The entire country has heaved a sigh of relief as the judgement on Babri Masjid was delivered and there were no disturbances. This was aptly described by the Home Minister as a ‘dignified and respectful’ attitude by the the people of India.
But it seems all the parties to the suit are aggrieved by the judgement and would appeal. One TV panelist termed it a good judgement for that reason alone. A nice coffee-table wisecrack, that if all the parties to a suit are aggrieved at the judgement, then the judgement should *be* good or correct.
I would dearly love to see him and his sibling (if he has one) get into a civil dispute about some property and the court awards one-third to *me*.
LOL.
Both of them would be aggrieved, and I too would be, since I would not be getting more for free!
Some of the historians are unhappy saying that historical evidence has been ignored, and even among eminent lawyers there is a division of opinion. Not to be left back (no pun intended), the politicians have jumped into the fray, even taking on the role of mouthpiece of one side.
Seems that I am the only one without any opinion; and I would remain so. I do not have legal training except for a brief stint as Legal Compliance Officer of one department in a big company, do not want to run afoul of the courts, or disturb the peace and harmony of the nation.
While I do not have any opinions on the Babri Masjid - Ram Janmabhoomi judgement, I have some reservations on the repercussions of the judgement, and how it will affect other suits; whether the judgement will be used as a precedence. My doubts may be unfounded, since even legal luminaries say they have to read the full judgement to properly analyse its impact and my own knowledge of the facts may be faulty.
But basically, I understand that the British in 1859 divided the disputed 67 acres and awarded the 2.77 acres where the Babri Masjid stood to Muslims and the rest of the 64.23 acres to the Hindus.
Ninety years later, in 1949, an idol of Lord Ram was placed inside the mosque and the building was either used or not used for prayers (by any or both sides) from then on (and even before) as Babri Masjid - Ram Janmabhoomi.
In between, in 1936 there was another fracas, between the Sunni and the Shia sects of Muslims, with the Sunni's claiming the mosque as their own - because Babur who supposedly build the mosque was a Sunni. The Shia counter claim was it was always used by the Shiites for prayers and hence it belonged to the Shias. The British ruled that both the Sunni and Shia have equal rights and all 3 prayed at the site, for the next decade or so.
Now, in 2010 with the judgement, that 2.77 acres allotted to the Muslims out of the original 67 acres, has been split 3 ways.
My doubts on the repercussions are:
But it seems all the parties to the suit are aggrieved by the judgement and would appeal. One TV panelist termed it a good judgement for that reason alone. A nice coffee-table wisecrack, that if all the parties to a suit are aggrieved at the judgement, then the judgement should *be* good or correct.
I would dearly love to see him and his sibling (if he has one) get into a civil dispute about some property and the court awards one-third to *me*.
LOL.
Both of them would be aggrieved, and I too would be, since I would not be getting more for free!
Some of the historians are unhappy saying that historical evidence has been ignored, and even among eminent lawyers there is a division of opinion. Not to be left back (no pun intended), the politicians have jumped into the fray, even taking on the role of mouthpiece of one side.
Seems that I am the only one without any opinion; and I would remain so. I do not have legal training except for a brief stint as Legal Compliance Officer of one department in a big company, do not want to run afoul of the courts, or disturb the peace and harmony of the nation.
While I do not have any opinions on the Babri Masjid - Ram Janmabhoomi judgement, I have some reservations on the repercussions of the judgement, and how it will affect other suits; whether the judgement will be used as a precedence. My doubts may be unfounded, since even legal luminaries say they have to read the full judgement to properly analyse its impact and my own knowledge of the facts may be faulty.
But basically, I understand that the British in 1859 divided the disputed 67 acres and awarded the 2.77 acres where the Babri Masjid stood to Muslims and the rest of the 64.23 acres to the Hindus.
Ninety years later, in 1949, an idol of Lord Ram was placed inside the mosque and the building was either used or not used for prayers (by any or both sides) from then on (and even before) as Babri Masjid - Ram Janmabhoomi.
In between, in 1936 there was another fracas, between the Sunni and the Shia sects of Muslims, with the Sunni's claiming the mosque as their own - because Babur who supposedly build the mosque was a Sunni. The Shia counter claim was it was always used by the Shiites for prayers and hence it belonged to the Shias. The British ruled that both the Sunni and Shia have equal rights and all 3 prayed at the site, for the next decade or so.
Now, in 2010 with the judgement, that 2.77 acres allotted to the Muslims out of the original 67 acres, has been split 3 ways.
My doubts on the repercussions are:
- If my ancestral land has been divided about 100 years ago between my grandpa and his brother, wouldn’t that be a ‘settlement’?
- Would either of the parties (or their heirs) subsequently, like me or my distant cousin be able to claim the full or additional property for himself, today?
- Just because I left my part of inherited property empty, vacant, undeveloped or unused, can my cousin claim usage and ask for possession and title of my inherited part?
- Meanwhile, if somebody had planted one or score of trees on that land, can he too make a claim for possession of the land or part of?
- Nuts. If all of this is possible, can someone file a suit on behalf of me for the title of Connaught place or Cuffe Parade? What the hell! I had been to both places and have pissed on the sidewalks one time or other, improving the aroma.
No comments:
Post a Comment