Ayodhya, mezza agli indù e mezza ai musulmani? Il verdetto sulla Gerusalemme indiana
venerdì, 1 Ottobre, 2010Dal New York Times dell’1.10.2010 su Ayodya, teatro una ventina di anni fa, di feroci scontri tra gli hindù e i nusulmani. Ora una corte di tre giudici indiani ha deciso. Salomonicamente.
Indian Court Divides Disputed Ayodhya Holy Site

Kuni Takahashi for The New York Times
Hindu holy men awaiting a ruling Thursday on a site claimed by Hindus and by Muslims. More Photos »
By JIM YARDLEY
Published: September 30, 2010
NEW DELHI — In a case that spanned centuries of religious history and languished in the legal system for six decades, an Indian court issued a historic ruling Thursday on the ownership of the country’s most disputed religious site by effectively handing down a split decision: granting part of the land to Hindus and another part to Muslims.
Multimedia

Rajanish Kakade/Associated Press
Indian soldiers in front of a mosque in Mumbai on Thursday after a court ruled that a disputed holy site in Ayodhya that has set off bloody communal riots across the country in the past should be divided between the Hindu and Muslim communities. More Photos »
Rajesh Kumar Singh/Associated Press
An Indian Muslim walked past security personnel in Ayodhya, India, on Thursday More Photos »
The unorthodox decision by a three-judge panel in the state of Uttar Pradesh provided a Solomonic resolution — if one likely to be appealed to India’s Supreme Court — to a case the authorities had feared might unleash religious violence across India.
Nearly 200,000 state and federal officers were deployed across Uttar Pradesh as a precaution, as almost every major political figure in the nation, led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, appealed for calm and harmony.
The case was considered especially combustible because the contested site, in the city of Ayodhya, was the scene of a searing act of religious violence in 1992 when Hindu extremists tore down an ancient mosque known as the Babri Masjid on the property. The destruction sparked riots that spilled into the following year and have been blamed for about 2,000 deaths.
Yet that violence did not repeat itself on Thursday evening, as the Indian public absorbed the ruling with a calm that leaders framed as evidence of the nation’s maturation and commitment to religious tolerance.
“I have full faith in the people of India,” Mr. Singh said in a statement issued after the decision, even as he cautioned against “mischief makers.” “I also have full confidence in the traditions of secularism, brotherhood and tolerance of our great country.”
The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P., which rose to national prominence in the 1990s partly because of its advocacy of rebuilding a Hindu temple on the contested site, issued a statement Thursday praising the public’s controlled response as “a new chapter for national integration and a new era for intercommunity relations.”
“The B.J.P. is gratified that the nation has received the verdict with maturity,” the statement added.
The unexpected decision to divide the property initially suggested a political solution as much as a legal one. But Harish Salve, a former solicitor general of India, said the court had apparently based its decision on historical accounts suggesting that for centuries Hindus and Muslims had worshiped together at the site before they were segregated during British rule in the 1850s.
With this legacy, the court concluded that the entire property should be considered jointly held by Muslims and Hindus and distributed under relevant Indian property statutes, Mr. Salve said, which divide contested properties on the principle of fairness.
“It looks pretty good,” Mr. Salve said, rating the decision as “9 points out of 10.”
Under the court’s ruling, two-thirds of the land will go to Hindu groups while the remaining third will be awarded to Muslims. Lawyers for Hindus and for Muslims expressed dissatisfaction and promised to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
“There is no reason of any loss of hope,” said Zafaryab Jilana, a lawyer representing one of the Muslim parties to the case, speaking on national television. “We do not agree with the formula of giving one-third of the land to Muslims.”
The case required the judicial panel to wade deeply into India’s contested religious history. Lawyers for Hindu groups had argued that the Ayodhya site was the birthplace of one of Hinduism’s most revered deities, Ram. They contended that a temple to Ram had existed on the site until it was demolished to make way for the Babri Masjid, constructed in the 16th century by India’s first Mughal ruler.
Soon after the judges read the decision in a closed hearing, lawy
ers rushed to hundreds of reporters waiting outside the courthouse in Lucknow, the capital of Uttar Pradesh. “The judgment is in favor of Hindus,” said H. S. Jain, a lawyer for one of the Hindu groups in the case. “The belief of Hindus that this is the birthplace of Ram is upheld.”
But each of the three judges issued a separate opinion, diverging in interpretation of certain facts, including over whether Ram was born precisely on the contested site. Yet the court did hand a significant victory to Hindus, who had argued that Ram was born beneath the central dome of the destroyed structure. That portion of the contested property was granted to Hindus as part of their two-thirds share, presumably to erect a new temple to Ram.
