Imagine someone saying that Taj Mahal is the birthplace of Adam. Then all Angels fly and destroy Taj Mahal claiming that underneath the demolished structure we found evidence of apple eaten 'by' Adam and Eve.
After years of 'legal' battle between Adam clan (aka) angels and Taj Mahal curators the government says that the land belongs to Angels and they can grow as many apple trees they want.
#AyodhyaVerdict
@Karthikdeva The decision by Supreme Court was based on facts. The highest form of judiciary in India does say that demolition was wrong. Decision for peace. #Peace #tranquility .
@14maverick04 Dude, By narrating this imaginary story I'm not against #Peace or #Tranquillity.
I respect the verdict, I obviously don't want to end up in jail by saying otherwise. And what 'fact' would that be? May I ask? #ThoughtPolice
@Karthikdeva
The facts were laid down by Archaeological Department and the verdict do cite it. All the litigants are accepting the judgement gracefully. #fellow #myunopionatedview
@14maverick04 "This judgment is based on faith, not facts. The apex court used Article 142, which gives it special powers. We did not demand land for land. But you gave us five acres of land in exchange for 67 acres,” Farooqui told IANS. (All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) Executive Member)
(Copy pasted from news site)
SC stated that Hindus worshipped at Ayodhya before British came. While ASI agreed that the mosque was not built on a vacant land. ASI also refrained from recording a finding on whether mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple.If we solely believe in facts and not clouded by emotions and faith, we need to ask ourselves. Is this evidence enough?
If you read the verdict, SC didn't decide primarily on/ care about ASI findings. They had other 'valid' reason like 'evidence of Hindu worshipping took place at Outer courtyard ' etc etc. Let's just assume that Ram Mandir actually took there and Mughal Emperor Babri demolished it in 1500s. Does India (a democratic entity formed in 1947) have jurisdiction over him?
Or can we apprehend Ravan from SriLanka because he kidnapped Sita?
When Indian constitution came into force from 1950, it promised us a secular democratic nation where we adhere to its rules and regulations. That's the reason why all princely states agreed to join India.
If Babri masjid demolition didn't take place and Court actually did find 'undeniable ' evidence. We are more than happy to agree to it.
But they demolish it by force (1992) and facing no major repercussions for their actions is disheartening.
So anyone can attack minorities in the future based on ASI findings which allegedly prove some hypothetical existence? Can we stand and let it happen? What message does it send?
#AyodhyaVerdict
@14maverick04 So gracefully it is :)