Supreme Court of India on Saturday delivered a landmark judgement in a politically-sensitive Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi Title Suit, observing that a Ram temple will be built on the disputed 2.77 acres land in Ayodhya.

70-year-old Ayodhya dispute put to rest

In order to maintain the law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh during and after the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/supreme-court-reserves-ayodhya-verdict-after-40-days-of-hearing-256283">pronouncement of judgement</a> on the Ram Janambhoomi- Babri masjid case, the Centre has given Uttar Pradesh almost 4000 extra Paramilitary personnel.

A decision was made on Monday where the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has granted 15 companies of paramilitary forces to Uttar Pradesh immediately which will stay in the state till November 18.

According to a document exclusively accessed by ANI, the 15 companies of paramilitary forces include three companies each of BSF, RAF, CISF, ITBP and SSB.

The official communication also says that 15 more companies of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) will reach Uttar Pradesh on November 11 to stay till November 18.

The central government has also granted an extension of stay till November 18 to ten companies of Rapid Action Force (RAF) which are already deployed in Uttar Pradesh.

"Total 40 companies which include 16 companies of RAF and six companies each of CISF, ITBP, SSB and BSF will be deployed in Uttar Pradesh till November 18," an official communication said.

These paramilitary companies will be deployed in 12 most sensitive districts and cities of the state.

Apart from Varanasi and Ayodhya paramilitary forces will be deployed in Kanpur, Aligarh, Lucknow, Azamgarh etc to maintain law and order situation and ensure normalcy during and after the Ayodhya verdict.

The local administration has been asked to make arrangements for the deployment of security force personnel.

The central government is aware that even the smallest of security-related incidents could spark reactions in other states hence there is close coordination between top security departments of both the centre and UP.

Strict instructions have been given right down to the police station level that no breach of government directives on security must be tolerated.

The Supreme Court is expected to pronounce its judgement in the decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case before November 17 when Chief Justice of India Ranjan <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-sharad-arvind-bobde-appointed-next-cji-will-take-oath-on-november-18-258727">Gogoi demits office</a>.

In order to maintain the law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh during and after the pronouncement of judgement on the Ram Janambhoomi- Babri masjid case, the Centre has given Uttar Pradesh almost 4000 extra Paramilitary personnel.

In order to maintain the law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh during and after the pronouncement of judgement on the Ram Janambhoomi- Babri masjid case, the Centre has given Uttar Pradesh almost 4000 extra Paramilitary personnel. A decision was made on Monday where the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has granted 15 companies of paramilitary forces to Uttar Pradesh immediately which will stay in the state till November 18. According to a document exclusively accessed by ANI, the 15 companies of paramilitary forces include three companies each of BSF, RAF, CISF, ITBP and SSB. The official communication also says that 15 more companies of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) will reach Uttar Pradesh on November 11 to stay till November 18. The central government has also granted an extension of stay till November 18 to ten companies of Rapid Action Force (RAF) which are already deployed in Uttar Pradesh. "Total 40 companies which include 16 companies of RAF and six companies each of CISF, ITBP, SSB and BSF will be deployed in Uttar Pradesh till November 18," an official communication said. These paramilitary companies will be deployed in 12 most sensitive districts and cities of the state. Apart from Varanasi and Ayodhya paramilitary forces will be deployed in Kanpur, Aligarh, Lucknow, Azamgarh etc to maintain law and order situation and ensure normalcy during and after the Ayodhya verdict. The local administration has been asked to make arrangements for the deployment of security force personnel. The central government is aware that even the smallest of security-related incidents could spark reactions in other states hence there is close coordination between top security departments of both the centre and UP. Strict instructions have been given right down to the police station level that no breach of government directives on security must be tolerated. The Supreme Court is expected to pronounce its judgement in the decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case before November 17 when Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi demits office.

Centre gives UP 4000 CAPF personnel to maintain law and order before, after Ayodhya judgement

Sunni Waqf Board has currently withdrawn from the title suit on the last day of Ayodhya Dispute hearing. Watch this video to know more.

Ayodhya Dispute: Sunni Waqf Board seeks withdrawal of case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after the Hindu body contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982.

Senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Akhara, told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the obstruction to worship and prayer is what forced them to file the civil suits.

"Not just my right of possession but my right of management has also been taken away," he contended.

"There are some property rights which the Shebiat (temple custodian-priest) enjoys. It is not just office but proprietary rights are blended with it. These Shebiats are more than mere managers. They also have proprietary rights," he added.

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 142 of the Limitation Act speaks of possession of the immovable property but does not talk about management and hence the possession of property and management of worship are two different things.

Yesterday, Akhara had told the top court that Muslims were not allowed to enter the temple gate since 1934 and it is in their possession since then.

Jain told the court that the suit was filed by his client for possession and management rights. The counsel asserted that the inner courtyard, which includes Sita Rasoi, Bhandar Grih and a place known as "Janamasthan" are in the possession of the Akhara.

He further contended that the claim over the disputed land was filed by the Akhara in 1934, whereas Sunni Waqf Board filed the suit in 1961.

A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case.

Earlier on August 2, the top court had observed that the mediation panel on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute failed to achieve an amicable settlement and decided to hold day-to-day hearings in the decades-old case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after the Hindu body contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after the Hindu body contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982. Senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Akhara, told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the obstruction to worship and prayer is what forced them to file the civil suits. "Not just my right of possession but my right of management has also been taken away," he contended. "There are some property rights which the Shebiat (temple custodian-priest) enjoys. It is not just office but proprietary rights are blended with it. These Shebiats are more than mere managers. They also have proprietary rights," he added. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 142 of the Limitation Act speaks of possession of the immovable property but does not talk about management and hence the possession of property and management of worship are two different things. Yesterday, Akhara had told the top court that Muslims were not allowed to enter the temple gate since 1934 and it is in their possession since then. Jain told the court that the suit was filed by his client for possession and management rights. The counsel asserted that the inner courtyard, which includes Sita Rasoi, Bhandar Grih and a place known as "Janamasthan" are in the possession of the Akhara. He further contended that the claim over the disputed land was filed by the Akhara in 1934, whereas Sunni Waqf Board filed the suit in 1961. A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case. Earlier on August 2, the top court had observed that the mediation panel on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute failed to achieve an amicable settlement and decided to hold day-to-day hearings in the decades-old case from August 6. Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

Ayodhya land dispute: Supreme Court seeks evidence of possession of Ram Janmabhoomi from Nirmohi Akhara

The Supreme Court will now hear the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case on a day-to-day basis starting from August 6. The apex court arrived at this decision after the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-land-dispute-case-mediation-panel-submits-report-to-supreme-court-240004">mediation panel submitted a report</a> stating that no final agreement or settlement was reached during the talks between the parties.&nbsp;

Thereby, CJI Ranjan Gogoi declared that since mediation process failed to yield positive results, the hearing in the title dispute case will resume.&nbsp;

In the last hearing, the top court assured that if mediation talks failed to reach an amicable solution to resolve the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute, then the court will commence hearing the case on a day-to-day basis.

The original plaintiff had sought early hearing of the case. Senior lawyer SK Parasaran, arguing for one of the applicants, told the top court that mediation talks were not making much progress and were unable to bring any positive results. However, senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, representing Muslim parties, said that this was not the time to criticise the mediation panel. He said, “I don’t think it’s fair to criticise mediation panel’s proceedings. Parties cannot come to court asking to scrap the mediation talks on our account”.

In order to resolve the title dispute case, the apex court had appointed a mediation panel headed by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu. While forming the panel, the court had asked the mediation panel to maintain utmost confidentiality and disallowed media from reporting the panel proceedings.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court will now hear the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case on a day-to-day basis starting from August 6. The apex court arrived at this decision after the mediation panel submitted a report stating that no final agreement or settlement was reached during the talks between the parties.

The Supreme Court will now hear the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case on a day-to-day basis starting from August 6. The apex court arrived at this decision after the mediation panel submitted a report stating that no final agreement or settlement was reached during the talks between the parties. Thereby, CJI Ranjan Gogoi declared that since mediation process failed to yield positive results, the hearing in the title dispute case will resume. In the last hearing, the top court assured that if mediation talks failed to reach an amicable solution to resolve the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute, then the court will commence hearing the case on a day-to-day basis. The original plaintiff had sought early hearing of the case. Senior lawyer SK Parasaran, arguing for one of the applicants, told the top court that mediation talks were not making much progress and were unable to bring any positive results. However, senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, representing Muslim parties, said that this was not the time to criticise the mediation panel. He said, “I don’t think it’s fair to criticise mediation panel’s proceedings. Parties cannot come to court asking to scrap the mediation talks on our account”. In order to resolve the title dispute case, the apex court had appointed a mediation panel headed by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu. While forming the panel, the court had asked the mediation panel to maintain utmost confidentiality and disallowed media from reporting the panel proceedings.

Ayodhya case: Mediation failed to yield results, daily hearing from August 6, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the mediation panel to resolve the Ayodhya land dispute to submit a status report in the case by July 18. The apex court has fixed July 25 as the next date for hearing. Watch this video to know more.

Ayodhya land dispute: Top Court likely to begin hearing from July 25

Top court of India defers Ayodhya case hearing, additional time is allowed to mediation panel till August 15. Watch this video to know more.

Ayodhya dispute: Mediation panel requested for more time

The central government has submitted an interim application to the Supreme Court asking for permission to restore 67.39 acres of the land acquired around the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site to its rightful owners.&nbsp;

The 67.39 acres of land had been acquired by the central government in 1991. The 67.39 acres included the 2.77 acres on which the Babri Masjid used to stand. The Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.&nbsp;

With the general elections coming up, and the demands for the Ram Mandir by various Hindu groups increasing in volume — the move by the BJP-led government can be thought of as significant.&nbsp;

While the Centre has not categorically stated that the Ram Mandir will be built on the acquired land, it has asked the Supreme Court to permit it to hand over the land to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas (the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is a trust that promotes construction of the temple).&nbsp;

The Centre has also requested the Supreme Court to modify its March 31, 2003 order which had stated that use of the 67.39 acres is intrinsically connected to the disputed land and will be dependent on the outcome of the civil suit being fought over it — the Allahabad High Court judgement of 2010 had distributed the disputed 2.77 acres on which the Babri Masjid used to stand equally among three contesting parties.&nbsp;

According to the Centre, this will enable it to “determine the exact extent of land required from out of the superfluous/ excess land to ensure that successful party in the disputed pending regarding the disputed land can have proper access to and enjoyment of rights in the disputed land.”

The Centre's application further states that according to the Ismail Faruqi Judgement of the apex court, “The interest claimed by the Muslims was only over the disputed site of 0.313 acres where the disputed structure stood before its demolition” while the other land acquired by the government under the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act 1993 “is such over which no title is claimed by the Muslims.”&nbsp;

The Supreme Court had last week formed a constitution bench to hear the title dispute case which will look into the pleas challenging the 2010 Allahabad Hugh court verdict.&nbsp;

The central government has submitted an interim application to the Supreme Court asking for permission to restore 67.39 acres of the land acquired around the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site to its rightful owners.

The central government has submitted an interim application to the Supreme Court asking for permission to restore 67.39 acres of the land acquired around the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site to its rightful owners. The 67.39 acres of land had been acquired by the central government in 1991. The 67.39 acres included the 2.77 acres on which the Babri Masjid used to stand. The Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992. With the general elections coming up, and the demands for the Ram Mandir by various Hindu groups increasing in volume — the move by the BJP-led government can be thought of as significant. While the Centre has not categorically stated that the Ram Mandir will be built on the acquired land, it has asked the Supreme Court to permit it to hand over the land to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas (the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is a trust that promotes construction of the temple). The Centre has also requested the Supreme Court to modify its March 31, 2003 order which had stated that use of the 67.39 acres is intrinsically connected to the disputed land and will be dependent on the outcome of the civil suit being fought over it — the Allahabad High Court judgement of 2010 had distributed the disputed 2.77 acres on which the Babri Masjid used to stand equally among three contesting parties. According to the Centre, this will enable it to “determine the exact extent of land required from out of the superfluous/ excess land to ensure that successful party in the disputed pending regarding the disputed land can have proper access to and enjoyment of rights in the disputed land.” The Centre's application further states that according to the Ismail Faruqi Judgement of the apex court, “The interest claimed by the Muslims was only over the disputed site of 0.313 acres where the disputed structure stood before its demolition” while the other land acquired by the government under the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act 1993 “is such over which no title is claimed by the Muslims.” The Supreme Court had last week formed a constitution bench to hear the title dispute case which will look into the pleas challenging the 2010 Allahabad Hugh court verdict.

Ayodhya dispute: Centre moves Supreme Court, seeks permission to return acquired land to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas

With the Supreme Court constituting a five-member bench under the Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi, it is expected that a decision on the Ram Janmabhoomi temple construction is very much in sight. The NDA government has already requested the apex court for a day-to-day hearing of the pending appeals against the Allahabad High Court judgement, on a three-way split of the disputed land.

In recent months, the temple movement has stepped up pressure on the central government for an early solution. This is bound to create ripples on the political front as the 2019 Lok Sabha polls are round the corner.

