Ayodhya verdict date: Supreme Court to pronounce verdict ...
SC to announce Ayodhya verdict; Here is the brief overview ...
ayodhya verdict brief
ayodhya verdict brief - win
MEA ‘Brief’ on Ayodhya Verdict Skips Mention of 1992 Mosque Demolition: As part of a diplomatic outreach to explain Ayodhya verdict to opinion makers in world capitals, an explanatory note by MEA gives chronology but misses any mention of demolition of mosque in 1992
It is at this point that it becomes apparent that neoliberalism has a strong common agenda with the other project discussed here – Hindutva. This is not in any sense to downplay the obvious differences and tensions between the two projects (most centrally around their conceptions of “freedom”). It also bears repeating that this does not imply that an alliance between the two was or is “inevitable.” Yet, as living political projects, shaped in a dialectical relationship with their social foundations, their common goals offer a space that can be exploited. It is from this perspective that we can understand the gradual growth of the alliance between Hindutva and neoliberalism that developed over the 1990s. How does such an alliance operate? A good starting point is to note discursive dynamics in the English media. As an ideological site largely internal to the ruling class, the English media is an ideal location for ruling class organic intellectuals to play out negotiations between ideological projects. By observing media discourse, we can then identify the degree to which political projects are finding shared ground. It is hence striking to note that over the last fifteen years, the English media has shifted to strongly emphasise the ideological resonances between neoliberalism, Hindutva and individualisation. This can be seen if, in a similar manner to the outline of Hindutva conceptions made above, we also outline the conceptions of neoliberalism on these issues:
Reduction of social processes to individual choice: In neoliberal ideology, all action in all social spheres is built around “utility-maximising” individuals. Despite being portrayed as a descriptive concept, this is in fact a normative one. The ‘failure’ of individuals to behave as “rational” utility maximisers is attributed to “perverse incentives” from either state or society, which is condemned as both immoral and irrational. In this sense, the utility maximising individual is the equivalent of the “good Hindu” in Hindutva – both the centre of the social order and the ideal that that order aspires to produce.
The state exists as the expression and guarantor, not of individual or collective rights, but of a supreme principle: The place of Hindu rashtra is in this case taken by “the market”. The ideal state is the night watchman, the guarantor of the “market” – the only legitimate collective social activity. The state should ideally be the market’s guarantor against interference, nothing less and nothing more. In fact, it is particularly striking that one finds precisely the same phrase – “night watchman” – being used by the Sangh intellectual Dattopant Thengadi (1979) to describe the state.
Divisions within society are unnecessary and pathological; the only division that is of importance is the line between “society” and its Other. In neoliberalism, “civil society” – the social counterpart of the economic concept of the “market” – is the only legitimate social institution (a concept taken even further with the notion of “social capital”). As in Hindutva, classes, castes and other identities are fictions, with their roots in malign state interference and “political meddling.” In neoliberalism, the state itself takes the place of the “foreigner.” Welfare agencies, the bureaucracy, the legislature, political parties – all are ‘outside’ society and responsible for its “pathological” divisions. Political actors are socially illegitimate, and for both Hindutva and the neoliberals there is no worse crime than to “politicise” social issues.
