Narendra Modi, the godfather of extremist Hindus, has taken possession of the historic Babri Masjid in the Indian subcontinent through the allegations of alleged legal battles.
With the verdict, the Supreme Court of India not only occupied the historic Babri Masjid, the epicenter of Indian Muslims, but also overthrew the rule of law in the country.
In addition to this verdict, the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gagai also proved that justice is for the majority Hindus only. Muslims have no right to justice in this country.
After reviewing the arguments that the judges gave the place of the Babri Masjid to the Hindu temple for Ram temple, there is no legal process to follow.
Only the social, political and religious beliefs of Hindus have been taken into account. It can be said that in the name of justice, the Supreme Court of India has committed extreme fraud.
At the number two point of the verdict, the Supreme Court said no evidence was found of any temple that was found under the mosque. And even if it was an architecture of Hindus at that time, it cannot be taken as a land of Hindus today.
It does not prove to be the land of the Hindus unquestionably, as the judges here say. But the legal process is that – to convict someone is to be proven without a doubt. The judges here did not obey the law.
Then point 3 says: There is no doubt that the Hindu who believes in this place as the birthplace of Lord Rama.
The legal process is to present evidence of appropriate evidence. There can be no judgment based on one’s beliefs. Here the court has ruled in favor of the Hindus only without any evidence.
Then, point number seven is to give Muslims a good 5 acres of land in Ayodhya. Where they would build another mosque.
Here too the question arises. Why would an old and historic mosque wrongfully betray Muslims by giving Hindus? Why didn’t the court order the Hindus to give 5 acres of land for the Ram temple? It is proved here that the verdict is based on the hatred of the judges.
Then, at point eight, the Supreme Court has said that the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 8 was illegal.
Since the Supreme Court has said that the demolition of the mosque was illegal in 122, the issue has been resolved. Hindus can no longer own this place. Therefore, the Supreme Court of India has acted illegally by giving Hindus a place of Babri Masjid. Their verdict does not fall into justice.
At the number nine point, the Supreme Court of India has said that giving Hindus a place of mosque is associated with religious harmony and law and order.
This proves that no legal process has been followed in the trial of the Babri Masjid case. India’s Supreme Court has ruled in the face of pressure from the Modi government and extremist Hindus.
In addition to the BBC interview, prominent Muslim women in major Indian cities are asking, “If the unfortunate incident of the Babri Masjid demolition did not happen on December 12 – 6, could the Supreme Court have ruled that today?” Moment ‘.
They say that according to the Supreme Court, the court agreed that there was some structure under the mosque. But whether it was a temple, or a temple, but a temple of Ram, or any other deity – was that or who said that? In fact, the question is not just a piece of land, but also the appearance of social harmony in India or the position of the minority in this country but it is also involved in this case.
Bharati Dr. Meeratun Nahar commented that I was furious at the whole ‘created controversy’ that was allowed to be made up to the Supreme Court of the country.
I cannot think of a patriot as an Indian citizen, whom we have entrusted to the power of the country, how can they promote the politics of religious division in this way!
They also insulted the great constitution of India, thinking only of their narrow party interests.
Disputes over land, property disputes between two families, ever or even in court – I’ve always known this.
But I couldn’t even imagine the two religious communities in the country surrounding the land dispute – and that’s why the whole thing is so annoying to me!
He said, what more can I say about today’s verdict? That’s what happened when you went to court, so it doesn’t make sense to say something new.
My question is, is this dispute that went to the Supreme Court not made by itself or was it consciously created?
Source: Analysis BD