The Centre enacting the 10 per cent reservation for the economically backward sections of society has consolidated the BJP base among the segments so far deprived of the benefit of reservation. This is bound to have an impact on the Ram Janmabhoomi movement also since it has taken care of the grievance of a large chunk of the BJP support base who are at the forefront of the Ayodhya agitation. &nbsp;

After over a quarter of a century of the demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya’s holy site, a historic and dramatic resolution looks possible if the stakeholders agree to a suggestion mooted by the Shia Waqf Board, the real title-holder of the premise, to relocate the mosque to a nearby Muslim area which would facilitate the building of a magnificent Ram Temple. This was announced in August 2017, by the Shia Waqf Board. The apex court may take cognisance of this.

The Hindus welcomed the offer in the court. But a section of Muslims under the hardline Sunni Board and the Babri Masjid Action Committee has reacted adversely.

The offer of the Muslim community, even if it is coming from only a faction, is the result of the inclusive policy of the Narendra Modi government. Muslims feel safe enough and part of the mainstream for the first time since Independence. This is also the first time since the dispute went to court that the title-holder party or, for that matter, anybody from the Muslim community, has proposed a shifting of the mosque from the disputed land. This in itself is ground-breaking, thus opening a new chapter in Hindu-Muslim relations. This can become the starting point for a negotiated settlement.

The Shia offer has three major aspects: First, technically, only the Shia community has a legal right on the property. The demolished Babri Masjid, though there was no namaz held there for many decades, was a Shia shrine, historically built on a temple that existed till the 14th Century. Second, this is the first time any Muslim individual or outfit is making an offer to relocate the mosque. Third, the starting point for any dialogue has to be the admission of the Hindu claim that the site in discussion is the Ram Janmabhoomi and sacred to Hindus. No solution can come unless these basic premises are brought on the table.

There is yet another important aspect to the Shia Waqf Board suggestion. It has identified, and without mincing words declared, that the hardline sections in the Babri Action Committee are not interested in an amicable solution and are trying to vitiate the social fabric. “It is under the dominant control of hardliners, fanatics and non-believers in peaceful co-existence, who have absolutely no stakes in the case”, it said. Though the Sunni Waqf Board has also petitioned the Supreme Court as a party in the dispute, they have no locus standi as far as the title deed is concerned. The Allahabad HC in its 2011 judgement declared as such. The Allahabad HC had suggested a three-way division of the site with one portion going to the Shia Waqf Board, while accepting the historic Hindu belief that the place in question is Ram Janmabhoomi. The two other parts were given to the Hindu organisation.

The appeal against the high court verdict has been pending in the Supreme Court ever since. In early 2017, responding to a review petition by Dr Subramanian Swamy, the apex court had asked the involved parties to find a solution through mutual consent. Ever since both Hindu and Muslim leaders have been constantly exchanging notes with Swamy and VHP leader Champat Rai taking the initiative.

At least 200 rounds of negotiations have taken place between the two sides since the issue became hot in the late 80s. A very serious attempt at negotiated settlement was held when Chandrashekhar was Prime Minister in the early 90s. Then historians, archaeologists and scholars from both sides involved themselves in quoting chapter and verse to prove their side. Dr BB Lal, Dr SP Gupta, Dr BR Grover, and many such luminaries then played a role in verifying the historicity of the Hindu claim. Historians like Dr Irfan Habib argued for the other side. In the end, archaeology, history and faith proved the Hindu claim to be much stronger. But the Babri Committee was unrelenting.

What the Shia Board has now done in August 2017 was to call the bluff of this Committee. Mahant Nritya Gopal Das of the Janmabhoomi Nyas had expressed guarded satisfaction over the Shia Board proposal. Subramanian Swamy and the VHP are more exuberant with the development. The Shia Board had suggested a two-judge committee with members of the opposing sides and experts work on the nitty-gritty of the negotiated settlement. Now that the apex court has taken up a fast track process this will help.

With the BJP in power in Uttar Pradesh and at the Centre, the hope of paving the way for the grand temple in Ayodhya is on the ascent. It may not be possible to satisfy all the segments and spectrum of opinion at any stage. The moot point is will the apex court settle it before 2019 polls?

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-laying-a-strong-foundation-2707231">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

With the Supreme Court constituting a five-member bench under the Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi, it is expected that a decision on the Ram Janmabhoomi temple construction is very much in sight.

With the Supreme Court constituting a five-member bench under the Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi, it is expected that a decision on the Ram Janmabhoomi temple construction is very much in sight. The NDA government has already requested the apex court for a day-to-day hearing of the pending appeals against the Allahabad High Court judgement, on a three-way split of the disputed land. In recent months, the temple movement has stepped up pressure on the central government for an early solution. This is bound to create ripples on the political front as the 2019 Lok Sabha polls are round the corner. The Centre enacting the 10 per cent reservation for the economically backward sections of society has consolidated the BJP base among the segments so far deprived of the benefit of reservation. This is bound to have an impact on the Ram Janmabhoomi movement also since it has taken care of the grievance of a large chunk of the BJP support base who are at the forefront of the Ayodhya agitation. After over a quarter of a century of the demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya’s holy site, a historic and dramatic resolution looks possible if the stakeholders agree to a suggestion mooted by the Shia Waqf Board, the real title-holder of the premise, to relocate the mosque to a nearby Muslim area which would facilitate the building of a magnificent Ram Temple. This was announced in August 2017, by the Shia Waqf Board. The apex court may take cognisance of this. The Hindus welcomed the offer in the court. But a section of Muslims under the hardline Sunni Board and the Babri Masjid Action Committee has reacted adversely. The offer of the Muslim community, even if it is coming from only a faction, is the result of the inclusive policy of the Narendra Modi government. Muslims feel safe enough and part of the mainstream for the first time since Independence. This is also the first time since the dispute went to court that the title-holder party or, for that matter, anybody from the Muslim community, has proposed a shifting of the mosque from the disputed land. This in itself is ground-breaking, thus opening a new chapter in Hindu-Muslim relations. This can become the starting point for a negotiated settlement. The Shia offer has three major aspects: First, technically, only the Shia community has a legal right on the property. The demolished Babri Masjid, though there was no namaz held there for many decades, was a Shia shrine, historically built on a temple that existed till the 14th Century. Second, this is the first time any Muslim individual or outfit is making an offer to relocate the mosque. Third, the starting point for any dialogue has to be the admission of the Hindu claim that the site in discussion is the Ram Janmabhoomi and sacred to Hindus. No solution can come unless these basic premises are brought on the table. There is yet another important aspect to the Shia Waqf Board suggestion. It has identified, and without mincing words declared, that the hardline sections in the Babri Action Committee are not interested in an amicable solution and are trying to vitiate the social fabric. “It is under the dominant control of hardliners, fanatics and non-believers in peaceful co-existence, who have absolutely no stakes in the case”, it said. Though the Sunni Waqf Board has also petitioned the Supreme Court as a party in the dispute, they have no locus standi as far as the title deed is concerned. The Allahabad HC in its 2011 judgement declared as such. The Allahabad HC had suggested a three-way division of the site with one portion going to the Shia Waqf Board, while accepting the historic Hindu belief that the place in question is Ram Janmabhoomi. The two other parts were given to the Hindu organisation. The appeal against the high court verdict has been pending in the Supreme Court ever since. In early 2017, responding to a review petition by Dr Subramanian Swamy, the apex court had asked the involved parties to find a solution through mutual consent. Ever since both Hindu and Muslim leaders have been constantly exchanging notes with Swamy and VHP leader Champat Rai taking the initiative. At least 200 rounds of negotiations have taken place between the two sides since the issue became hot in the late 80s. A very serious attempt at negotiated settlement was held when Chandrashekhar was Prime Minister in the early 90s. Then historians, archaeologists and scholars from both sides involved themselves in quoting chapter and verse to prove their side. Dr BB Lal, Dr SP Gupta, Dr BR Grover, and many such luminaries then played a role in verifying the historicity of the Hindu claim. Historians like Dr Irfan Habib argued for the other side. In the end, archaeology, history and faith proved the Hindu claim to be much stronger. But the Babri Committee was unrelenting. What the Shia Board has now done in August 2017 was to call the bluff of this Committee. Mahant Nritya Gopal Das of the Janmabhoomi Nyas had expressed guarded satisfaction over the Shia Board proposal. Subramanian Swamy and the VHP are more exuberant with the development. The Shia Board had suggested a two-judge committee with members of the opposing sides and experts work on the nitty-gritty of the negotiated settlement. Now that the apex court has taken up a fast track process this will help. With the BJP in power in Uttar Pradesh and at the Centre, the hope of paving the way for the grand temple in Ayodhya is on the ascent. It may not be possible to satisfy all the segments and spectrum of opinion at any stage. The moot point is will the apex court settle it before 2019 polls? (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Ayodhya dispute: Laying a strong foundation

CPI(M) secretary general Sitaram Yechury on Sunday reacted over the political turmoil in Ayodhya over Ram temple construction stating that the Constitution, law and order are being subverted in the name of faith.&nbsp;

The senior leader went on to add that, "communal polarization is being sharpened to consolidate Hindutva communal vote bank," news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

"This is worst vote bank politics that the country has seen," Yechury noted at the party's state conference in Tripura.

He said that the government must "take adequate precautions to ensure the situation doesn’t develop like in 1992 when darkest blotch in modern India's democracy was the demolition of Babri Masjid."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Clearly what's being done is in the run-up to 2019 election,communal polarization is being sharpened to consolidate Hindutva communal vote bank.This is worst vote bank politics that country has seen:CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechury at the party's state conference in Tripura.(25.11) <a href="https://t.co/j9CLJJ3I6Z">pic.twitter.com/j9CLJJ3I6Z</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1066830385525477376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 25, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The holy city of Uttar Pradesh, Ayodhya, turned into a virtual fortress with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones as people began arriving for Sunday's 'Dharam Sabha', organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to push for the construction of the Ram temple.

Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray has been urging the government to bring legislation or an ordinance for building the temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya, but he has not linked his own two-day visit to VHP event.

Thackeray said his party will support any legislation or ordinance for the Ram Mandir, which Hindutva organisations want to be constructed at the site where the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992.

CPI(M) secretary general Sitaram Yechury on Sunday reacted over the political turmoil in Ayodhya over Ram temple construction stating that the Constitution, law and order are being subverted in the name of faith.

CPI(M) secretary general Sitaram Yechury on Sunday reacted over the political turmoil in Ayodhya over Ram temple construction stating that the Constitution, law and order are being subverted in the name of faith. The senior leader went on to add that, "communal polarization is being sharpened to consolidate Hindutva communal vote bank," news agency ANI reported. "This is worst vote bank politics that the country has seen," Yechury noted at the party's state conference in Tripura. He said that the government must "take adequate precautions to ensure the situation doesn’t develop like in 1992 when darkest blotch in modern India's democracy was the demolition of Babri Masjid." Clearly what's being done is in the run-up to 2019 election,communal polarization is being sharpened to consolidate Hindutva communal vote bank.This is worst vote bank politics that country has seen:CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechury at the party's state conference in Tripura.(25.11) pic.twitter.com/j9CLJJ3I6Z — ANI (@ANI) November 25, 2018 × The holy city of Uttar Pradesh, Ayodhya, turned into a virtual fortress with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones as people began arriving for Sunday's 'Dharam Sabha', organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to push for the construction of the Ram temple. Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray has been urging the government to bring legislation or an ordinance for building the temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya, but he has not linked his own two-day visit to VHP event. Thackeray said his party will support any legislation or ordinance for the Ram Mandir, which Hindutva organisations want to be constructed at the site where the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992.

This is worst vote bank politics country has seen: Sitaram Yechury on Ram temple row

Uttar Pradesh&nbsp;Additional Director General (law and order), Anand Kumar, briefed media over the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-on-edge-as-thousands-gather-for-vhps-ram-temple-push-179294">situation in Ayodhya</a> today, adding that an alert was received by the Intelligence Bureau a few days back of a possible attack, news agency ANI reported.

He stated that the alert received was non-specific and that the department has taken a required action. &nbsp;

"People from intelligence agencies under state government and centre have been deployed there and are monitoring the situation," he added.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We received alert by IB (Intelligence Bureau) a few days back, it was a non-specific alert. Action is being take. People from intelligence agencies under state govt&amp;centre have been deployed there&amp;are monitoring the situation: ADG(law&amp;order) on input by IB of an attack in Ayodhya <a href="https://t.co/kWHOHYlZEG">pic.twitter.com/kWHOHYlZEG</a>
— ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/1066611642664984576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 25, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The holy city of Uttar Pradesh, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-on-edge-as-thousands-gather-for-vhps-ram-temple-push-179294">Ayodhya, is turned into a virtual fortress</a> with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones as people began arriving here for Sunday's 'Dharam Sabha', being organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to push for the construction of the Ram temple.

Over 200,000 people are expected near the site where a Hindu mob in 1992 pulled down the 16th-century mosque, sparking deadly religious riots that killed some 2,000 people in one of India's worst communal violence since the partition in 1947.

More than 900 extra police and a large number of paramilitary, including elite commandos, have been stationed at Ayodhya, said Vivek Tripathi, spokesman for the Uttar Pradesh police. "We're monitoring the entire town by CCTV and drone cameras," Tripathi said.