Simply listing these principles already makes it apparent that they have become shrill themes in much English media coverage. Perhaps the best example is the reservations “debate.” Caste-based reservations are attacked on the ground that they violate the principles of individual “merit”, as per the first principle. Since the state’s role is to guarantee these principles and not interfere with them, the state is attacked for “meddling” with “meritocracy” rather than doing its job and providing infrastructure, education, etc. Finally, the reservations policy is attacked for “dividing” society along “caste lines” and its roots are seen as being “vote bank” politics. Yet, even though it would be totally contrary to neoliberal principles, much of the English media is happy to advocate economic reservations – which have long formed part of the individualised “social uplift” agenda preached by the Sangh Parivar, projecting reservations as charity rather than social justice. This inconsistency is a hallmark of the effort at finding shared ground. In an earlier paper, I have explored other examples of how these principles play out in operation. Moreover, the media is not only concerned with emphasising the common areas between the two agendas – it has also become a site for de-emphasising and reshaping those aspects that are not in harmony between the two projects. Thus, both in the view of the media and in reality, the Sangh Parivar has backpedaled on those of its issues that are not of interest to neoliberals: swadeshi, most of all, but also such issues as Akhand Bharat, Article 370, the universal civil code, etc. The Sangh’s earlier emphasis on “austerity” has also been quietly forgotten. The media in turn projects this as the gradual “moderation” of the Hindutva forces as they join the “mainstream.” Similar policy accommodations on the part of neoliberal ideologues are also visible on a close reading. Some of them include:
The continual and peculiar emphasis in Indian neoliberalism on “national self-confidence.” This is foreign to neoliberal ideology as such. Rather, it is a notion that clearly owes a great deal to Hindutva’s promotion of the concept of a “national self” that is weakened and sapped by its internal divisions. It is not an accident that exactly the same terminology – “awakening”, “newfound confidence”, “assertiveness” – that was used by the Sangh Parivar to describe the Ayodhya movement is now used by neoliberals to describe India post 1991.
The endorsement of economic reservations, as described above.
The attitude towards NRI’s, seen as a kind of “vanguard” of both projects. NRI’s are projected as ideal Indians, representatives of what ‘India’ could achieve if Indians were ‘good’ individuals following correct social ‘values’. There could hardly be any message that neoliberalism and Hindutva agree upon more.
An Institutional and Political Alliance These discursive adjustments form the face of a much deeper and growing relationship.(14) Such collaboration reached its most visible form at the national level during the NDA regime, when the Sangh Parivar and neoliberal ideologues cooperatively attempted to develop political praxis, institutional structures and hegemonic ideologies that allowed them to reap the advantages of a mutual alliance. Among these moves were the accelerated privatisation of education, intensified repression of social movements and the opening of the Indian economy to NRI-driven foreign investment. The two projects also promoted “anti-terrorism” as the single most important agenda of the Indian state, while attempting to dissolve its commitment to any forms of “social justice”. The 2004 election campaign, with its celebration of “India Shining”, was a particularly evocative reflection of this alliance – India was shining because it was “growing” both economically and in “self-confidence” as a Hindu nation. Meanwhile the Sangh Parivar, utilising its access to even enormous amounts of funds (significant amounts of which were either state or foreign-generated), institutionalised and formalised the “bargain” described above. The new pattern of expansion relied on the Sangh’s “seva” arms, which expanded enormously during the NDA regime. By the end of the NDA period, Vidya Bharati, the RSS educational organisation, was running – and still continues to run – the country’s largest private school network. Sangh Parivar outfits emerged as the largest “NGO’s” working in the tribal areas (Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram and its allies). In Orissa and in Gujarat, cadre recruitment grew on a massive scale through “relief” operations in the wake of the 1999 cyclone and the 2001 earthquake respectively.(15) A key example of these new practices is the “ekal vidyalayas” in tribal areas, possibly the largest Sangh Parivar cadre recruitment activity today.