So bets are on, but before you bet just understand a few issues :
- Supreme court is treating the dispute as a Land Dispute.
- It has already negated the basis ” Mosque is not a necessity in Islam” on which Allahabad High court judgement is based by giving 2 clarification a. The above observation was made in the context of Land Aquisition by government and B. The Word mosque can be and should be read with temple/ church/ Gurudwara. This means ” the government has Soveirgn right to acquire any land whether belonging to Temple/ mosque/ church/ Gurudwara.”.
- If it adjudicates the case solely as Land Dispute than WAQF board has better record and documentation than Akhada.
- If arguments gets into Archeological issues than SC will have many questions like 1. In a place like Ayodhya, temples were supposedly being built and rebuilt for millions of years what are the proofs to prove that ramjanambhoomi temple was there at the disputed site. 2. SC would ask for documentary proof of the existence of such a temple 3. SC may also ask for documentary proves to prove beyond doubt that this temple was different from other temples and there is a way to technically prove it. 3. Most of the temples in Ayodhya can trace their history to land donations made by early Nawabs of Awadh ie 17–18 th century. 4. This reduces the number of temples older than 17–18 th century and tracking of Land records, donation records becomes easy. 5. Tradition and folklore says that after Mir Baki destroyed the temple the had Brahmin retrieved the statue from river Saryu and handed it over to Queen of Orcha who took it back t and built a magnificent temple in Orcha and since that day Ram Lala is Defacto King of Orcha and royal family ruled as Regent of Lord Ram. 6. History says that Rani Ahilyabai rebuilt most of the temples destroyed by Muslims near to the original site or in the same campus, for example, Somnath and Kashi Vishwanath but there is no record of her trying the same with this temple. 7. The reason that Ayodhya was under the control of Nawab cuts no ice as these Nawabs were themselves interested in giving grants for a temple and most temples in Ayodhya have records of such grants, even Ramlila ( Dushherra) Maidan in Lucknow is WAQF from Nawabs of Awadh. Even Gorakhdam in Gorakhpur shares the same history 8. The dating of relics and proving beyond doubt as recovered from the site will be questioned. 9. Technically there has been no Archeological dig at the disputed plot conducted by ASI. 10. Comparison with Somnath there is documentary evidence of existence to temple at the site, there is documentary evidence of its destruction, the relics, remnants of temple were present on-site, A compromise was negotiated where the Mosque was shifted to new site nearby as agreed by Muslim and the first Mosque was shifted and rebuild after that temple was erected….
- there are many leakages in a case from US Hindus side if it is treated as land disputes and that seems to be a reason why VHP and Akhadas Parishad has passed a resolution urging the government to enact a law to build Ram Temple at the disputed site.
- But the above was expected as Leadership of agitation is in hand of people who believe in Goebel philosophy “that creating emotions, fanning emotions, shouting and drumming loud and creating an enemy of others is enough to solve an issue” and have wasted precious time in contesting ownership of a plot of land, instead they should have built a magnificent temple to God just next to this Plot.
- If BIRLA’S can build Krishna Janam Bhumi temple in Mathura which shares the wall with Masjid and sanctum sanatorium is below the Masjid or Kashi Vishwanath temple can share its boundary with Gyan Vapi Mosque then why similar temple could not be built in Ayodhya.
- the reason is simple such solution does not divide the voters, it does not create an enemy in Muslim, and propaganda that Hindu is in danger cannot be created and sustained, we the Hindus cannot be fooled for such a long time and nobody can piggy ride on this dispute to come to power in state and centre and cannot declare themselves to be messiahs and saviours of us poor Hindus.
- I don’t think that destruction of Babri Masjid, Riots after that, division of polity since then, the institutionalisation of hatred, difference, pointing fingers, blame game etc is part of brief with SC.
- SC is dealing with dispute strictly as a land dispute and looking at the reputation of New CJI chances are. That the bench would concentrate on the constitutionality of land dispute and would adjudicate as per provisions of Law & constitution and would not get into the emotional side of a dispute.
All this point are viewed not confirmed.