We’ve made all the arrangements for the programme (VHP’s dharma sansad). We’ve allotted spaces for parking, bypass is running smoothly &amp; we’ll ensure it stays like that. ‘Darshan’ will be from the usual routes. We’ll do everything in an organized way: DIG Ayodhya, Omkar Singh stated.&nbsp;

Uttar Pradesh Additional Director General (law and order), Anand Kumar, briefed media over the situation in Ayodhya today, adding that an alert was received by the Intelligence Bureau a few days back of a possible attack, news agency ANI reported.

Uttar Pradesh Additional Director General (law and order), Anand Kumar, briefed media over the situation in Ayodhya today, adding that an alert was received by the Intelligence Bureau a few days back of a possible attack, news agency ANI reported. He stated that the alert received was non-specific and that the department has taken a required action. "People from intelligence agencies under state government and centre have been deployed there and are monitoring the situation," he added. We received alert by IB (Intelligence Bureau) a few days back, it was a non-specific alert. Action is being take. People from intelligence agencies under state govt&centre have been deployed there&are monitoring the situation: ADG(law&order) on input by IB of an attack in Ayodhya pic.twitter.com/kWHOHYlZEG — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) November 25, 2018 × The holy city of Uttar Pradesh, Ayodhya, is turned into a virtual fortress with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones as people began arriving here for Sunday's 'Dharam Sabha', being organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to push for the construction of the Ram temple. Over 200,000 people are expected near the site where a Hindu mob in 1992 pulled down the 16th-century mosque, sparking deadly religious riots that killed some 2,000 people in one of India's worst communal violence since the partition in 1947. More than 900 extra police and a large number of paramilitary, including elite commandos, have been stationed at Ayodhya, said Vivek Tripathi, spokesman for the Uttar Pradesh police. "We're monitoring the entire town by CCTV and drone cameras," Tripathi said. We’ve made all the arrangements for the programme (VHP’s dharma sansad). We’ve allotted spaces for parking, bypass is running smoothly & we’ll ensure it stays like that. ‘Darshan’ will be from the usual routes. We’ll do everything in an organized way: DIG Ayodhya, Omkar Singh stated.

Received alert from IB of possible attack in Ayodhya: Uttar Pradesh ADG 

A day before the Dharam Sabha called by the Vishva Hindu Parishad, Ayodhya was virtually turned into a fortress with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones to keep an eye on possible mischief- mongers.

A UP Police spokesperson said one additional DGP, one deputy inspector general (DIG), three senior superintendents of police (SSPs), 10 additional SPs, 21 deputy SPs, 160 inspectors, 700 constables, 42 companies of&nbsp;PAC, five companies of RAF, ATS commandos and drones were deployed here.

When contacted, Ayodhya mayor Rishikesh Upadhyay told PTI that adequate security arrangements were made by the police and district administration in the town, located 120 km from state capital, Lucknow.&nbsp;

"As many as 13 parking slots have been provided for the event. No permission was given to the Shiv Sena by the government to hold a rally," the mayor said.

Despite a slight chill in the air, the temple town seems to be reeling under the political heat generated by the 'Dharam Sabha', being held to call for the construction of a grand temple for Lord Ram here.

A pamphlet recently released by the VHP raises the pitch for its construction. It reads "Saugandh Ram ki khaate hai, hum mandir bhavya banayenge (We pledge in the name of Lord Ram that we will build a grand temple for him)" and urges devotees to be a part of the movement.

Vishva Hindu Parishad was founded on August 29, 1964 on the auspicious day of Shri Krishna Janmasthami. Its objective is to organise, consolidate the Hindu society and serve, protect the Hindu Dharma.

The organisers of the Dharam Sabha claim the more than 3 lakh devotees of Lord Ram were likely to arrive for the programme this Sunday.

VHP media in-charge Ambuj Ojha said, "After staying in a 'taat' (tent), Lord Ram is expecting a revival of bravado among his devotees. The moment has come. The temple must be built where Ram Lalla is currently seated. Also, there should not be any mosque in the cultural boundary of Ayodhya."

On November 18, the VHP had organised a motorcycle rally in different parts of Lucknow in this regard.

Praant Sangathan mantra (Awadh) of VHP Bholendra in a written statement said this was the final Dharam Sabha for construction of Ram temple. "After this, no more Dharam Sabhas will be held and the construction of the temple will commence," he said.

The Supreme Court on November 12 had declined early hearing of petitions in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul had said it already listed the appeals before the appropriate bench in January.

Earlier, a three-judge bench, by a 2:1 majority, refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement of the Allahabad High Court that a mosque was not integral to Islam.&nbsp;

The matter had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.

A day before the Dharam Sabha called by the Vishva Hindu Parishad, Ayodhya was virtually turned into a fortress with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones to keep an eye on possible mischief- mongers.

A day before the Dharam Sabha called by the Vishva Hindu Parishad, Ayodhya was virtually turned into a fortress with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones to keep an eye on possible mischief- mongers. A UP Police spokesperson said one additional DGP, one deputy inspector general (DIG), three senior superintendents of police (SSPs), 10 additional SPs, 21 deputy SPs, 160 inspectors, 700 constables, 42 companies of PAC, five companies of RAF, ATS commandos and drones were deployed here. When contacted, Ayodhya mayor Rishikesh Upadhyay told PTI that adequate security arrangements were made by the police and district administration in the town, located 120 km from state capital, Lucknow. "As many as 13 parking slots have been provided for the event. No permission was given to the Shiv Sena by the government to hold a rally," the mayor said. Despite a slight chill in the air, the temple town seems to be reeling under the political heat generated by the 'Dharam Sabha', being held to call for the construction of a grand temple for Lord Ram here. A pamphlet recently released by the VHP raises the pitch for its construction. It reads "Saugandh Ram ki khaate hai, hum mandir bhavya banayenge (We pledge in the name of Lord Ram that we will build a grand temple for him)" and urges devotees to be a part of the movement. Vishva Hindu Parishad was founded on August 29, 1964 on the auspicious day of Shri Krishna Janmasthami. Its objective is to organise, consolidate the Hindu society and serve, protect the Hindu Dharma. The organisers of the Dharam Sabha claim the more than 3 lakh devotees of Lord Ram were likely to arrive for the programme this Sunday. VHP media in-charge Ambuj Ojha said, "After staying in a 'taat' (tent), Lord Ram is expecting a revival of bravado among his devotees. The moment has come. The temple must be built where Ram Lalla is currently seated. Also, there should not be any mosque in the cultural boundary of Ayodhya." On November 18, the VHP had organised a motorcycle rally in different parts of Lucknow in this regard. Praant Sangathan mantra (Awadh) of VHP Bholendra in a written statement said this was the final Dharam Sabha for construction of Ram temple. "After this, no more Dharam Sabhas will be held and the construction of the temple will commence," he said. The Supreme Court on November 12 had declined early hearing of petitions in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul had said it already listed the appeals before the appropriate bench in January. Earlier, a three-judge bench, by a 2:1 majority, refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement of the Allahabad High Court that a mosque was not integral to Islam. The matter had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.

Ayodhya turns into fortress for 'Dharam Sabha', over 3 lakh people expected

RSS declaration on Ram temple was akin to a carefully crafted ballroom dance metamorphosing into a break dance.&nbsp;

RSS and BJP for years had maintained that temple was a matter of faith but would patiently wait for the verdict of the Supreme Court on the issue challenging the legitimacy of the land.&nbsp;

This is the third time BJP has taken political stands which stands in opposition to a judicial verdict for electoral ends.

First BJP gave legitimacy to Jallikattu protest by ensuring an enabling legislation which overturned the court’s verdict.&nbsp;

The second time BJP openly went against the Sabarimala verdict. This is the third time when RSS has openly criticised the Supreme Court. 
&nbsp; 
The press conference not only announced the intention of the possibility of a political mobilisation akin to 1992 but also reaffirmed that commitment to Palanpur Session.&nbsp;

It was also a veiled threat of patience running thin and even Supreme Court’s view can be subservient to majority sentiments. 
&nbsp; 
This brings us to the question as to why Ram Temple has become a burning political issue? What has happened in last 2 years that BJP and RSS have increasingly turned to Ram Temple as an issue to mobilise its core voters? Is it because BJP stumped everyone on the shamshan and kabristan issue?

The answer to this question this lies to the realisation that BJP as a party only remains appealing to its core voters till it remains committed to the idea of cultural nationalism and the majoritarian idea of India. 
&nbsp; 
BJP in 1989 adopted Ram Temple as a party issue at Palanpur Session. So, technically it is not a U-turn. It only finishes the ambiguity of patience and long wait. The statement makes it clear that RSS expects the verdict in a certain way and would want the courts to take note of it.

So what happens to glasnost and perestroika which was announced with great fanfare after Mohan Bhagwat’s three-day seminar? Is it a reminder to the government that private member bills be moved and ordinance option should be explored? 
&nbsp; 
In my opinion, it all boils down to keeping the expectation of the people high on the issue - Hindu getting victimised by elitist institutions like courts. The idea is to keep the pot boiling. BJP understands that good governance and ‘Grand Alliance’ as a bad idea will not be enough to pull the Modi chariot in 2019. 
&nbsp; 
They would require much more than that. Rafale has dented the image of the government and GST’s impact is very much visible on the economy. The talk on the Ram Temple is not an act of desperation. It is based on the realisation that unless and until the politics does not remain centred around cultural nationalism as opposed to multi-culturalism BJP will not be able to stand a chance in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections in 2019.

The Palampur Session in 1989 specifically mentioned that the disputed site must be handed over to Hindus either through mutual dialogue or an enabling legislation. It shows that BJP remains committed to the Palanpur resolution. The deviation took place during Vajpayee's tenure when BJP had to deep freeze Ayodhya issue because of an unwieldy coalition.

Today, BJP does not depend on alliance for running the government. The only issue it faces is that if ever they fall short of a majority in future, they could be looking at a very bleak future as the choice would get limited to a few regional parties. They will have very few options. 
 
The decision of 1992 run is also a challenge to parties which commit themselves to a multicultural secular politics. Ayodhya is many things to many people today. For some, it is only about votes. For some, it is about faith. For some, it is about Muslim domination. For some, it is about Ram’s birth. For some, it is a matter of academics. For some, it is about Hindu victimisation by foreign taught babalogs. But foremost, today it should be about the civility of exchange. It is missing on both sides even after the demolition.

Today Ayodhya is at the cusp of deciding the destiny of our country. When Ataturk converted Hagia Sophia into a museum, the world knew where Turkey would be heading. It became a modern secular nation. A temple in Ayodhya will not make India a theocracy, but if the temple is made through coercion then it would definitely mutate us from the idea as we were conceived as nation in 1947 by our founding fathers. It will be far removed from Gandhi’s Ram Rajya. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

RSS declaration on Ram temple was akin to a carefully crafted ballroom dance metamorphosing into a break dance. RSS and BJP for years had maintained that temple was a matter of faith but would patiently wait for the verdict of the Supreme Court on the issue challenging the legitimacy of the land.

RSS declaration on Ram temple was akin to a carefully crafted ballroom dance metamorphosing into a break dance. RSS and BJP for years had maintained that temple was a matter of faith but would patiently wait for the verdict of the Supreme Court on the issue challenging the legitimacy of the land. This is the third time BJP has taken political stands which stands in opposition to a judicial verdict for electoral ends. First BJP gave legitimacy to Jallikattu protest by ensuring an enabling legislation which overturned the court’s verdict. The second time BJP openly went against the Sabarimala verdict. This is the third time when RSS has openly criticised the Supreme Court. The press conference not only announced the intention of the possibility of a political mobilisation akin to 1992 but also reaffirmed that commitment to Palanpur Session. It was also a veiled threat of patience running thin and even Supreme Court’s view can be subservient to majority sentiments. This brings us to the question as to why Ram Temple has become a burning political issue? What has happened in last 2 years that BJP and RSS have increasingly turned to Ram Temple as an issue to mobilise its core voters? Is it because BJP stumped everyone on the shamshan and kabristan issue? The answer to this question this lies to the realisation that BJP as a party only remains appealing to its core voters till it remains committed to the idea of cultural nationalism and the majoritarian idea of India. BJP in 1989 adopted Ram Temple as a party issue at Palanpur Session. So, technically it is not a U-turn. It only finishes the ambiguity of patience and long wait. The statement makes it clear that RSS expects the verdict in a certain way and would want the courts to take note of it. So what happens to glasnost and perestroika which was announced with great fanfare after Mohan Bhagwat’s three-day seminar? Is it a reminder to the government that private member bills be moved and ordinance option should be explored? In my opinion, it all boils down to keeping the expectation of the people high on the issue - Hindu getting victimised by elitist institutions like courts. The idea is to keep the pot boiling. BJP understands that good governance and ‘Grand Alliance’ as a bad idea will not be enough to pull the Modi chariot in 2019. They would require much more than that. Rafale has dented the image of the government and GST’s impact is very much visible on the economy. The talk on the Ram Temple is not an act of desperation. It is based on the realisation that unless and until the politics does not remain centred around cultural nationalism as opposed to multi-culturalism BJP will not be able to stand a chance in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections in 2019. The Palampur Session in 1989 specifically mentioned that the disputed site must be handed over to Hindus either through mutual dialogue or an enabling legislation. It shows that BJP remains committed to the Palanpur resolution. The deviation took place during Vajpayee's tenure when BJP had to deep freeze Ayodhya issue because of an unwieldy coalition. Today, BJP does not depend on alliance for running the government. The only issue it faces is that if ever they fall short of a majority in future, they could be looking at a very bleak future as the choice would get limited to a few regional parties. They will have very few options. The decision of 1992 run is also a challenge to parties which commit themselves to a multicultural secular politics. Ayodhya is many things to many people today. For some, it is only about votes. For some, it is about faith. For some, it is about Muslim domination. For some, it is about Ram’s birth. For some, it is a matter of academics. For some, it is about Hindu victimisation by foreign taught babalogs. But foremost, today it should be about the civility of exchange. It is missing on both sides even after the demolition. Today Ayodhya is at the cusp of deciding the destiny of our country. When Ataturk converted Hagia Sophia into a museum, the world knew where Turkey would be heading. It became a modern secular nation. A temple in Ayodhya will not make India a theocracy, but if the temple is made through coercion then it would definitely mutate us from the idea as we were conceived as nation in 1947 by our founding fathers. It will be far removed from Gandhi’s Ram Rajya. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Ayodhya 2.0: RSS and BJP go back to basics

The Supreme Court is likely to hear Monday a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya was divided into three parts.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph would hear the appeals filed in the matter.