(16) As per their website, there are 26,314 ekal vidyalayas in operation at the time of writing (17), but the actual number is likely to be far larger. In these schools, young tribal men and women are hired as acharyas (teachers), given brief ‘training’ and a curriculum, and asked to take regular classes for children out of school. In practice, neither the curriculum nor the training nor the student population is clear. There is no infrastructure other than irregular textbooks. Even where the acharya ceases to function, they at times carry on drawing their salary. As such, the schoolchildren do not seem to be the target of the scheme. Rather, the acharyas themselves appear to be the main goal. One obvious attraction is the stable salary (between Rs. 300 and Rs. 500). Second, the appeals in the training are mostly not concerned with overt Hindutva or even Hindu appeals. Instead, the focus is on social service, the need for gaon vikas, and the problems of “division” introduced by ‘politics’. The youth are forbidden to join any political party or any social movement of the area. The stress of the ekal vidyalaya progam is on apolitical social service – which in our society is a high status occupation. Thus the program offers a combination of material security through the salary, and of social mobility by earning respect of those with higher social stature while participating in a high status social occupation. But, once again, the “bargain” requires the acharya to choose individualisation and depoliticisation, except through their commitment to the Sangh. Thus, ekal vidyalayas and other Sangh ‘seva’ activities build a committed grassroots cadre for whom the “bargain” mentioned earlier is now given a formal, very concrete form: benefits to individuals who perform, and the fear of the loss of all such benefits and a return to being a ‘non-entity’ if one fails. Such a cadre in turn benefits Indian capital in general and neoliberalism in particular, in exchange for which funds are provided, media access guaranteed and state support (even under the UPA) more or less constant. The result is to make it easier to counter a 1980s’ style of politics, greatly weakening the capacity of petty commodity producers to resist the attack on their livelihoods. 2004 and After The experiment was partly cut short by the 2004 elections. However hegemonic the aspirations of the neoliberal-Hindutva alliance were, it had failed to achieve real hegemony in the electoral realm. But its successor, the UPA, has become a classic instance of a neoliberal regime that is not backed by an organised political force. It has pursued a schizophrenic political program, whose contradictions have offered space for some small popular gains along with an avalanche of neoliberal policies. It will also almost certainly become an example of how Indian neoliberalism, in the absence of a “totalitarian” party as its ally, devours the support base of its own regime. A sharp contrast to this situation is the 2007 Gujarat elections, where arguably the Sangh-neoliberal alliance has had its first major and resounding victory. Bankrolled by big capital, publicly proclaimed to be the saviour of both business and nation, the Sangh rode to power against a fragmented opposition speaking the language and raising the issues of the 1980s – caste divides, farmers’ suicides and tribal distress, in addition to tokenistic ‘secularism.’ The Gujarat verdict was built around two simultaneous phenomena. The first was the total dominance of capital, with state support, over both the working class and petty commodity producers, who are at the mercy of big capital in the State. The resulting insecurity and constant sense of threat was fed off of by the Sangh, whose “bargain” became ever-more attractive in this context. The result was the Sangh-driven organisational destruction of all other political formations, whose cadres were poached or coopted into Sangh formations (those who would not, or could not, were repressed or killed). In this context, there was no serious opposition; the Sangh has indeed effectively achieved hegemony, and the totalitarian party has reached fruition. This is not the only form these collaborations have taken. In Chhattisgarh, a different kind of collaboration has created Salwa Judum, a state supported militia formed by an unholy alliance between the security forces, the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram (whose cadres are known to be closely involved) and corporate pressure for mineral extraction. Operating in the southern districts of Dantewada and Bijapur, the Salwa Judum has killed hundreds of adivasis and driven lakhs of people from their homes in the name of fighting the Maoists. The militia is mostly led by the elite among the adivasi communities of the area, those who are, in that sense, most commoditised and most accessible to the offers made by the state/Sangh/capital combine. Even as per official figures, more than 600 villages have been emptied of their population; their residents have either fled into the jungles or are trapped in horrific “relief camps” being run by the State government. There are credible allegations that at least part of the motivation for doing this is to ease the handing over of the land to mining corporations. Wiping out the Maoists, among the most dangerous defenders of petty commodity and subsistence production, is no doubt also a goal for Indian capital – and of course for the Sangh. Whereas Gujarat is India’s most capitalist state, Chhattisgarh is probably among the least. A truly hegemonic form of this alliance cannot take place here, for the degree of commoditisation is insufficient. Hence the balance within hegemony shifts towards force and away from consent, and the form it takes is that of direct, brutal violence – accumulation by dispossession in the most inhuman manner.
