What you should know about Ram Temple groundbreaking ceremony

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

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 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