On 27 September, the apex court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam which had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.

In a majority verdict of 2:1, a three-judge bench headed by then chief justice Dipak Misra had said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue.

Justice Ashok Bhushan, who had penned the judgment for himself and the Chief Justice of India, had said it has to find out the context in which the five-judge bench had delivered the 1994 verdict.

However, Justice S Abdul Nazeer had disagreed with the two judges and had said whether a mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering religious belief which requires detailed consideration.

The court had on 27 September said the civil suit on land dispute would be heard by a three-judge bench on 29 October.

The issue of whether a mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when the three-judge bench was hearing the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's verdict.

The three-judge high court bench, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear Monday a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya was divided into three parts.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear Monday a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya was divided into three parts. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph would hear the appeals filed in the matter. On 27 September, the apex court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam which had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute. In a majority verdict of 2:1, a three-judge bench headed by then chief justice Dipak Misra had said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue. Justice Ashok Bhushan, who had penned the judgment for himself and the Chief Justice of India, had said it has to find out the context in which the five-judge bench had delivered the 1994 verdict. However, Justice S Abdul Nazeer had disagreed with the two judges and had said whether a mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering religious belief which requires detailed consideration. The court had on 27 September said the civil suit on land dispute would be heard by a three-judge bench on 29 October. The issue of whether a mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when the three-judge bench was hearing the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's verdict. The three-judge high court bench, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute: SC to hear pleas challenging HC verdict today

The Supreme Court said on Friday that it will take a decision on referring the Ayodhya land dispute case to a&nbsp;larger bench after hearing all parties to the litigation.&nbsp;

The top court's remarks came in response to a plea by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who was appearing for a Muslim party, &nbsp;to refer the Ayodhya case to its larger bench, stating the issue was far more important than that of polygamy among Muslims, which has been referred to a Constitution bench.

"The Ayodhya land dispute is far more important than polygamy among Muslims and the whole nation wants an answer," Rajeev Dhavan told the bench.

The plea was made before a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

The Supreme Court fixed April 27 as the next date of hearing in the case.

The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

The top court had earlier dashed the hopes of activists like Shyam Benegal and Teesta Setalvad to intervene in the sensitive Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case, making it clear that only the parties to the original lawsuits would be allowed to put forth their arguments.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The Supreme Court said on Friday that it will take a decision on referring the Ayodhya land dispute case to a larger bench after hearing all parties to the litigation

The Supreme Court said on Friday that it will take a decision on referring the Ayodhya land dispute case to a larger bench after hearing all parties to the litigation. The top court's remarks came in response to a plea by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who was appearing for a Muslim party, to refer the Ayodhya case to its larger bench, stating the issue was far more important than that of polygamy among Muslims, which has been referred to a Constitution bench. "The Ayodhya land dispute is far more important than polygamy among Muslims and the whole nation wants an answer," Rajeev Dhavan told the bench. The plea was made before a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The Supreme Court fixed April 27 as the next date of hearing in the case. The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits. The top court had earlier dashed the hopes of activists like Shyam Benegal and Teesta Setalvad to intervene in the sensitive Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case, making it clear that only the parties to the original lawsuits would be allowed to put forth their arguments. A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ayodhya dispute more important than polygamy: Muslim party to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday fixed April 6 as the date for further hearings in the ongoing Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case.

The top court is hearing 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that that had ruled on a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre area at Ayodhya among the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla. 
 
A bench, comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, had earlier directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case.

The top court had dismissed all 32 intervention petitions in the case, including of filmmaker Shyam Benegal, actress Aparna Sen, social activist Teesta Setalvad and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy.

The Babri Masjid, a centuries-old point of tussle between the Hindus and the Muslims, was built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528.&nbsp;

On December 6, 1992, the mosque was demolished by Hindu Karsevaks, claiming that the Ram temple that originally stood there and had been demolished to construct the mosque.

(With inputs from ANI)

The top court is hearing 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that that had ruled on a three-way division of the disputed site in Ayodhya

The Supreme Court on Friday fixed April 6 as the date for further hearings in the ongoing Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case. The top court is hearing 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that that had ruled on a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre area at Ayodhya among the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla. A bench, comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, had earlier directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case. The top court had dismissed all 32 intervention petitions in the case, including of filmmaker Shyam Benegal, actress Aparna Sen, social activist Teesta Setalvad and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy. The Babri Masjid, a centuries-old point of tussle between the Hindus and the Muslims, was built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528. On December 6, 1992, the mosque was demolished by Hindu Karsevaks, claiming that the Ram temple that originally stood there and had been demolished to construct the mosque. (With inputs from ANI)

Ayodhya dispute: Supreme Court sets April 6 as date of hearing

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will decide if the Babri mosque is indeed an integral part of Islam. The court&#39;s comments came during a hearing on the Ayodhya case where senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan, appearing on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board - one of the parties in the case - cited a previous judgement of a constitutional bench which said the mosque is not an integral part of Islam.

The court&#39;s decision will determine whether Muslims can continue holding prayers at the site where mosque once stood. The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra also refused to send the case to a five-member Constitution Bench as demanded by the Muslim organisations. The next hearing will take place on March 23.

At the hearing today, the Supreme Court also dismissed all interim pleas seeking to intervene as parties in the sensitive Babri Mosque-Ram temple land dispute case.

A special bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Najeeb accepted the contention that only original parties to the dispute be allowed to advance arguments in the case and the intervention applications of unrelated persons seeking impledment as parties be rejected.

This means that the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Shri Ram Lala Virajman are the only parties.

The apex court also rejected the plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking to intervene in the ongoing matter.

The court, however, ordered revival of Swamy&#39;s disposed of writ petition in which he had sought enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at Ram temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya.

&quot;I had filed a writ petition saying that I have a fundamental right to worship and this is a superior right than property right,&quot; Swamy said.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The court however revived Subramanian Swamy's plea seeking enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at the disputed site

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will decide if the Babri mosque is indeed an integral part of Islam. The court's comments came during a hearing on the Ayodhya case where senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan, appearing on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board - one of the parties in the case - cited a previous judgement of a constitutional bench which said the mosque is not an integral part of Islam. The court's decision will determine whether Muslims can continue holding prayers at the site where mosque once stood. The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra also refused to send the case to a five-member Constitution Bench as demanded by the Muslim organisations. The next hearing will take place on March 23. At the hearing today, the Supreme Court also dismissed all interim pleas seeking to intervene as parties in the sensitive Babri Mosque-Ram temple land dispute case. A special bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Najeeb accepted the contention that only original parties to the dispute be allowed to advance arguments in the case and the intervention applications of unrelated persons seeking impledment as parties be rejected. This means that the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Shri Ram Lala Virajman are the only parties. The apex court also rejected the plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking to intervene in the ongoing matter. The court, however, ordered revival of Swamy's disposed of writ petition in which he had sought enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at Ram temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya. "I had filed a writ petition saying that I have a fundamental right to worship and this is a superior right than property right," Swamy said. A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ayodhya row: Supreme Court to decide if mosque is an integral part of Islam

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uttar-pradesh-bypolls-up-shocker-sp-wins-both-yogi-bastion-of-gorakhpur-and-phulpur-seat-35824" target="_blank">Uttar Pradesh </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uttar-pradesh-bypolls-up-shocker-sp-wins-both-yogi-bastion-of-gorakhpur-and-phulpur-seat-35824" target="_blank">bypolls</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uttar-pradesh-bypolls-up-shocker-sp-wins-both-yogi-bastion-of-gorakhpur-and-phulpur-seat-35824" target="_blank">: UP shocker; SP wins both Yogi bastion of Gorakhpur and Phulpur seat</a>

The Samajwadi Party&#39;s Nagendra Pratap Singh Patel won the Phulpur Lok Sabha bypoll by 59,613 votes Wednesday evening. The BJP came in second.&nbsp;

In the Gorakhpur bypoll meanwhile, the SP&#39;s Praveen Kumar Nishad won by 21,881 votes

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/we-accept-the-verdict-of-the-people-yogi-after-deafeat-in-bypolls-35825" target="_blank">Watch: We accept people&#39;s verdict, says Yogi Adityanath after BJP&#39;s defeat in </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/we-accept-the-verdict-of-the-people-yogi-after-deafeat-in-bypolls-35825" target="_blank">bypolls</a>

Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath has reacted after the shocking defeat of BJP on his home-turf Gorakhpur, and Phulpur &ndash; both seats previously represented by him and his deputy in Uttar Pradesh government Keshav Prasad Maurya respective

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-bypolls-rjd-wins-araria-lok-sabha-seat-jehanabad-assembly-seat-and-bjp-retains-bhabua-35816" target="_blank">Bihar </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-bypolls-rjd-wins-araria-lok-sabha-seat-jehanabad-assembly-seat-and-bjp-retains-bhabua-35816" target="_blank">bypolls</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-bypolls-rjd-wins-araria-lok-sabha-seat-jehanabad-assembly-seat-and-bjp-retains-bhabua-35816" target="_blank">: RJD wins Araria Lok Sabha seat and Jehanabad assembly seat while BJP retains Bhabua</a>

The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) on &nbsp;Wednesday won the Jehanabad assembly seat bypoll.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, BJP&#39;s Rinky Rani Pandey has won the Bhabhua Assembly seat in Bihar.&nbsp;

The result of the Araria Lok Sabha constituency is also out, RJD&#39;s Sarfaraz Alam has won the Araria Lok Sabha seat.

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-rejects-all-interim-pleas-to-intervene-in-ayodhya-dispute-35810" target="_blank">Supreme Court rejects all interim pleas to intervene in Ayodhya dispute</a>

The Supreme Court today rejected all interim pleas seeking to intervene as parties in the sensitive Babri masjid- Ram temple land dispute case.

The court, however, ordered revival of Swamy&#39;s disposed of writ petition in which he had sought enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at Ram temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya.

&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/entertainment-former-wonder-woman-lynda-carter-says-she-was-sexually-harassed-35823" target="_blank">I was sexually harassed too, says Wonder Woman</a>

Former &quot;Wonder Woman&quot; superhero Lynda Carter who played the iconic character in the 1970s TV series revealed that she was sexually harassed during her career.&nbsp;

Uttar Pradesh bypolls: UP shocker; SP wins both Yogi bastion of Gorakhpur and Phulpur seat The Samajwadi Party's Nagendra Pratap Singh Patel won the Phulpur Lok Sabha bypoll by 59,613 votes Wednesday evening. The BJP came in second. In the Gorakhpur bypoll meanwhile, the SP's Praveen Kumar Nishad won by 21,881 votes Watch: We accept people's verdict, says Yogi Adityanath after BJP's defeat in bypolls Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath has reacted after the shocking defeat of BJP on his home-turf Gorakhpur, and Phulpur – both seats previously represented by him and his deputy in Uttar Pradesh government Keshav Prasad Maurya respective Bihar bypolls: RJD wins Araria Lok Sabha seat and Jehanabad assembly seat while BJP retains Bhabua The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) on Wednesday won the Jehanabad assembly seat bypoll. Meanwhile, BJP's Rinky Rani Pandey has won the Bhabhua Assembly seat in Bihar. The result of the Araria Lok Sabha constituency is also out, RJD's Sarfaraz Alam has won the Araria Lok Sabha seat. Supreme Court rejects all interim pleas to intervene in Ayodhya dispute The Supreme Court today rejected all interim pleas seeking to intervene as parties in the sensitive Babri masjid- Ram temple land dispute case. The court, however, ordered revival of Swamy's disposed of writ petition in which he had sought enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at Ram temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya. I was sexually harassed too, says Wonder Woman Former "Wonder Woman" superhero Lynda Carter who played the iconic character in the 1970s TV series revealed that she was sexually harassed during her career.

WION Evening News Brief, March 14, 2018

The RSS on Sunday said building a consensus on the Ayodhya dispute was not going to be easy but stressed that a Ram Temple &mdash; &quot;and nothing else&quot; &mdash; would be constructed in the Uttar Pradesh town.