The original case was filed in 1950 and then expanded over the years as more parties claimed title to the property. The Indian government now controls the property, and the court ordered that the status quo remain intact for the next three months. Assuming both sides follow through with filing appeals to the Supreme Court, the case could continue indefinitely.
The initial quiet public response was a relief to Indian officials. Earlier, Palaniappan Chidambaram, the home minister, had predicted that the public would respect the court’s finding.
“I think India has moved on, young people have moved on,” he told the Indian news media.
The oldest plaintiff, Hashim Ansari, 90, a Muslim tailor who had prayed at the Babri Masjid as a boy, said he would not take part in any appeal. He joined the case in 1961 and had looked forward to a ruling as a matter of closure. He called Thursday’s decision a good judgment and hoped that efforts could soon begin to rebuild a mosque on the land granted to Muslims.
Of course, he added, the timing will depend on appeals.
“It took 60 years to get this decision,” he said by telephone. “I do not know how many years the Supreme Court will take. At least I could hear this judgment on my own. Will I hear the Supreme Court judgment in my grave?”
tagged under: Nearly 200,000 state and federal officers were deployed across Uttar Pradesh as a precaution, as almost every major political figure in the nation, led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, appealed for calm and harmony.
The case was considered especially combustible because the contested site, in the city of Ayodhya, was the scene of a searing act of religious violence in 1992 when Hindu extremists tore down an ancient mosque known as the Babri Masjid on the property. The destruction sparked riots that spilled into the following year and have been blamed for about 2,000 deaths.
Yet that violence did not repeat itself on Thursday evening, as the Indian public absorbed the ruling with a calm that leaders framed as evidence of the nation’s maturation and commitment to religious tolerance.
“I have full faith in the people of India,” Mr. Singh said in a statement issued after the decision, even as he cautioned against “mischief makers.” “I also have full confidence in the traditions of secularism, brotherhood and tolerance of our great country.”
The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P., which rose to national prominence in the 1990s partly because of its advocacy of rebuilding a Hindu temple on the contested site, issued a statement Thursday praising the public’s controlled response as “a new chapter for national integration and a new era for intercommunity relations.”
“The B.J.P. is gratified that the nation has received the verdict with maturity,” the statement added.
The unexpected decision to divide the property initially suggested a political solution as much as a legal one. But Harish Salve, a former solicitor general of India, said the court had apparently based its decision on historical accounts suggesting that for centuries Hindus and Muslims had worshiped together at the site before they were segregated during British rule in the 1850s.
With this legacy, the court concluded that the entire property should be considered jointly held by Muslims and Hindus and distributed under relevant Indian property statutes, Mr. Salve said, which divide contested properties on the principle of fairness.
“It looks pretty good,” Mr. Salve said, rating the decision as “9 points out of 10.”
Under the court’s ruling, two-thirds of the land will go to Hindu groups while the remaining third will be awarded to Muslims. Lawyers for Hindus and for Muslims expressed dissatisfaction and promised to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
“There is no reason of any loss of hope,” said Zafaryab Jilana, a lawyer representing one of the Muslim parties to the case, speaking on national television. “We do not agree with the formula of giving one-third of the land to Muslims.”
The case required the judicial panel to wade deeply into India’s contested religious history. Lawyers for Hindu groups had argued that the Ayodhya site was the birthplace of one of Hinduism’s most revered deities, Ram. They contended that a temple to Ram had existed on the site until it was demolished to make way for the Babri Masjid, constructed in the 16th century by India’s first Mughal ruler.
Soon after the judges read the decision in a closed hearing, lawy
ers rushed to hundreds of reporters waiting outside the courthouse in Lucknow, the capital of Uttar Pradesh. “The judgment is in favor of Hindus,” said H. S. Jain, a lawyer for one of the Hindu groups in the case. “The belief of Hindus that this is the birthplace of Ram is upheld.”
But each of the three judges issued a separate opinion, diverging in interpretation of certain facts, including over whether Ram was born precisely on the contested site. Yet the court did hand a significant victory to Hindus, who had argued that Ram was born beneath the central dome of the destroyed structure. That portion of the contested property was granted to Hindus as part of their two-thirds share, presumably to erect a new temple to Ram.
The original case was filed in 1950 and then expanded over the years as more parties claimed title to the property. The Indian government now controls the property, and the court ordered that the status quo remain intact for the next three months. Assuming both sides follow through with filing appeals to the Supreme Court, the case could continue indefinitely.
