An unnecessary move: on handing back land to Ram temple trust

 

 

 

An unnecessary move: on handing back land to Ram temple trust

 

MORE-IN
Ayodhya Verdict
Handing back land to the Ram temple trust has no justification at this juncture
The Centre’s request to the Supreme Court to allow it to return the “b land” it had acquired(प्राप्त/अधिग्रहण) around the disputed(विवादित) site in Ayodhya in 1993 is not innocuous(हानि न पहुंचानेवाला/निरूपद्रवी;) nor is it justified at this juncture(समय/अवसर). The court had ordered that the status quo be maintained on the entire(संपूर्ण/समूचा) extent(क्षेत्र/विस्तार-क्षेत्र) of 67.7 acres acquired in the aftermath of the demolition(विध्वंस/तोड़ना) of the Babri Masjid. Behind the apparently(जाहिरा तौर पर/प्रत्यक्ष स्पष्ट रूप से) equitable(न्यायपूर्ण) argument(तर्क) that an extent of land not in dispute can be given back to its original owners(मूल मालिक) is a barely(मुश्किल से/मात्र) concealed(गुप्त/छुपाया) political motive( मकसद). BJP leader Ram Madhav has said, “In view of the strong popular sentiment(लोकप्रिय भावना) attached to the Ram Mandir, it is the least that the government could do.” The sense(भाव) of anxiety(चिंता ) among the supporters of the Mandir cause over the delay in the adjudicatory process is palpable; but it is also indicative (सूचक)of an unreasonable(अकारण) expectation(उम्मीद/अपेक्षा) that the government should somehow facilitate the construction(निर्माण) of a Ram temple regardless(बेपरवाह/उदासीन) of what the court’s decision is. It is to address this anxiety and mollify(शांत करना/छेड़छाड़) elements(तत्वों/आधार) that are unhappy with the progress of the judicial process that the government wants the court to vacate(मुक्त करना/खाली करना) its status quo order. It is a move fraught with the risk(जोखिम) of reigniting(राज ) communal passions at a time when the appeals against the Allahabad High Court’s verdict(निर्णय) in the title suits have reached the final stage of adjudication before the Supreme Court. The Centre’s argument is that the Supreme Court, in Ismail Faruqui (1994) had itself said that once the objectives(उद्देश्यों/लक्ष्य) of the acquisition(अधिग्रहण ) have been achieved, the superfluous area should revert to its owners. It has also contended(संघर्ष करना/बहस करना) that the status quo was required only till the disposal of the suits, which ended in 2010 when the Allahabad High Court decided them.

Is the issue really so simple? The court had noted that the adjacent(निकटवर्ती ) area had been acquired(प्राप्त/अर्जित) so that the party that succeeds is not denied the fruits of its success by those in the adjacent areas through denial of access. It had said the status quo was required to avoid “reigniting communal passions detrimental(हानिकारक/नुक़सानदेह) to the spirit(भाव/आत्मा/साहस) of communal harmony”. Further, the trial court’s decision in favour of a three-way partition(बँटवारा) of the land has not satisfied any of the parties, and the entire suit is once again open for adjudication. The time is hardly ripe(परिपक्व/तैयार) for altering the status quo. Beyond all this, the idea of giving back 42 acres of land to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, a trust dedicated(समर्पित ) to the cause(कारण) of constructing(निर्माण ) a temple to Ram on the site where the demolished Babri Masjid stood, will be needlessly(बेकार में) provocative(उत्तेजक/गुस्ताख़). The trust had obtained its lease in 1992 in the run-up to the campaign to demolish the mosque, from the Kalyan Singh government, whose actions were demonstrably anti-secular. There is a case for reconsidering the lease, but nothing at all for this organisation to be given the opportunity to gather its resources(संसाधन) in the vicinity(आस-पास/पड़ोस) of the disputed site

 

 

 

Important Vocabulary

 

1. Innocuous(हानि न पहुंचानेवाला/निरूपद्रवी;)
Synonyms: banal, bland, inoffensive, insipid, painless
Antonyms: delicious, tasty, yummy, bad, damaging

2. Entire(संपूर्ण/समूचा)
Synonyms: full, integrated, unified, absolute, gross
Antonyms: flawed, imperfect, incomplete, part, partial

3. Equitable(न्यायपूर्ण)
Synonyms: decent, fair, honest, proper, reasonable
Antonyms: biased, intolerable, prejudiced, unreasonable, unsuitable