Suresh Bhaiyyaji Joshi, who was yesterday re-elected as the RSS General Secretary for the 4th term, stressed that the matter was sub judice and said building a consensus was not going to be easy. &nbsp;

The Sangh&#39;s general secretary is its executive head who looks after the day-to-day affairs of the organisation.

&quot;It is certain that the Ram Temple will be constructed at that place (Ayodhya) and nothing else can be built there, this is also decided, Joshi, told reporters here on the sidelines of the RSS&#39;s all-important Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha (ABPS) meeting.

Confident of a favourable judgment from the Supreme Court on the matter, Joshi said the construction of temple would begin after the court&#39;s order and it would be built on the basis of its verdict on the ownership of land.

Replying to a question on spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar&#39;s efforts at developing consensus between the different parties on the issue, Joshi said consensus building was not going to be easy.

We have always maintained that the temple should be constructed with the mutual agreement but our experience tells us that building a consensus on this issue is not easy, Joshi said.

Though the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader said he welcomed Ravi Shankar&#39;s efforts at negotiations, he pointed out that there were different groups in society with varied outlooks and to build a consensus among them would be difficult.

Joshi was also asked about a demand for a minority religion status for the Lingayat community in Karnataka.

&quot;We do not support that,&quot; he said.

The next hearing in the Ayodhya dispute, to determine ownership of the 2.77-acre Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi disputed land, is to come up before the Supreme Court on March 14.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and SA Najeeb is hearing the case.

(With inputs from PTI)

Joshi said the construction of temple would begin after the court's order and it would be built on the basis of its verdict on the ownership of land

The RSS on Sunday said building a consensus on the Ayodhya dispute was not going to be easy but stressed that a Ram Temple — "and nothing else" — would be constructed in the Uttar Pradesh town. Suresh Bhaiyyaji Joshi, who was yesterday re-elected as the RSS General Secretary for the 4th term, stressed that the matter was sub judice and said building a consensus was not going to be easy. The Sangh's general secretary is its executive head who looks after the day-to-day affairs of the organisation. "It is certain that the Ram Temple will be constructed at that place (Ayodhya) and nothing else can be built there, this is also decided, Joshi, told reporters here on the sidelines of the RSS's all-important Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha (ABPS) meeting. Confident of a favourable judgment from the Supreme Court on the matter, Joshi said the construction of temple would begin after the court's order and it would be built on the basis of its verdict on the ownership of land. Replying to a question on spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar's efforts at developing consensus between the different parties on the issue, Joshi said consensus building was not going to be easy. We have always maintained that the temple should be constructed with the mutual agreement but our experience tells us that building a consensus on this issue is not easy, Joshi said. Though the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader said he welcomed Ravi Shankar's efforts at negotiations, he pointed out that there were different groups in society with varied outlooks and to build a consensus among them would be difficult. Joshi was also asked about a demand for a minority religion status for the Lingayat community in Karnataka. "We do not support that," he said. The next hearing in the Ayodhya dispute, to determine ownership of the 2.77-acre Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi disputed land, is to come up before the Supreme Court on March 14. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and SA Najeeb is hearing the case. (With inputs from PTI)

Consensus on Ayodhya difficult, but temple will be built: RSS

The Supreme Court is to resume hearing on a batch of cross-petitions against the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case on Thursday.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and two other judges &ndash; Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer - will hear a total of 13 petitions over the disputed site in Ayodhya at around 2 pm.

On January 1, 1993, the Allahabad High Court had ruled that till the issue is resolved, devotees must be allowed for darshan of Ram Lalla. The verdict was given by Justice Harinath Tilahri.

Justice Tilhari granted permission for the Darshan following a court petition.

Speaking to ZEE media, he said he granted permission following an appeal by a lawyer in 1993.

Tilhari said that he only gave the permission of Darshan and advised the government to maintain the sanctity of the temple.

On Thursday&#39;s hearing in the Supreme Court, all he said was &quot;just wait and watch the Supreme Court will deliver the justice&quot;.

The last hearing in the case was conducted on December 5, 2017, wherein senior lawyers, including Kapil Sibal, had pleaded that the hearing should be postponed.

Appearing on UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, Sibal had said that the hearing should be deferred to July 2019, suggesting that it be held after the outcome of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

The lawyers had also demanded that the case is referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

The court, however, rejected the plea by Sibal and scheduled the hearing for February 8.

On January 1, 1993, the Allahabad High Court had ruled that till the issue is resolved, devotees must be allowed for darshan of Ram Lalla

The Supreme Court is to resume hearing on a batch of cross-petitions against the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case on Thursday. Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and two other judges – Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer - will hear a total of 13 petitions over the disputed site in Ayodhya at around 2 pm. On January 1, 1993, the Allahabad High Court had ruled that till the issue is resolved, devotees must be allowed for darshan of Ram Lalla. The verdict was given by Justice Harinath Tilahri. Justice Tilhari granted permission for the Darshan following a court petition. Speaking to ZEE media, he said he granted permission following an appeal by a lawyer in 1993. Tilhari said that he only gave the permission of Darshan and advised the government to maintain the sanctity of the temple. On Thursday's hearing in the Supreme Court, all he said was "just wait and watch the Supreme Court will deliver the justice". The last hearing in the case was conducted on December 5, 2017, wherein senior lawyers, including Kapil Sibal, had pleaded that the hearing should be postponed. Appearing on UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, Sibal had said that the hearing should be deferred to July 2019, suggesting that it be held after the outcome of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The lawyers had also demanded that the case is referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The court, however, rejected the plea by Sibal and scheduled the hearing for February 8.

Allahabad HC judge on why he allowed Ram Lalla's Darshan in Ayodhya in 1993

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/india-to-become-fastest-growing-major-economy-in-two-years-jaitley-32232" target="_blank">India to become fastest-growing major economy in two years: Jaitley</a>

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said Thursday that India would become the world&#39;s fastest-growing economy in two years.&nbsp;Jaitley, who was speaking in the Lok Sabha, was quoting from IMF data.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/bangladesh-ex-pm-khaleda-zia-jailed-for-graft-but-likely-to-be-freed-on-bail-pending-appeal-32223" target="_blank">Bangladesh: Ex-PM Khaleda Zia jailed for graft, but likely to be freed on bail pending appeal</a>

Former Bangladesh Prime Minister and opposition leader Khaleda Zia was&nbsp; <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/ex-bangladesh-pm-khaleda-zia-sentenced-to-5-years-in-graft-case-32203" target="_blank">jailed for five years for corruption</a>&nbsp;on Thursday as thousands of supporters took to the streets of the capital to protest her innocence.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/spice-jet-flight-suffers-tyre-burst-during-take-off-no-injuries-reported-32234" target="_blank">Spice Jet plane suffers tyre burst during </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/spice-jet-flight-suffers-tyre-burst-during-take-off-no-injuries-reported-32234" target="_blank">take</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/spice-jet-flight-suffers-tyre-burst-during-take-off-no-injuries-reported-32234" target="_blank"> off</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/spice-jet-flight-suffers-tyre-burst-during-take-off-no-injuries-reported-32234" target="_blank">, main Chennai Airport runway closed</a>

The suspected tyre burst was reported during the take-off of the flight. After which the plane was turned back and landed safely at Chennai airport.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/deepika-padukone-and-ranveer-singh-are-set-to-have-a-beach-wedding-this-year-32214" target="_blank">Deepika Padukone and Ranveer Singh are set to have a beach wedding this year?</a>

They may be tight lip about it, but reports suggest that Ranveer Singh and Deepika Padukone are all set to walk down the aisle this year.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-postpones-ayodhya-dispute-hearing-to-march-14-32208" target="_blank">Supreme Court asks for English translations of documents, postpones Ayodhya dispute hearing to March 14</a>

The Supreme Court postponed Thursday the hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute to March 14.

India to become fastest-growing major economy in two years: Jaitley Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said Thursday that India would become the world's fastest-growing economy in two years. Jaitley, who was speaking in the Lok Sabha, was quoting from IMF data. Bangladesh: Ex-PM Khaleda Zia jailed for graft, but likely to be freed on bail pending appeal Former Bangladesh Prime Minister and opposition leader Khaleda Zia was jailed for five years for corruption on Thursday as thousands of supporters took to the streets of the capital to protest her innocence. Spice Jet plane suffers tyre burst during take off, main Chennai Airport runway closed The suspected tyre burst was reported during the take-off of the flight. After which the plane was turned back and landed safely at Chennai airport. Deepika Padukone and Ranveer Singh are set to have a beach wedding this year? They may be tight lip about it, but reports suggest that Ranveer Singh and Deepika Padukone are all set to walk down the aisle this year. Supreme Court asks for English translations of documents, postpones Ayodhya dispute hearing to March 14 The Supreme Court postponed Thursday the hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute to March 14.

WION Evening News Brief, February 8, 2018

Spiritual leader and &quot;Art of Living&quot; founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on Friday spoke about the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi dispute in Kolkata on Friday.

Ravi Shankar asked both Hindi and Muslims communities to come together saying, that he is speaking to many stakeholders and&nbsp; that &quot;both the communities should come together.&quot;

The leader further suggested that out of court settlement is the best way to solve the dispute.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I am speaking to many stakeholders, both the communities should come together, out of court settlement is the best: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on Ram Temple issue in Kolkata <a href="https://t.co/T7TzWyvK1y">pic.twitter.com/T7TzWyvK1y</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/941598471433285632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar had said in November, &quot;I know some may not agree with this, but Muslim, by and large, are not opposing the Ram temple, the solution may sometimes seen impossible but our people, youth and leaders of both communities can make it possible.&quot;

Former BJP MP Ram Vilas Vedanti rejected his offer to mediate in October. The Babri Action Committee has also asked the Art of Living founder&nbsp;to stay away from the Ayodhya dispute.

The case of Babri-Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi was last heard on December, 5.

The next and described by the court as final hearing of the case would take place on February 8, 2018.

 
&nbsp;

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar ask communities to come together to resolve the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi dispute

Spiritual leader and "Art of Living" founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on Friday spoke about the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi dispute in Kolkata on Friday. Ravi Shankar asked both Hindi and Muslims communities to come together saying, that he is speaking to many stakeholders and that "both the communities should come together." The leader further suggested that out of court settlement is the best way to solve the dispute. I am speaking to many stakeholders, both the communities should come together, out of court settlement is the best: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on Ram Temple issue in Kolkata pic.twitter.com/T7TzWyvK1y — ANI (@ANI) December 15, 2017 × Sri Sri Ravi Shankar had said in November, "I know some may not agree with this, but Muslim, by and large, are not opposing the Ram temple, the solution may sometimes seen impossible but our people, youth and leaders of both communities can make it possible." Former BJP MP Ram Vilas Vedanti rejected his offer to mediate in October. The Babri Action Committee has also asked the Art of Living founder to stay away from the Ayodhya dispute. The case of Babri-Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi was last heard on December, 5. The next and described by the court as final hearing of the case would take place on February 8, 2018.

Out of court settlement best way to solve Ayodhya dispute: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

The Supreme Court has commenced its final hearing in the long-standing <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/babri-masjid-ramjanmabhoomi-dispute-a-timeline-25799">Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute</a>, a day before the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the medieval-era structure.

A specially constituted bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer are hearing a total of 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgement of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits.

The high court had then ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre area at Ayodhya among the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla. 
 
A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had said the land be partitioned equally among the three parties.&nbsp; 
 
A sect of Muslims, under the banner of Shia Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh, had earlier approached the court offering a solution that a mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a &quot;reasonable distance&quot; from the disputed site in Ayodhya. 
 
However, its intervention was opposed by the All India Sunni Waqf Board which had claimed that judicial adjudication between the two sects had already been done in 1946 by declaring the mosque, which was demolished on December 6, 1992, as one which belongs to the Sunnis. 
 
Recently a group of civil rights activists also moved the top court seeking intervention in the Ayodhya dispute and urged it to consider the issue saying it is not just a dispute over property but has several other aspects which would have far-reaching effects on the &quot;secular fabric of the country&quot;. 
 
In pursuance of the top court&#39;s earlier direction, the Yogi Adityanath government has submitted the English translation of exhibits and documents likely to be relied upon, as these were in eight different languages. 
 
A battery of high profile lawyers including senior advocates K Parasaran and CS Vaidyanathan and advocate Saurabh Shamsheri will appear for Lord Ram Lalla, the deity, and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta will represent the Uttar Pradesh government. 
 
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Anoop George Chaudhari, Rajeev Dhavan and Sushil Jain will represent other parties including the All India Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara. 
 
The top court had on August 11 asked the Uttar Pradesh government to complete within 10 weeks the translation of the evidence recorded for adjudication of the title dispute in the high court. It had said it would not allow the matter to take any shape other than the civil appeals and would adopt the same procedure as was done by the high court. 
 
BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, an intervenor in the matter, had attempted to raise the issue of the fundamental right of religion of the Hindus under Article 25 of the Constitution. 
 
