judges were expected to assess the petitions according to evidence and the law “.

And, here is what ‘senior counsel’ Rajeev Dhawan told BBC News, on 26 Aug 2003, in a report filed by Jyotsna Singh, entitled : ” Experts split on Ayodhya findings “. She
wrote : “  – – However, Mr. Dhawan says, as the land was owned by the Sunni Waqf Board (an elected body of Muslim theologians) until 1945, the Hindus could have only moral right over the land, IF THE EXISTENCE OF THE TEMPLE WERE PROVEN . As far as the legal case is concerned, it is a title suit about the ownership of the land between Hindus and Muslims. The ASI report cannot be taken to be conclusive. This is only part of the evidence. The report will be analysed, ITS AUTHORS WILL BE CROSS-EXAMINED TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEY ARE RIGHT OR WRONG. It will be a long drawn out process”.

(REF: “Ayodhya: The Finale”, Dr.Koenraad Elst, Voice of India (2003), pp-29-30)

Thus we have a ‘senior counsel’ of the Supreme Court, contradicting his ‘own words’, between 2003 and 2010 !! WOW !! These are the ‘stars’ of the ‘secular side’ !! 

We are also aware of her histrionics and hysterics of Seema Mustafa, in reporting the so called ‘ Nun Rape Case ‘ in Kandhamal, that was published in your paper. Truth, happened to be ‘OTHERWISE’ !!

Thus, on the ‘secular’ writings of the likes of Seema Mustafa and ILK, It is best left to  Dr.Koenraad Elst to have the Last Word : ” Distortive or even totally false reporting on communally sensitive issues is a well entrenched feature of Indian journalism”.  LIARS Inc. !!



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

two × 1 =


Latest Articles from Media Watch

Did You Know?