The frenzy in the news media that followed after the verdict was expected. Especially given that 2/3rds of the land would now be dedicated to the building of the temple. After observing the debate I made some observations that I think ought to be emphasized.
1) The verdict is based principally on the fact that none of the plaintiffs were able to submit the title deed that proves ownership. That said there was sufficient evidence to prove that the land was used by all three parties in the past for an extended period of time.
Therefore it seems to me that the verdict would have been 1/3rd each regardless of court’s comment on Ram Janma Sthan etc.
2) I heard some “eminent historians” on NDTV who said that the ASI report was controversial as per newspaper reports…to which I ask: Since when did newspaper reports become the basis of crediting or discrediting expert reports? I am still searching for any scholarly critique of the report which is outside the realm of newspaper reports etc.
3) The tone regarding the verdict changed right after the verdict came out. This simply exposes the liberal bias in Indian media. All of a sudden the judgement was not to be “taken in the spirit” [whatever the hell that means :s].
In any case the Wakf board has decided to appeal in Supreme Court. I doubt whether SC decision will be any different in terms of land distribution.
At least this will give the BJP to close this chapter, get the temple built and move on to other issues.
The following two tabs change content below.
Latest posts by Prashant (see all)
- Ayodhya - October 3, 2010
- Mahabharata and the Indian Political Mind: A few thoughts and wonderings - June 15, 2010
- Excerpts of a Dissertation on Kautilya… and some thoughts - April 1, 2010