Many of the original plantiffs and defendants in the matter including Mohd Hashim, who was the first person to take the matter to the top&nbsp;court, have died. 
&nbsp;

In 2010, the Allahabad high court had ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre area at Ayodhya among the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla

The Supreme Court has commenced its final hearing in the long-standing Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute, a day before the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the medieval-era structure. A specially constituted bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer are hearing a total of 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgement of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits. The high court had then ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre area at Ayodhya among the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla. A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had said the land be partitioned equally among the three parties. A sect of Muslims, under the banner of Shia Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh, had earlier approached the court offering a solution that a mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a "reasonable distance" from the disputed site in Ayodhya. However, its intervention was opposed by the All India Sunni Waqf Board which had claimed that judicial adjudication between the two sects had already been done in 1946 by declaring the mosque, which was demolished on December 6, 1992, as one which belongs to the Sunnis. Recently a group of civil rights activists also moved the top court seeking intervention in the Ayodhya dispute and urged it to consider the issue saying it is not just a dispute over property but has several other aspects which would have far-reaching effects on the "secular fabric of the country". In pursuance of the top court's earlier direction, the Yogi Adityanath government has submitted the English translation of exhibits and documents likely to be relied upon, as these were in eight different languages. A battery of high profile lawyers including senior advocates K Parasaran and CS Vaidyanathan and advocate Saurabh Shamsheri will appear for Lord Ram Lalla, the deity, and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta will represent the Uttar Pradesh government. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Anoop George Chaudhari, Rajeev Dhavan and Sushil Jain will represent other parties including the All India Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara. The top court had on August 11 asked the Uttar Pradesh government to complete within 10 weeks the translation of the evidence recorded for adjudication of the title dispute in the high court. It had said it would not allow the matter to take any shape other than the civil appeals and would adopt the same procedure as was done by the high court. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, an intervenor in the matter, had attempted to raise the issue of the fundamental right of religion of the Hindus under Article 25 of the Constitution. Many of the original plantiffs and defendants in the matter including Mohd Hashim, who was the first person to take the matter to the top court, have died.

Supreme Court commences final hearing in Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on Friday said that only the Ram Temple would be constructed on the disputed site at Ayodhya and not any other structure.

The RSS chief said that the temple would be constructed in the same grandeur as it existed before, using the &quot;same stones&quot; under the guidance of those who were the flag-bearers of the Ram janmabhoomi movement for the last 25 years.

&quot;We will construct it. It is not a populist declaration but a matter of our faith. It will not change,&quot; Mohan Bhagwat told the &quot;Dharma Sansad&quot;, a congregation of 2,000 Hindu saints, math (pilgrimage site) heads and VHP leaders from across the country at the temple town of Udupi.

The RSS chief said there should be no ambiguity that the Ram Temple will be built at Ayodhya and that after years of efforts and sacrifice, it (building the Ram temple) seemed possible now, while also noting that the matter was in the court.

&quot;Ram Mandir only will be constructed and nothing else. It will be constructed there (what is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram) only&quot;, Mohan Bhagwat said.

&quot;We are close to achieving our goal but at this juncture, we should be extra cautious,&quot; he added.

President of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen Asaduddin Owaisi condemned the remarks of the RSS chief calling them &quot;obnoxious&quot;. He said the RSS was &quot;playing with fire&quot; and hoped that the Supreme Court would take note of the intentions of the RSS.

&quot;Obnoxious statement made by RSS Chief, it clearly gives a message that the RSS is assuming to be the Supreme Court (SC). This is a delicate matter and RSS is playing with fire on this issue. I hope SC takes note of this devious design, being laid out by Sangh Parivar, &nbsp;Asaduddin Owaisi told ANI.

The dispute is pending before the Supreme Court, which on December 5 will start hearings <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/muslims-by-and-large-not-opposed-to-ram-temple-sri-sri-ravi-shankar-24380">on the disputed site claimed by both the Hindus and the Muslims</a>.

The Supreme Court will hear the case a day before the 25th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992 by thousands of right-wing activists who claimed the mosque was built on a temple which marked the birthplace of Lord Ram in the 16th century. Two thousand people were killed in the riots which followed the demolition of the mosque.

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with one-third going to the Ram Lalla (Infant Rama) represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, one-third to the Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining one-third to the Hindu Nirmohi Akhara.

All the three parties appealed against the division of the disputed land.

The RSS chief said that the temple would be constructed in the same grandeur as it existed before, using the "same stones" under the guidance of those who were the flag-bearers of the Ram janmabhoomi movement for the last 25 years

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on Friday said that only the Ram Temple would be constructed on the disputed site at Ayodhya and not any other structure. The RSS chief said that the temple would be constructed in the same grandeur as it existed before, using the "same stones" under the guidance of those who were the flag-bearers of the Ram janmabhoomi movement for the last 25 years. "We will construct it. It is not a populist declaration but a matter of our faith. It will not change," Mohan Bhagwat told the "Dharma Sansad", a congregation of 2,000 Hindu saints, math (pilgrimage site) heads and VHP leaders from across the country at the temple town of Udupi. The RSS chief said there should be no ambiguity that the Ram Temple will be built at Ayodhya and that after years of efforts and sacrifice, it (building the Ram temple) seemed possible now, while also noting that the matter was in the court. "Ram Mandir only will be constructed and nothing else. It will be constructed there (what is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram) only", Mohan Bhagwat said. "We are close to achieving our goal but at this juncture, we should be extra cautious," he added. President of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen Asaduddin Owaisi condemned the remarks of the RSS chief calling them "obnoxious". He said the RSS was "playing with fire" and hoped that the Supreme Court would take note of the intentions of the RSS. "Obnoxious statement made by RSS Chief, it clearly gives a message that the RSS is assuming to be the Supreme Court (SC). This is a delicate matter and RSS is playing with fire on this issue. I hope SC takes note of this devious design, being laid out by Sangh Parivar, Asaduddin Owaisi told ANI. The dispute is pending before the Supreme Court, which on December 5 will start hearings on the disputed site claimed by both the Hindus and the Muslims. The Supreme Court will hear the case a day before the 25th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992 by thousands of right-wing activists who claimed the mosque was built on a temple which marked the birthplace of Lord Ram in the 16th century. Two thousand people were killed in the riots which followed the demolition of the mosque. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with one-third going to the Ram Lalla (Infant Rama) represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, one-third to the Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining one-third to the Hindu Nirmohi Akhara. All the three parties appealed against the division of the disputed land.

Only Ram Mandir will be constructed at Ayodhya site: RSS chief

Spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who visited Ayodhya today in a bid to mediate in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute said a positive step had been taken but it could take three to six months to find a solution.

The Art of Living founder said also said Muslims by and large were not opposed to building the Ram Temple.

&quot;I know some may not agree with this, but Muslims by and large are not opposing the Ram Temple,&quot; Sri Sri Ravi Shankar told the press.

&quot;A solution may sometimes seem impossible but our people, youth and leaders of both communities can make it possible,&quot; he added.

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who met Iqbal Ansari, litigant in the BabriMasjid case, said, &quot;Talks are in process, it is too soon to conclude anything.&quot;

The spiritual leader said mediation was a &quot;golden opportunity&quot; for both Hindus and Muslims to find a solution.

&quot;We have taken a step forward from everybody&#39;s opposition. But I think this could take some time, three to six months. We will meet people from both communities. Whatever the court decides will be for everybody but this is a golden opportunity for both sides to come together and find a solution to the issue and show their brotherhood.&nbsp;

One community may think 50 years later, that injustice was meted out to them. Then this issue can come up once again, If we want to put an end to the issue once and for all, then there is only one way that both communities co-operate and build the temple.

This seems impossible right now but it is possible to make this possible,&quot; he said.

&quot;The environment is positive. People want to come out of this conflict. I know it is not easy. Let me talk to everyone. It is too early to reach a conclusion,&quot; Sri Sri Ravi Shankar told the press.

The Art of Living founder arrived in Ayodhya amid high security earlier in the day.

Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath, who had welcomed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar&#39;s offer to mediate between the stakeholders yesterday, downplayed the spiritual leader&#39;s efforts today and said one should wait for the Supreme Court&#39;s verdict.

&quot;Talks have been initiated earlier as well but without any solution, but still I welcome anyone who makes efforts again. Supreme Court is hearing the case we should wait for it,&quot; the Uttar Pradesh chief minister said.&nbsp; 
 
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Yogi Adityanath met yesterday (November 15) at Yogi Adityanath&#39;s official residence in Lucknow.

In an informal interaction with journalists after meeting Adityanath, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said,&quot;I want unity...I want amity. This is just a beginning. We will talk to all.&quot;

A top official described the meeting between Ravi Shankar and Adityanath as &quot;good&quot;.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national general secretary Ram Madhav had yesterday downplayed the visit, and said the legal process should first let be completed in the Supreme Court, only after which other options should be explored.

The matter is pending before the Supreme Court, which in a few weeks will start hearings on the disputed site claimed by both the Hindus and the Muslims.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sri-sri-ravi-shankar-to-visit-ayodhya-tomorrow-24317">Sri Sri Ravi Shankar&#39;s offer for mediating in the dispute has received a tepid and skeptical response from key protagonists</a> on both sides. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) have voiced reservations about his role.

A bench headed by the then Chief Justice J S Khehar had said in March this year that such religious issues can be resolved through negotiations and offered to mediate to arrive at an amicable settlement.

The Supreme Court will hear the case on December 5, a day before the 25th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992 by thousands of right-wing activists who claimed the mosque was built on a temple which marked the birthplace of Lord Ram in the 16th century. Two thousand people were killed in the riots which followed the demolition of the mosque.

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with one-third going to the Ram Lalla (Infant Rama) represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, one-third to the Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining one-third to the Hindu Nirmohi Akhara.

All the three parties appealed against the division of the disputed land. 
&nbsp;

Spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who visited Ayodhya today in a bid to mediate in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute said a positive step had been taken but it could take three to six months to find a solution

Spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who visited Ayodhya today in a bid to mediate in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute said a positive step had been taken but it could take three to six months to find a solution. The Art of Living founder said also said Muslims by and large were not opposed to building the Ram Temple. "I know some may not agree with this, but Muslims by and large are not opposing the Ram Temple," Sri Sri Ravi Shankar told the press. "A solution may sometimes seem impossible but our people, youth and leaders of both communities can make it possible," he added. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who met Iqbal Ansari, litigant in the BabriMasjid case, said, "Talks are in process, it is too soon to conclude anything." The spiritual leader said mediation was a "golden opportunity" for both Hindus and Muslims to find a solution. "We have taken a step forward from everybody's opposition. But I think this could take some time, three to six months. We will meet people from both communities. Whatever the court decides will be for everybody but this is a golden opportunity for both sides to come together and find a solution to the issue and show their brotherhood. One community may think 50 years later, that injustice was meted out to them. Then this issue can come up once again, If we want to put an end to the issue once and for all, then there is only one way that both communities co-operate and build the temple. This seems impossible right now but it is possible to make this possible," he said. "The environment is positive. People want to come out of this conflict. I know it is not easy. Let me talk to everyone. It is too early to reach a conclusion," Sri Sri Ravi Shankar told the press. The Art of Living founder arrived in Ayodhya amid high security earlier in the day. Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath, who had welcomed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's offer to mediate between the stakeholders yesterday, downplayed the spiritual leader's efforts today and said one should wait for the Supreme Court's verdict. "Talks have been initiated earlier as well but without any solution, but still I welcome anyone who makes efforts again. Supreme Court is hearing the case we should wait for it," the Uttar Pradesh chief minister said. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Yogi Adityanath met yesterday (November 15) at Yogi Adityanath's official residence in Lucknow. In an informal interaction with journalists after meeting Adityanath, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said,"I want unity...I want amity. This is just a beginning. We will talk to all." A top official described the meeting between Ravi Shankar and Adityanath as "good". Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national general secretary Ram Madhav had yesterday downplayed the visit, and said the legal process should first let be completed in the Supreme Court, only after which other options should be explored. The matter is pending before the Supreme Court, which in a few weeks will start hearings on the disputed site claimed by both the Hindus and the Muslims. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's offer for mediating in the dispute has received a tepid and skeptical response from key protagonists on both sides. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) have voiced reservations about his role. A bench headed by the then Chief Justice J S Khehar had said in March this year that such religious issues can be resolved through negotiations and offered to mediate to arrive at an amicable settlement. The Supreme Court will hear the case on December 5, a day before the 25th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992 by thousands of right-wing activists who claimed the mosque was built on a temple which marked the birthplace of Lord Ram in the 16th century. Two thousand people were killed in the riots which followed the demolition of the mosque. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with one-third going to the Ram Lalla (Infant Rama) represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, one-third to the Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining one-third to the Hindu Nirmohi Akhara. All the three parties appealed against the division of the disputed land.

Muslims by and large not opposed to Ram Temple: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who has offered to mediate in the Ayodhya dispute, will visit Ayodhya tomorrow (November 16).

The spiritual leader on Wednesday met Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath for 40 minutes at his official residence in Lucknow but said he had no proposal yet to discuss with stakeholders.

In an informal interaction with journalists after meeting Adityanath, he said,&quot;I want unity...I want amity. This is just a beginning. We will talk to all.&quot;

When his attention was drawn to comments by some Muslim leaders rejecting his proposal to resolve the dispute, Ravi Shankar said he had no proposal at the moment so any question of rejection does not arise. 
 
&quot;Neither I have given any proposal nor have I got it from anyone,&quot; he said.

A top official described the meeting between Ravi Shankar and Adityanath as &quot;good&quot;.