Conclusion and Implications for Left Praxis
Neither of these experiments is immediately replicable at the national level, but we do left politics a serious disservice if we therefore dismiss the danger. We have long allowed ourselves to be comforted with descriptions of the Indian right as peddlers of false notions, fraudulent demagogues building castles in the air around “Hindu rashtra” and “India Shining.” In particular, we have believed that Hindutva is primarily an exercise in identity-based chauvinism, a hate politics targeting minorities through propaganda and disinformation. We have seen our role in tackling this threat as primarily being one of awareness raising, enlightenment and education. The argument here has been that this interpretation of historical processes is incorrect. The Sangh in particular has achieved its incredible growth because it is a truly totalitarian party of the ruling class: responding to the needs of multiple social sectors, while presenting solutions to those needs in forms that correspond to the interests of the ruling classes. Fighting such projects cannot be limited to awareness raising alone. They must be confronted as organisations, to hinder and undermine their ability to offer the material-ideological ‘bargain’ that operates at their very foundation. When the UPA government falls in 2009, as it is almost certain to do, there will be another chance for neoliberal-Hindutva alliances to explore their full possibilities at the national level. The situation is ripe for such politics to blossom again. At this time, if we do not fight the Sangh on the political level, we not only hinder the battle for ‘secularism’, we provide Indian neoliberalism with an extremely powerful ally. One can even speculate that the one cannot be defeated without at least weakening the other. Paper by Shankar Gopalakrishnan
Reservoir To Counter Anti Hindu Sentiments on Social Media
1.Hundreds of years of Islamic invasion leaving trail of bodies and broken temples because Kafirs and non believers are subhumans. A.Islamic Destructions of Krishna Janmabhomi and Kashi Vishwanath
P.S Don't let anyone counter it saying most adults in British India did not even have the right to vote because the same arrangement is responsible for creation of our Constitution 3.Leftist distorting our History to suit their agenda A .KK Mohammad AND BB Lal finding engravings and terracotta figures with humans and animals in Ayodhya which are otherwise considered ‘haram’ in Islam. Further excavations in 2003 conclusively proved that there was a 50-pillar temple, though that number could go up if more is dug up. Leftist historians who wrote our NCERTs like Romila Thapar and DN Jha kept claiming no temple remains were founds. Lies on the Ram Janmabhoomi continue to this day, well after their views were demolished by archaeological evidence and even Supreme Court verdict.
“Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half-truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria [Where it is well with me, there is my country] is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.”
Left bats for Cow Protection and going Vegan in West. They are exact opposite in India and ignore the fact that deadly cattle smuggling gangs prey on farmers’ property to feed the illegal slaughter industry, that eventually supplies meat to eateries at cheap rates. When farmers resist, they get killed .
It was only one in his life that was Nehru treated just like any ordinary prisoner. This was in Nabha Jail. Within 12 days, Motilal Nehru wrote an apology with assurance that his son will never enter Patiala state again to secure release. 12 Days v/s 10 Years.
Left bats for Cow Protection and going Vegan in West. They are exact opposite in India and ignore the fact that deadly cattle smuggling gangs prey on farmers’ property to feed the illegal slaughter industry, that eventually supplies meat to eateries at cheap rates. When farmers resist, they get killed .
Babri demolition: How HC verdict discredited 'eminent' historians
A shorter version (reduced by 93.0%) can be found on IndiaSpeaks. This is an extended summary, original article can be found here
Extended Summary:
Babri demolition: How HC verdict discredited 'eminent' historians. It runs to more than 8,000 pages and it contains is a marvelous set of documents on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri case. The sweep of the judgment and the canvas covered is mind-boggling and it makes one proud of our judiciary.. Many independent experts, historians and archeologists appeared on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board but in the end the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed the objections raised by them about the ruins of a temple under the demolished structure.. Interestingly many of these experts had deposed twice in the court once before the ASI excavations and another after. Not only that, they found themselves withering under judicial scrutiny in spite of writing signed articles and issuing pamphlets and long public letters. It shows the levels to which our academics have fallen and become hand maidens of the political machinery. Verma and Jaya Menon, another expert, were not present at the time of actual excavations but alleged that pillar bases at the excavated sites were planted. Jaiswal made an important clarification: I am not giving (my) statement on oath regarding Babri Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge; rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.. The judge, Agarwal, was sufficiently moved to say about Mandal that the statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge on the subject. This document was a plea to the government of India to include impartial historians in the process of forming judgment on historical facts. But Bhan confessed that the grandly titled HistoriansReport to the Nation was written under pressure in six weeks and without going through the record of the excavation by BB Lal. Prof Mandal retired from the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Allahabad University. The statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge and provide a sample about all these eminences A few of his quotes: I never visited Ayodhya. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur. The Communist Party issues a red card, and I am its holder. I did not make any physical investigation of stone used in inscriptions carved out in the disputed building. My finding is based on materials written in this connection and given in the book (paper no. It is also correct to say that I drew findings, taking the brief report of BB Lal, as given in paper no. Mandal also said: It is also true that I had requested one of them to write an introduction to my book, and the colleague thus requested was Miss Shereen Ratnagar. Only on that basis, he wrote a book, and analysed the belief of the people whether the disputed structure was constructed after demolishing a temple or that there existed any temple of 11th or 12th century which was demolished before its construction. Justice Agarwal refers to the signed statement of these experts and notes that instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere, it tends to create complications, conflict and controversy. Unfortunately, the social science disciplines in India are under the grip of Left charlatans and they are not accountable to any. Many of the things they said hardened positions on both sides, and they cannot now wriggle out and claim what they said was not their expert opinion.
