Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Ayodhya Debate

Discussion in 'National Politics' started by DaRk KnIght, Sep 3, 2010.

?

Ayodhya issue: Which one you support??

  1. Support Ram Mandir at all costs.

    41.5%
  2. Support mosque at all costs.

    3.1%
  3. Support them based on the court verdict.

    21.5%
  4. Support some other structure other than a temple/mosque there(School/Hospital etc).

    26.2%
  5. Maintain Status quo.

    3.1%
  6. No idea/Confused/others

    4.6%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DaRk KnIght

    DaRk KnIght Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    EDIT: POLL ADDED. VOTE NOW.


    Hii Guys!!

    We all know that the decision on this heated issue might be delivered on 17th sept. by Allahabad High Court.

    What are your views. Who will gain or who will loose?? Who will win the case?? Is Temple or a Mosque really necessary??

    What about a statue of Mayawati and Kashiram at that place?? :lol:


    Regards


    BTW can anyone tell me how to create a poll??
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2010
    1 person likes this.
  2. Osiris

    Osiris Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    742
    ^^^ I'M not worried of verdict...both really worried about communal tensions not wishing a 1992 again
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. DaRk KnIght

    DaRk KnIght Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    UP Govt has requested 50 companies...I guess of CRPF.......

    BTW decision will come and communal harmony will be disturbed in all possibility.......but still an appeal lies......so we can forget Temple or Mosque for another 15-20 years......:lol:
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. RoYaN

    RoYaN Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    917
    I say Build cricket stadium over their!!!!!!!!!
    Every one love cricket.
     
  5. Arjun MBT

    Arjun MBT Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,301
    Likes Received:
    192
    Build a Good school over there....Education is what we need, and It is what we should Provide..... Thats way better than any Temple or Mosque, A school will Automatically Bring friendliness Between children from all the communities and Education would cleanse There Mind With Love..... The best Alternative is to Build a Nice school over there
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Osiris

    Osiris Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    742
    Verdict is for a 60 year old case,Justice SU Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma of the Lucknow bench he first of these title suits was filed in 1950 by Gopal Singh Visharad, seeking an injunction permitting 'Pooja' (worship) of Lord Ram at the disputed site in Ayodhya.

    The second suit was filed by Paramhans Ramchandra Das also in 1950 seeking the same injunction but this suit was later withdrawn.

    The third suit was filed in 1959 by Nirmohi Akhara, seeking direction to hand over the charge of the disputed site from the receiver.

    Fourth suit was filed in the year 1961 by UP Sunni Central Board of Waqfas for declaration and possession. The fifth suit was also filed on July 1, 1989 in the name of Bhagwan Shree Ram Lalla Virajman for declaration and possession.

    Since suit No 2 was already withdrawn, only four title suits were in existence. These four suits remained pending in Faizabad civil court and in the 1989, on an application moved by the then advocate general UP, these suits were transferred to the high court.
     
  7. RoYaN

    RoYaN Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    917
    I think they should declare it Govt. property and build a school with nice facilities.
     
  8. DaRk KnIght

    DaRk KnIght Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    School is a good option but may not be realistic.

    There is a conflict and it has to be ended. Of course court may order to build School, Hospital etc but this situation is very unlikely because it is related with freedom if religion and in our country we have Positive Right to freedom.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. RoYaN

    RoYaN Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    917
    Cricket stadium no one will oppose.
     
  10. Osiris

    Osiris Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    742
    a factory or school or a hospital will not happen,since its an issue of religion.

    any news of ASI report?is court considering that?
     
  11. RoYaN

    RoYaN Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    917
    Please post the link to the ASI report .
     
  12. Osiris

    Osiris Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    742
    The 574-page ASI report consisting of written opinions and maps and drawings was opened before the full Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Monday morning.

    The report said there was archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural activities from the 10th century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure (Babri Mosque).

    Among the excavation yields it mentioned were stone and decorated bricks, mutilated sculpture of divine couple, carved architectural members including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali, doorjamb with semi-circular shrine pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranjala (watershute) in the north and 50 pillar bases in association with a huge structure.

    The archaeological evidence and other discoveries from the site were indicative of remains that are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India, the ASI report said.

    The ASI report said there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50x30 metres in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure.

    In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat foundation below calcrete blocks topped by sandstone blocks were found, the report said.

    It said the pillar bases exposed during the present excavation in the northern and southern areas also give an idea of the length of the massive wall of earlier construction with which they are associated and which might have been originally around 60 metres.

    The centre of the main chamber of the disputed structure falls just over the central point of the length of the massive wall of the preceding period which could not be excavated due to presence of Ram Lala at the spot in the make-shift structure, the ASI report said.

    In a significant observation the report said towards east of this central point, a circular depression with projection on the west, cut into the large sized brick pavement, signifying the place where some important object was placed.

    The ASI report, however, said various structures exposed right from the Sunga to Gupta period do not speak either about their nature or functional utility as no evidence has come to approbate them.

    The report said during and after the Gupta period up to late and post-Mughal period the regular habitational deposits disappear in the concerned levels and the structural phases are associated with either structural debris or filling material taken out from the adjoining area to level the ground for construction purpose.

    As a result of this much of the earlier material in the form of pottery, terracottas and other objects of preceding periods, particularly of Kushan period, are found in the deposits of later periods mixed along with contemporary material, it said.

    The area below the disputed site thus remained a place for public use for a long time till the Mughal period when the disputed structure was built which was confined to a limited area and the population settled around it as evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material including pottery, the ASI said in its report.

    It went on to state that this observation was further attested by the conspicuous absence of habitational structures such as house-complexes, soakage pits, soakage jars, ring wells, drains, wells, hearths, kilns or furnaces.

    The report said the human activity at the site dates back to 13th century BC on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of the site.

    The ASI report said the northern black polished ware using people were the first to occupy the disputed site at Ayodhya in the first millennium BC although no structural activities were encountered in the limited area probed.

    A round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of this level, it said.

    The report said the Sunga period (second-first century BC) comes next in order of the cultural occupation at the site followed by the Kushan period.

    The report said during the early medieval period (11-12th century AD) a huge structure of nearly 50 metres north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived as only four of the 50 pillar bases exposed during the excavation belonged to this level with a brick crush floor

    On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it, it said.

    The architectural members of the earlier short-lived massive structure with stencil-cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure which has a huge pillared hall different from residential structures providing sufficient evidence of construction of public usages which remained under existence for a long time during the period, the report said.

    The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century that the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.
     
    2 people like this.
  13. prototype

    prototype Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    300
    the problem is never going to b solved,even after whatever the court delivers,since the issue is related with religion political parties will still continue to attain mileage from it
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Guynextdoor

    Guynextdoor Lt. Colonel SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,855
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    I really don't mind letting Muslims build the mosque there. Look, Hindus are the majority and I don't think it's all that big a deal if we do something symbolic that lets muslims know that we mean well and that we want to respect their culture. What difference does it make to whom it belongs and so on? If we do this, we'll lay the foundation for Hindu Muslim Unity for the next 1000 years.
     
    2 people like this.
  15. RoYaN

    RoYaN Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    917
    The RSS won't stand for this and the BJP might go on an another Yatra to come back to power and whip up communal tensions like the first time.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page