The matter is pending before the Supreme Court, which in a few weeks will start hearings on the disputed site claimed by both the Hindus and the Muslims.

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar&#39;s offer for mediating in the dispute has received a tepid and skeptical response from key protagonists on both sides. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and the Vishwa Hindu&nbsp;Parishad (VHP) have voiced reservations about his role.

&quot;It is being said that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is talking to all the stakeholders in the case but he has not yet contacted the top leadership of All India Muslim Personal Law Board which is leading the Muslim side,&quot; AIMPLB&nbsp;general secretary Maulana Wali Rehmani said.

He said Ravi Shankar had made a similar move to resolve the dispute some 12 years ago and concluded that the disputed site be handed over to Hindus.

&quot;What new formula he has found this time should be told,&quot; Rehmani said.

The VHP too appeared dismissive, saying no dialogue on the issue was needed as courts go by evidence and archaeological evidence was in favour of Hindus.

&quot;There is no relevance of the (recent) clamour for agreement over Ram Janmabhoomi after the archaeological evidences in this regard have been found to be in favour of Hindus... The courts go by evidence,&quot; regional&nbsp;spokesman for the VHP Sharad Sharma said in a statement.

Uttar Pradesh Governor Ram Naik said, &quot;This (mediation) kind of effort is being made by those who believe it will help resolve the issue at the earliest. I wish their efforts bear fruit. But the apex court&#39;s final verdict will be binding.&quot;

Gautam Vig, a representative of the Art of Living founder said Ravi Shankar was listening to both Hindus and Muslims but no formula has been worked out yet.

A bench headed by the then Chief Justice J S Khehar had said in March this year that such religious issues can be resolved through negotiations and offered to mediate to arrive at an amicable settlement.

&quot;These are issues of religion and sentiments. These are issues where all the parties can sit together and arrive at a consensual decision to end the dispute. All of you may sit together and hold a cordial meeting,&quot; the court&nbsp;had said.

The Supreme Court will hear the case on December 5, a day before the 25th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition on&nbsp;December 6, 1992 by thousands of right-wing activists who claimed the mosque was built on a temple which marked the birthplace of Lord Ram in the 16th century. Two thousand people were killed in the riots which followed the demolition of the mosque.

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with one-third going to the Ram Lalla (Infant Rama) represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, one-third to the Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining one-third to the Hindu Nirmohi Akhara.

All the three parties appealed against the division of the disputed land.

The state&#39;s Shia Waqf Board, which has impleaded itself in the case, has been siding with the Hindu parties to the case. Its chairman Wasim Rizvi says no new mosque should be built in either Ayodhya or&nbsp;neighbouring Faizabad as part of the formula mooted by it to resolve the dispute.

He said since the Babri mosque was a Shia shrine, the board will identify a piece of land in a Muslim-dominated area for it and inform the government.&nbsp; 
 
(With inputs from PTI) 
&nbsp;

Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who has offered to mediate in the Ayodhya dispute, will visit Ayodhya tomorrow (November 16).

Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who has offered to mediate in the Ayodhya dispute, will visit Ayodhya tomorrow (November 16). The spiritual leader on Wednesday met Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath for 40 minutes at his official residence in Lucknow but said he had no proposal yet to discuss with stakeholders. In an informal interaction with journalists after meeting Adityanath, he said,"I want unity...I want amity. This is just a beginning. We will talk to all." When his attention was drawn to comments by some Muslim leaders rejecting his proposal to resolve the dispute, Ravi Shankar said he had no proposal at the moment so any question of rejection does not arise. "Neither I have given any proposal nor have I got it from anyone," he said. A top official described the meeting between Ravi Shankar and Adityanath as "good". The matter is pending before the Supreme Court, which in a few weeks will start hearings on the disputed site claimed by both the Hindus and the Muslims. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's offer for mediating in the dispute has received a tepid and skeptical response from key protagonists on both sides. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) have voiced reservations about his role. "It is being said that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is talking to all the stakeholders in the case but he has not yet contacted the top leadership of All India Muslim Personal Law Board which is leading the Muslim side," AIMPLB general secretary Maulana Wali Rehmani said. He said Ravi Shankar had made a similar move to resolve the dispute some 12 years ago and concluded that the disputed site be handed over to Hindus. "What new formula he has found this time should be told," Rehmani said. The VHP too appeared dismissive, saying no dialogue on the issue was needed as courts go by evidence and archaeological evidence was in favour of Hindus. "There is no relevance of the (recent) clamour for agreement over Ram Janmabhoomi after the archaeological evidences in this regard have been found to be in favour of Hindus... The courts go by evidence," regional spokesman for the VHP Sharad Sharma said in a statement. Uttar Pradesh Governor Ram Naik said, "This (mediation) kind of effort is being made by those who believe it will help resolve the issue at the earliest. I wish their efforts bear fruit. But the apex court's final verdict will be binding." Gautam Vig, a representative of the Art of Living founder said Ravi Shankar was listening to both Hindus and Muslims but no formula has been worked out yet. A bench headed by the then Chief Justice J S Khehar had said in March this year that such religious issues can be resolved through negotiations and offered to mediate to arrive at an amicable settlement. "These are issues of religion and sentiments. These are issues where all the parties can sit together and arrive at a consensual decision to end the dispute. All of you may sit together and hold a cordial meeting," the court had said. The Supreme Court will hear the case on December 5, a day before the 25th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992 by thousands of right-wing activists who claimed the mosque was built on a temple which marked the birthplace of Lord Ram in the 16th century. Two thousand people were killed in the riots which followed the demolition of the mosque. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with one-third going to the Ram Lalla (Infant Rama) represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, one-third to the Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining one-third to the Hindu Nirmohi Akhara. All the three parties appealed against the division of the disputed land. The state's Shia Waqf Board, which has impleaded itself in the case, has been siding with the Hindu parties to the case. Its chairman Wasim Rizvi says no new mosque should be built in either Ayodhya or neighbouring Faizabad as part of the formula mooted by it to resolve the dispute. He said since the Babri mosque was a Shia shrine, the board will identify a piece of land in a Muslim-dominated area for it and inform the government. (With inputs from PTI)

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar to visit Ayodhya on Thursday, says 'will talk to all'

Offering a solution to the Babri Masjid dispute, Uttar Pradesh&#39;s Shia Central Waqf Board on Tuesday (August 8) told the Supreme Court of India that a mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri masjid site in Ayodhya.

The Shia Board is one of the parties in the pending appeals in the apex court.

The Shia Waqf Board also told the top court that the Babri Masjid was its property and only it was entitled to negotiate an amicable settlement of the dispute.

The Waqf Board sought more time from the Supreme Court to set up a committee for exploring an amicable settlement of the dispute.

Assailing the stand of the Sunni Central Waqf Board, the affidavit said, &quot;...Since Babri Masjid was a Shia Waqf Board property, Shia Central Waqf Board UP alone is entitled to negotiate and arrive at a peaceful settlement with other remaining stakeholders.&quot;

&quot;Answering respondent (Shia Board) is also of the view that, to bring quietus, masjid can be located in a Muslim- dominated area at a reasonable distance from the most revered place of birth of Maryada Purshottam Sri Ram&quot;.

The top court had earlier said that if required, a principal mediator can be chosen by the court for settling the Ayodhya issue.&nbsp;

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer has been constituted by Chief Justice JS Khehar to hear a batch of petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case from August 11.

In 2010, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had said the disputed 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The Shia Board&#39;s 30-page affidavit assumes significance as it has been filed within few days of the Supreme Court agreeing to fast track the hearing on a batch of appeals challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict&nbsp;in the case. 
 
On July 21, a bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar had said that it would soon take a decision to list the matter for early hearing.

The court&#39;s remark had come on a plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy who sought urgent listing and hearing of the matter.

The BJP leader had said the main appeals against the Allahabad High Court order were pending in the top court since many years and required an urgent hearing. 
 
He had also said that a separate petition had earlier been filed by him seeking enforcement of his right to worship without much hassle at the site. 
&nbsp;

The Shia Waqf Board also told the top court that the Babri Masjid was its property and only it was entitled to negotiate an amicable settlement of the dispute

Offering a solution to the Babri Masjid dispute, Uttar Pradesh's Shia Central Waqf Board on Tuesday (August 8) told the Supreme Court of India that a mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri masjid site in Ayodhya. The Shia Board is one of the parties in the pending appeals in the apex court. The Shia Waqf Board also told the top court that the Babri Masjid was its property and only it was entitled to negotiate an amicable settlement of the dispute. The Waqf Board sought more time from the Supreme Court to set up a committee for exploring an amicable settlement of the dispute. Assailing the stand of the Sunni Central Waqf Board, the affidavit said, "...Since Babri Masjid was a Shia Waqf Board property, Shia Central Waqf Board UP alone is entitled to negotiate and arrive at a peaceful settlement with other remaining stakeholders." "Answering respondent (Shia Board) is also of the view that, to bring quietus, masjid can be located in a Muslim- dominated area at a reasonable distance from the most revered place of birth of Maryada Purshottam Sri Ram". The top court had earlier said that if required, a principal mediator can be chosen by the court for settling the Ayodhya issue. A three-judge bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer has been constituted by Chief Justice JS Khehar to hear a batch of petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case from August 11. In 2010, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had said the disputed 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The Shia Board's 30-page affidavit assumes significance as it has been filed within few days of the Supreme Court agreeing to fast track the hearing on a batch of appeals challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict in the case. On July 21, a bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar had said that it would soon take a decision to list the matter for early hearing. The court's remark had come on a plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy who sought urgent listing and hearing of the matter. The BJP leader had said the main appeals against the Allahabad High Court order were pending in the top court since many years and required an urgent hearing. He had also said that a separate petition had earlier been filed by him seeking enforcement of his right to worship without much hassle at the site.

Mosque can be built at reasonable distance from Babri Masjid site: Shia Waqf Board to SC

In what may spark a fresh controversy, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator&nbsp;from Hyderabad Raja Singh has said that he would behead the ones opposing the construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.

&quot;Some people are saying that they will create ruckus if Ram Mandir is built in Ayodhya. I welcome the ones who are warning of dire consequences. We have been waiting for years to behead such traitors,&quot; the MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) said while addressing a public gathering on Thursday.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) condemned&nbsp;Raja Singh&#39;s remark.

Dissociating&nbsp;itself from the legislator&#39;s statement, the right-wing BJP affiliate asserted that it never backed such observations and actions which intended to incite violence. 
 
&quot;Any statement which intended to use violence is condemnable. The RSS has never supported any violent act. The RSS disassociates itself from all such observations and actions,&quot; RSS leader Rakesh Sinha told ANI.

Raja Singh, who represents Goshamal constituency in the Hyderabad Assembly, is known for his right wing activities and has also been arrested multiple times.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had observed that Ayodhya dispute is a &quot;sensitive&quot; and &quot;sentimental&quot; issue, adding that the matter should be settled amicably.&nbsp;

Since then, various right-wing leaders have been campaigning for the temple to be built.

While Uma Bharti said she was ready to go to jail for the temple if need be, BJP leaders have been supporting the cause in their own way.&nbsp;

(ANI)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Various right-wing leaders including Union minister Uma Bharti have been campaigning for the temple to be built

In what may spark a fresh controversy, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator from Hyderabad Raja Singh has said that he would behead the ones opposing the construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. "Some people are saying that they will create ruckus if Ram Mandir is built in Ayodhya. I welcome the ones who are warning of dire consequences. We have been waiting for years to behead such traitors," the MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) said while addressing a public gathering on Thursday. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) condemned Raja Singh's remark. Dissociating itself from the legislator's statement, the right-wing BJP affiliate asserted that it never backed such observations and actions which intended to incite violence. "Any statement which intended to use violence is condemnable. The RSS has never supported any violent act. The RSS disassociates itself from all such observations and actions," RSS leader Rakesh Sinha told ANI. Raja Singh, who represents Goshamal constituency in the Hyderabad Assembly, is known for his right wing activities and has also been arrested multiple times. Earlier, the Supreme Court had observed that Ayodhya dispute is a "sensitive" and "sentimental" issue, adding that the matter should be settled amicably. Since then, various right-wing leaders have been campaigning for the temple to be built. While Uma Bharti said she was ready to go to jail for the temple if need be, BJP leaders have been supporting the cause in their own way. (ANI)

BJP legislator says will 'behead' those opposing Ram Mandir in Ayodhya

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has offered his government&#39;s help to resolve the contentious Ram temple issue and called for both sides to re-establish dialogue to settle the lingering dispute.

A strong votary of building a Ram temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya before he took over as chief minister, the hardline Hindutva leader, however, was circumspect in his comments on the issue in an interview to the RSS-affiliated weekly &quot;Organiser&quot;.

He supported the Supreme Court of India&#39;s&nbsp;recent observations on an out-of-court settlement of the dispute and said,&nbsp;&quot;Both the sides should re-establish dialogue and resolve the matter.&quot;

&quot;As the government is not party to it, so the two parties in contention should have a dialogue and resolve the matter. If any help of the state government is needed, we are ready to provide that,&quot; he said.

Last month, the apex court had said that the Ayodhya dispute was a &quot;sensitive and sentimental&quot; issue and suggested that it should be resolved amicably through dialogue between the parties.