The initial quiet public response was a relief to Indian officials. Earlier, Palaniappan Chidambaram, the home minister, had predicted that the public would respect the court’s finding.
“I think India has moved on, young people have moved on,” he told the Indian news media.
The oldest plaintiff, Hashim Ansari, 90, a Muslim tailor who had prayed at the Babri Masjid as a boy, said he would not take part in any appeal. He joined the case in 1961 and had looked forward to a ruling as a matter of closure. He called Thursday’s decision a good judgment and hoped that efforts could soon begin to rebuild a mosque on the land granted to Muslims.
Of course, he added, the timing will depend on appeals.
“It took 60 years to get this decision,” he said by telephone. “I do not know how many years the Supreme Court will take. At least I could hear this judgment on my own. Will I hear the Supreme Court judgment in my grave?”
- Appuntamenti (45)
- Best (136)
- Cultura (95)
- Fotografia (26)
- Internet-Media (108)
- Lettere (20)
- Libri (25)
- Mondo (2.247)
- Ndrangheta (4)
- Politica (192)
- Società (3.530)
-
andrea
Flavia Perina in questa prosa che filtra cose a lei scomode (Elena Pacinelli) e amplifica particolari insignificanti (presnuto gramscianesimo della… -
Alessandro Londero
Salve, se Paolo Brogi avesse richiamato magari avrebbe potuto avere più info di quel viaggio. Ora che l’ONU ha fatto… -
Geneva
Hi there to every body, it's my first visit of this blog; this webpage consists of awesome and in fact…
- Aprile 2022
- Marzo 2022
- Febbraio 2022
- Gennaio 2022
- Dicembre 2021
- Novembre 2021
- Ottobre 2021
- Maggio 2021
- Marzo 2021
- Febbraio 2021
- Gennaio 2021
- Dicembre 2020
- Settembre 2020
- Maggio 2020
- Aprile 2020
- Marzo 2020
- Febbraio 2020
- Giugno 2019
- Maggio 2019
- Aprile 2019
- Marzo 2019
- Gennaio 2019
- Novembre 2018
- Ottobre 2018
- Settembre 2018
- Agosto 2018
- Giugno 2018
- Maggio 2018
- Marzo 2018
- Febbraio 2018
- Gennaio 2018
- Novembre 2017
- Ottobre 2017
- Maggio 2017
- Aprile 2017
- Marzo 2017
- Febbraio 2017
- Gennaio 2017
- Dicembre 2016
- Novembre 2016
- Ottobre 2016
- Settembre 2016
- Agosto 2016
- Luglio 2016
- Giugno 2016
- Maggio 2016
- Aprile 2016
- Marzo 2016
- Febbraio 2016
- Gennaio 2016
- Dicembre 2015
- Novembre 2015
- Ottobre 2015
- Settembre 2015
- Agosto 2015
- Luglio 2015
- Giugno 2015
- Maggio 2015
- Aprile 2015
- Marzo 2015
- Febbraio 2015
- Gennaio 2015
- Dicembre 2014
- Novembre 2014
- Ottobre 2014
- Settembre 2014
- Agosto 2014
- Luglio 2014
- Giugno 2014
- Maggio 2014
- Aprile 2014
- Marzo 2014
- Febbraio 2014
- Gennaio 2014
- Dicembre 2013
- Novembre 2013
- Ottobre 2013
- Settembre 2013
- Agosto 2013
- Luglio 2013
- Giugno 2013
- Maggio 2013
- Aprile 2013
- Marzo 2013
- Febbraio 2013
- Gennaio 2013
- Dicembre 2012
- Novembre 2012
- Ottobre 2012
- Settembre 2012
- Agosto 2012
- Luglio 2012
- Giugno 2012
- Maggio 2012
- Aprile 2012
- Marzo 2012
- Febbraio 2012
- Gennaio 2012
- Dicembre 2011
- Novembre 2011
- Ottobre 2011
- Settembre 2011
- Agosto 2011
- Luglio 2011
- Giugno 2011
- Maggio 2011
- Aprile 2011
- Marzo 2011
- Febbraio 2011
- Gennaio 2011
- Dicembre 2010
- Novembre 2010
- Ottobre 2010
- Settembre 2010
- Agosto 2010
- Luglio 2010
- Giugno 2010
- Maggio 2010
- Aprile 2010
- Marzo 2010
- Febbraio 2010
- Gennaio 2010