4. Concealed(गुप्त/छुपाया)
Synonyms: buried, camouflaged, covered, planted, veiled
Antonyms: bare, clear, disclosed, exposed, obvious

5. Apparently(जाहिरा तौर पर/प्रत्यक्ष स्पष्ट रूप से)
Synonyms: allegedly, ostensibly, possibly, probably, supposedly
Antonyms: improbably, unlikely, dubiously, equivocally, questionably

6. Motive( मकसद).
Synonyms: aim, cause, consideration, emotion, feeling
Antonyms: neglect, thoughtlessness, discouragement, hindrance, deterrent

7. Anxiety(चिंता )
Synonyms: angst, apprehension, concern, disquiet, doubt, dread
Antonyms: advantage, belief, blessing, calm, calmness

8. Regardless(बेपरवाह/उदासीन)
Synonyms: disregarding, behindhand, blind, careless, coarse
Antonyms: attentive, concerned, heedful

9. Mollify(शांत करना/छेड़छाड़)
Synonyms: allay, alleviate, ameliorate, appease, assuage
Antonyms: aggravate, agitate, excite, incite, increase

10. Contended(संघर्ष करना/बहस करना)
Synonyms: argue, confront, cope, dispute, go after
Antonyms: agree, comply, go along, hide, make peace

11. Vicinity(आस-पास/पड़ोस)
Synonyms: environs, neighborhood, proximity, ballpark, district
Antonyms: faraway

12. Detrimental(हानिकारक/नुक़सानदेह)
Synonyms: adverse, destructive, disturbing, harmful, hurtful
Antonyms: aiding, assisting, favorable, friendly, good

13. Ripe(परिपक्व/तैयार
Synonyms: mature, overdue, plump, prepared, ready
Antonyms: immature, unprepared, unready, inexperienced, inopportune

14. Provocative(उत्तेजक/गुस्ताख़)
Synonyms: challenging, disturbing, exciting, inspirational, insulting
Antonyms: pleasing, repressive, suppressive, unexciting, unprovocative

15. Spirit(भाव/आत्मा/साहस)
Synonyms: character, courage, energy, enthusiasm, essence
Antonyms: apathy, cowardice, fear, idleness, inactivity

 

 

 

Credit To The Hindu News Paper

Handing back land to the Ram temple trust has no justification at this juncture
The Centre’s request to the Supreme Court to allow it to return the “superfluous land” it had acquired around the disputed site in Ayodhya in 1993 is not innocuous; nor is it justified at this juncture. The court had ordered that the status quo be maintained on the entire extent of 67.7 acres acquired in the aftermath of the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Behind the apparently equitable argument that an extent of land not in dispute can be given back to its original owners is a barely concealed political motive. BJP leader Ram Madhav has said, “In view of the strong popular sentiment attached to the Ram Mandir, it is the least that the government could do.” The sense of anxiety among the supporters of the Mandir cause over the delay in the adjudicatory process is palpable; but it is also indicative of an unreasonable expectation that the government should somehow facilitate the construction of a Ram temple regardless of what the court’s decision is. It is to address this anxiety and mollify elements that are unhappy with the progress of the judicial process that the government wants the court to vacate its status quo order. It is a move fraught with the risk of reigniting communal passions at a time when the appeals against the Allahabad High Court’s verdict in the title suits have reached the final stage of adjudication before the Supreme Court. The Centre’s argument is that the Supreme Court, in Ismail Faruqui (1994) had itself said that once the objectives of the acquisition have been achieved, the superfluous area should revert to its owners. It has also contended that the status quo was required only till the disposal of the suits, which ended in 2010 when the Allahabad High Court decided them.

Is the issue really so simple? The court had noted that the adjacent area had been acquired so that the party that succeeds is not denied the fruits of its success by those in the adjacent areas through denial of access. It had said the status quo was required to avoid “reigniting communal passions detrimental to the spirit of communal harmony”. Further, the trial court’s decision in favour of a three-way partition of the land has not satisfied any of the parties, and the entire suit is once again open for adjudication. The time is hardly ripe for altering the status quo. Beyond all this, the idea of giving back 42 acres of land to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, a trust dedicated to the cause of constructing a temple to Ram on the site where the demolished Babri Masjid stood, will be needlessly provocative. The trust had obtained its lease in 1992 in the run-up to the campaign to demolish the mosque, from the Kalyan Singh government, whose actions were demonstrably anti-secular. There is a case for reconsidering the lease, but nothing at all for this organisation to be given the opportunity to gather its resources in the vicinity of the disputed site

Print Friendly, PDF & Email