Replying to questions about his government&#39;s action against illegal slaughter houses,&nbsp;Adityananth asserted no legally-run abattoir operator would be harassed.

He, however, added nobody can be allowed to play with the health of the people of the state.

Defending his government&#39;s action, he said, steps taken against slaughter houses were in line with the observations of National Green Tribunal in 2015 and the Supreme Court in 2017.

Adityanath said vegetarian food is actually good for health but people can have their own tastes on which restrictions cannot be imposed. 
 
(PTI) 
&nbsp;

The Uttar Pradesh chief minister supported the top court's recent observations on an out-of-court settlement of the dispute

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has offered his government's help to resolve the contentious Ram temple issue and called for both sides to re-establish dialogue to settle the lingering dispute. A strong votary of building a Ram temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya before he took over as chief minister, the hardline Hindutva leader, however, was circumspect in his comments on the issue in an interview to the RSS-affiliated weekly "Organiser". He supported the Supreme Court of India's recent observations on an out-of-court settlement of the dispute and said, "Both the sides should re-establish dialogue and resolve the matter." "As the government is not party to it, so the two parties in contention should have a dialogue and resolve the matter. If any help of the state government is needed, we are ready to provide that," he said. Last month, the apex court had said that the Ayodhya dispute was a "sensitive and sentimental" issue and suggested that it should be resolved amicably through dialogue between the parties. Replying to questions about his government's action against illegal slaughter houses, Adityananth asserted no legally-run abattoir operator would be harassed. He, however, added nobody can be allowed to play with the health of the people of the state. Defending his government's action, he said, steps taken against slaughter houses were in line with the observations of National Green Tribunal in 2015 and the Supreme Court in 2017. Adityanath said vegetarian food is actually good for health but people can have their own tastes on which restrictions cannot be imposed. (PTI)

Resolve Ayodhya dispute through dialogue: Adityanath backs top court observations

The Supreme Court of India has asked BJP Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy&nbsp;to settle the Ayodhya issue through negotiations which would be agreed upon by all petitioners and respondents.

India&#39;s apex court said if negotiations break down then it will intervene and appoint a mediator for a peaceful resolution. India&#39;s highest court added the Ayodhya dispute&nbsp;is a sensitive and sentimental issue and it is best 
that it is settled amicably.

&quot;These are issues of religion and sentiments. These are issues where all the parties can sit together and arrive at a consensual decision to end the dispute. All of you may sit together and hold a cordial meeting,&quot; the bench also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul said.

The Supreme Court directive comes after&nbsp;Subramanian Swamy sought&nbsp;urgent hearing of Ayodhya dispute in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court asked&nbsp;parties concerned to sit together to arrive at a consensus.&nbsp;

Supreme Court&nbsp;asked Swamy to consult the parties and inform it about&nbsp;the decision on March 31.

The Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar&nbsp;has offered to mediate the Ayodhya dispute.

&quot;You must make fresh attempts to arrive at a consensual decision. If required, you must choose a moderator to end the dispute. If the parties want&nbsp;me to sit with mediators chosen by both the sides for negotiations, I am ready to take up the task. Even the services of my brother judges can be availed for the purpose,&quot; the CJI said.

In his petition, Swamy had claimed that under the practices prevalent in Islamic countries, a mosque could be shifted to any other place for public purposes like constructing a road, whereas a temple once constructed cannot be touched.&nbsp;He had also sought directions to expedite the disposal of several petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict of three-way division of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya on September 30, 2010.&nbsp;

The Babri Masjid was demolished allegedly by a group of karsevaks&nbsp;on December 6, 1992 in&nbsp;India&#39;s northern city of Ayodhya in the state of Uttar Pradesh. It was&nbsp;allegedly demolished at the behest of top&nbsp;Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) leaders,<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/wont-accept-dropping-of-charges-against-advani-others-in-babri-demolition-supreme-court-13096"> several cases have been&nbsp;lodged since then against various people including political outfits and BJP</a>, VHP leaders.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Its a welcome step by the Supreme Court, the matter I believe can be resolved out of court: Uma Bharti on SC Ayodhya matter <a href="https://t.co/V4uJdJSLmi">pic.twitter.com/V4uJdJSLmi</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI_news) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI_news/status/844093350802214912">March 21, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="videos-block">
<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9"><iframe class="embed-responsive-item" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mhhfPBS7UG4"></iframe></div>
</div>

<div class="media-description">
The Chief Justice of India has offered to act as the mediator in the Ayodhya Case. Here&#39;s more to this story (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

(WION with agency inputs)&nbsp;

India's apex court said if negotiations break down then it will intervene and appoint a mediator for a peaceful resolution

The Supreme Court of India has asked BJP Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy to settle the Ayodhya issue through negotiations which would be agreed upon by all petitioners and respondents. India's apex court said if negotiations break down then it will intervene and appoint a mediator for a peaceful resolution. India's highest court added the Ayodhya dispute is a sensitive and sentimental issue and it is best that it is settled amicably. "These are issues of religion and sentiments. These are issues where all the parties can sit together and arrive at a consensual decision to end the dispute. All of you may sit together and hold a cordial meeting," the bench also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul said. The Supreme Court directive comes after Subramanian Swamy sought urgent hearing of Ayodhya dispute in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court asked parties concerned to sit together to arrive at a consensus. Supreme Court asked Swamy to consult the parties and inform it about the decision on March 31. The Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar has offered to mediate the Ayodhya dispute. "You must make fresh attempts to arrive at a consensual decision. If required, you must choose a moderator to end the dispute. If the parties want me to sit with mediators chosen by both the sides for negotiations, I am ready to take up the task. Even the services of my brother judges can be availed for the purpose," the CJI said. In his petition, Swamy had claimed that under the practices prevalent in Islamic countries, a mosque could be shifted to any other place for public purposes like constructing a road, whereas a temple once constructed cannot be touched. He had also sought directions to expedite the disposal of several petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict of three-way division of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya on September 30, 2010. The Babri Masjid was demolished allegedly by a group of karsevaks on December 6, 1992 in India's northern city of Ayodhya in the state of Uttar Pradesh. It was allegedly demolished at the behest of top Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) leaders, several cases have been lodged since then against various people including political outfits and BJP, VHP leaders. Its a welcome step by the Supreme Court, the matter I believe can be resolved out of court: Uma Bharti on SC Ayodhya matter pic.twitter.com/V4uJdJSLmi — ANI (@ANI_news) March 21, 2017 × The Chief Justice of India has offered to act as the mediator in the Ayodhya Case. Here's more to this story (WION) × (WION with agency inputs)

Settle Ayodhya dispute amicably: Supreme Court

Muslim organisations, including Babri Masjid Action Committee were today sceptical about the Supreme Court&#39;s suggestion for talks to resolve the Ayodhya dispute, saying attempts at out-of-court settlement in the past have been unsuccessful.

&quot;We are ready with Chief Justice (of India) mediating... we trust him. We are also ready we if he nominates a team for hearing the matter. But out of court settlement is not possible. If SC passes an order in this regard, we will look into it,&quot; said Zafaryab Jilani, Convenor of the Committee which is a party to the case.

His comments came against the backdrop of the apex court earlier in the day asking parties concerned to sit together to arrive at a consensus on Ayodhya issue, which has been dragging on for decades.

&quot;It is a sensitive and sentimental issue and it&#39;s best that it is settled amicably,&quot; the SC observed.

Jilani said that going by his experience of last three decades, he feels that the matter cannot be settled outside the court and referred to unsuccessful negotiation attempts made during the tenures of former Prime Ministers Chandrashekhar and P V Narasimha Rao.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>In 1986, talks started between the then Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamkoti and President Muslim Personal Law Board Ali Miyan Nadvi but it failed,&#39; said Zafaryab Jilani, convenor of the Babri Masjid Action Committee</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=In 1986, talks started between the then Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamkoti and President Muslim Personal Law Board Ali Miyan Nadvi but it failed,' said Zafaryab Jilani, convenor of the Babri Masjid Action Committee" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&quot;Let them hear us, we are prepared. But we are not ready for out of court settlement,&quot; Jilani said.

&quot;In 1986, talks started between the then Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamkoti and President Muslim Personal Law Board Ali Miyan Nadvi but it failed.

&quot;Later in 1990, Prime Minister Chandrashekhar, UP Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and Bhairon Singh Shekhawat talked but no results came. PM Narasimha Rao also constituted a committee and attempts of talks were made through Congress leader Subodh Kant Sahai but in 1992 the mosque was demolished,&quot; he said.

He said after the demolition, the then Muslim Personal Law Board President Rabe Hasan Nadvi had sought a written proposal from Shankaracharya of Kanchi in which he said Muslims should leave claim on three mosques, which was not acceptable.

The Secretary General of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Maulana Wali Rahmani, said, &quot;We have trust in the Chief Justice and if he is there we are ready for talks.&quot;

&quot;Talks were held earlier also but it can be initiated again. But talks should not be long,&quot; he added.

Maulana Khalid Rashid of the AIMPLB alleged that the attempts in the past to resolve the issue were foiled by political parties.

&quot;Negotiation have been made in the past a number of times between the two parties. But each time, political parties foiled our attempts...(So), we are of the view that let the Supreme Court decide once and for all,&quot; Maulana Khalid Rashid of the AIMPLB said.

Rashid, however, said the Board respects the gesture of the CJI and the sentiments of Hindus.

&quot;If the parties wants me to sit with mediators chosen by both the sides for negotiations, am ready to take up the task. Even the services of my brother judges can be availed for the purpose,&quot; Chief Justice J S Khehar, who headed the SC bench, said today.

The Allahabad High Court, had in its verdict on September 30, 2010, directed three-way division of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya. The verdict was challenged in the apex court.&nbsp;

The Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, welcomed the Supreme Court&#39;s observations.

Talks are the only way out, he said.

&quot;I understand that many rounds of talks have already been held but no concrete solution has come up. Nevertheless, dialogue continues to be the only way out and I welcome the SC observations from that perspective,&quot; he said.

(PTI)

They say it has been tried before, and has failed

Muslim organisations, including Babri Masjid Action Committee were today sceptical about the Supreme Court's suggestion for talks to resolve the Ayodhya dispute, saying attempts at out-of-court settlement in the past have been unsuccessful. "We are ready with Chief Justice (of India) mediating... we trust him. We are also ready we if he nominates a team for hearing the matter. But out of court settlement is not possible. If SC passes an order in this regard, we will look into it," said Zafaryab Jilani, Convenor of the Committee which is a party to the case. His comments came against the backdrop of the apex court earlier in the day asking parties concerned to sit together to arrive at a consensus on Ayodhya issue, which has been dragging on for decades. "It is a sensitive and sentimental issue and it's best that it is settled amicably," the SC observed. Jilani said that going by his experience of last three decades, he feels that the matter cannot be settled outside the court and referred to unsuccessful negotiation attempts made during the tenures of former Prime Ministers Chandrashekhar and P V Narasimha Rao. In 1986, talks started between the then Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamkoti and President Muslim Personal Law Board Ali Miyan Nadvi but it failed,' said Zafaryab Jilani, convenor of the Babri Masjid Action Committee × "Let them hear us, we are prepared. But we are not ready for out of court settlement," Jilani said. "In 1986, talks started between the then Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamkoti and President Muslim Personal Law Board Ali Miyan Nadvi but it failed. "Later in 1990, Prime Minister Chandrashekhar, UP Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and Bhairon Singh Shekhawat talked but no results came. PM Narasimha Rao also constituted a committee and attempts of talks were made through Congress leader Subodh Kant Sahai but in 1992 the mosque was demolished," he said. He said after the demolition, the then Muslim Personal Law Board President Rabe Hasan Nadvi had sought a written proposal from Shankaracharya of Kanchi in which he said Muslims should leave claim on three mosques, which was not acceptable. The Secretary General of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Maulana Wali Rahmani, said, "We have trust in the Chief Justice and if he is there we are ready for talks." "Talks were held earlier also but it can be initiated again. But talks should not be long," he added. Maulana Khalid Rashid of the AIMPLB alleged that the attempts in the past to resolve the issue were foiled by political parties. "Negotiation have been made in the past a number of times between the two parties. But each time, political parties foiled our attempts...(So), we are of the view that let the Supreme Court decide once and for all," Maulana Khalid Rashid of the AIMPLB said. Rashid, however, said the Board respects the gesture of the CJI and the sentiments of Hindus. "If the parties wants me to sit with mediators chosen by both the sides for negotiations, am ready to take up the task. Even the services of my brother judges can be availed for the purpose," Chief Justice J S Khehar, who headed the SC bench, said today. The Allahabad High Court, had in its verdict on September 30, 2010, directed three-way division of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya. The verdict was challenged in the apex court. The Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, welcomed the Supreme Court's observations. Talks are the only way out, he said. "I understand that many rounds of talks have already been held but no concrete solution has come up. Nevertheless, dialogue continues to be the only way out and I welcome the SC observations from that perspective," he said. (PTI)

Babri dispute: Muslims sceptical of out-of-court settlement

ayodhya-dispute

Ayodhya Dispute, News on Ayodhya Dispute, stories on Ayodhya Dispute, articles on Ayodhya Dispute, Ayodhya Dispute stories at Wion, Ayodhya Dispute news, Ayodhya Dispute latest news

ayodhya dispute