The article is available at: < http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2014_49/18/The_Resistible_Rise_of_Narendra_Modi.pdf >.
Sukla On 4 May 2014 10:12, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry! > > The cited quote is from Sumanta Banerjee's 'The Resistible Rise of > Narendra Modi', carried by the Economic & Political Weekly, May 3 2014. > > Sukla > > > On 3 May 2014 23:29, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ".. the Congress government in New Delhi accepted at face value their >> [i.e. of the BJP-RSS-VHP axis] assurances of peaceful behaviour, and >> allowed their leaders and goons to assemble in Ayodhya, demolish the Babri >> masjid ..." >> >> Either the author has a failing memory, or he is just a plain and simple >> liar, like so many of his ilk. >> >> In fact, it was the Supreme Court which had allowed the VHP to assemble >> and hold a programme - a "symbolic kar seva", at the Masjid site on the >> basis of the explicit commitment that the Masjid won't be demolished. The >> Supreme Court had also appointed an observer for the occasion. >> >> Reproduced below is a fairly detailed account of the role of the supreme >> Court in this matter. >> >> Sukla >> >> >> http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-could-have-prevented-demolition-of-babri-masjid-says-ahmadi/article845323.ece >> >> NEW DELHI, October 24, 2010 >> Updated: November 11, 2011 12:41 IST >> Supreme Court could have prevented demolition of Babri Masjid, says Ahmadi >> VIDYA SUBRAHMANIAM >> >> The former Chief Justice of India, A.M. Ahmadi, on Saturday expressed the >> opinion that the Supreme Court could have acted to prevent the December 6, >> 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid. >> >> Mr. Ahmadi said this at a seminar, "Ayodhya Judgment: Civil Society >> Response," organised by the Institute of Objective Studies. He pointed >> out that the then Attorney-General, Milon Banerjee, had repeatedly urged >> the two-judge Bench of Justices M.N. Venkatachaliah and G.N. Ray to >> consider appointing the Central government as the receiver of the land >> where kar seva was to be performed to foreclose the possibility of >> demolition. Mr. Banerjee told the court he had definite information that >> the mosque was about to be demolished. "Instead, the court passed an order >> allowing a symbolic kar seva. Had that order not been passed, the mosque >> would have been standing today," Mr. Ahmadi said. He also faulted the >> court for handing out a "one-day simple imprisonment" to Uttar Pradesh >> Chief Minister Kalyan Singh. >> >> Mr. Ahmadi was part of the five-judge Bench that heard the one-line >> presidential reference on Ayodhya. The question was whether a Hindu temple >> or any other structure pre-existed at the site where the mosque stood. >> Recalling the reference, Mr. Ahmadi said: "We were sure that we did not >> want to exhume old issues." >> >> Mr. Ahmadi said he was "taken aback" by the Allahabad High Court judgment >> on the Ayodhya title suits. "I doubt if this can even be called a >> judgment." He said the judgment had to be contested because at stake were >> "the ethos of rule of law, the democratic system and the Constitution >> itself." >> >> Participants at the seminar made three common points. The judgment should >> be contested, not on grounds of Hindu faith versus Muslim faith, but on >> points of law, secularism and constitutional principles. Secondly, the memo >> of appeal before the Supreme Court should be "drawn up by competent hands" >> and informed by "cohesion and consistency." Thirdly, while a settlement was >> possible at a later date, there could not be any diversion from the >> immediate task of filing an appeal. >> >> The former Advocate-General of Uttar Pradesh, S.M.A Qazmi, said the >> Muslim side ought to examine its own shortcomings in pleadings and adducing >> evidence in the High Court and cure the defects with "unity of purpose" and >> dedication. "We have to put our heads together and bring complete cohesion >> in the preparation of the case." >> >> All-India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat president Syed Shahabuddin said it >> was open for any court to examine issues of faith if the conflict arose >> within the same religious community. However, when two faiths were >> involved, the decision had be grounded in constitutional law. "Neither the >> dharma shastra nor the Koran is valid in this case." >> >> Member-Secretary of the Sachar Commission Abusaleh Shariff was worried >> that the High Court verdict could become the new benchmark in deciding >> cases. He also asked the speakers to examine the impact of the judgment on >> the "future of the Muslim psyche." >> >> >> On 3 May 2014 21:30, Leena <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> *From:* Leena <[email protected]> >>> *Date:* 3 May 2014 9:25:52 pm IST >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* *The_Resistible_Rise_of_Narendra_Modi* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Progressive interactions" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/progressive-interactions. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Peace Is Doable >> > > > > -- > Peace Is Doable > -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
