Details
Raju Vernekar
vernekar.raj@gmail.com
“While police imposed section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1973 banning assembly of four or more persons to avoid any disturbance, most of the people welcomed the decision saying that its good that the issue has been finally resolved.
MNS Chief Raj Thackeray : “I am happy with the Supreme Court decision. Thanks to SC. Thanks to Kar Sevaks who toiled for the cause. Late Balasaheb Thackeray, who had raised the issue vociferously, would have been happy, if he was alive. Let the Government ensure that the Ram Temple is constructed as early as possible and also let it bring in real “Ram Rajya” since the number of unemployed persons is growing”.
Abu Asim Azmi, President of the Maharashtra state branch of the Samajwadi Party and MLA representing the Mankhurd Shivaji Nagar Constituency, Mumbai “We will have to study the entire judgement. We will support the stand which the All India Muslim Personal Law Board takes in the matter since it has been fighting for the cause for the years together”.
Arif Qureshi, a city based building contractor welcomed the verdict and expressed happiness that the issue has been finally resolved. Let the Ram Temple be constructed as early as possible. The matter remained hanging since it was politicised.
The 73 year old nonagerian Salauddin Parkar, a retired employee of the Maharashtra Government said that “lets welcome SC judgement and complete the temple work early. In fact the issue could have been resolved long back. However it was racked up by certain political parties on the eve of every election for vote bank politics”.
RTI activist Sulaiman Bhimani: “We have no option but to accept the verdict regardless of whether it is fair or unfair. The Muslims should adopt the policy of forgive and live peacefully. It is essential for future generation that an animosity is nipped in the bud. Let those involved in temple construction also build a cancer hospital, a university and a sports complex near the temple to send the good social message”.
However Asaduddin Owaisi, President of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and MP vehemently opposed the verdict saying that “the faith over powered the facts”. “We were not begging for 5 acre alternate land but were fighting for our rights. We reject the offer of 5 acre land. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board should appeal against the judgement. The Supreme Court is “Supreme” but not infallible. To exercise article 142 of the Constitution of India is erroneous. (Article 142 states that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it). The SC also relied on the act passed in 1991 by PV Narasimha Rao government that specified Ayodhya Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid case as an exception and declared that changing the religious nature of places of worship a punishable offence. This is also disputable. Today it is Ram temple tomorrow it will be the turn of the historic “Tile Wali Masjid” in Lucknow, because the Sangh Pariwar is moving towards “Hindu Rashtra”. However our generations will continue to fight to prove that there was a mosque in Ayodhya”.
“