You may also hear the slogan and song “Mandir wahi banayenge” in your society. Now we will try to discuss history, background, issues raised and verdict passed in this case. M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. This case is popularly known by the name of “Ayodhya Dispute Case”. READ Supreme Court Reserves Ayodhya Verdict After 40-day Marathon Hearings Course of the case in the Supreme Court After several pleas and hearings in the case since 1950, The Supreme Court on January 25, 2019, had constituted a 5- member bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi who is set to retire from his duties after pronouncing the verdict tomorrow, on November 16. A brief summary of the verdict on the Ayodhya title suit and the three individual verdicts of judges. Supreme Court’s Verdict on Ayodhya Dispute The issue that revolved around some 1500 square yards of land in the city of Ayodhya more commonly known as “Ram Janm Bhoomi” and was a dispute between the two major religious groups of the country i.e. Hindus and Muslims. The Supreme Court will pronounce the much-awaited verdict on the Ayodhya title suit on Saturday, almost a decade after the Allahabad High Court had partitioned the disputed site in the ratio of 2:1 between Hindu and Muslim litigants. Both sides had then moved the top court against the judgment. The ruling is expected to impact the course of politics in the country, given that the Ram ... Knowledge and Wisdom- In Pursuit of the Ultimate Truth Ayodhya Verdict on Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case Full text of Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court on Saturday cleared the way for the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site at Ayodhya, and directed the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque. Full text of Supreme Court judgement in Ayodhya case: The disputed land in Ayodhya will be given to a government-run trust for a temple and a "prominent site" in the holy town in Uttar Pradesh ... A brief summary of the verdict on the Ayodhya title suit and the three individual verdicts of judges are as follows: A brief summary. GIST OF THE FINDINGS by Justice S U Khan 1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar. 2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion The first case in the Ayodhya title dispute was filed 134 years ago. Over the decades, it has wound its way up through the legal hierarchy, starting from Faizabad Civil Court to Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court, even as India went from being a colony ruled by the British to an independent republic, with its own fault lines.
राम मंदिर और बाबरी मस्जिद मुद्दे से पैदा हुए संघर्ष से परे जाने के लिए भारत ... The Supreme Court has delivered its judgment in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid case. The disputed site has been given to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and the c... Ayodhya Ka Faisla LIVE IndiaTV LIVE Hindi News 24x7 LIVE The five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court will pronounce verdict in Ayodhya land d... Remove all; Disconnect; The next video is starting Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/madangowri Twitter : https://twitter.com/madan3 Snapchat : madangowri The Babri Masjid - Ram Janmabhoomi land dispute in Ayodhya is a decades-old-issue and a source of religious and political conflict. Watch the video to know w... TIMES NOW takes you through the claims of both the Mandir and the Masjid sides in the disputed land. Subscribe to The Economic Times for latest video updat...
![[IN] - MEA briefs diplomats of various countries on SC's Ayodhya verdict | Times of India](https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/G9QvpxgMMBahMwFJddu43ELNHFVuZQDD_fdtOTke4gQ.jpg "[IN] - MEA briefs diplomats of various countries on SC's Ayodhya verdict | Times of India")
