T h e

K a s h m i r

T  e  l  e  g  r  a  p  h

Vol I Issue XI

A Kashmir Bachao Andolan Publication

March 2003

I N S I D E


Spotlight 

Romeet K WATT

 

Comment     

A B Vajpayee

 

Column     

S Chaulia       

                   

View Point      

Romeet K WATT

 

On Track     

Romeet K Watt 

                  

Opinion

Kanwal Sibal

 

Analysis

Sawraj Singh

 

State Craft

Subhash Kapila

 

Perspective

T R Jawahar

 

Last Word

Anil Narendra 

 

                            


 

BACK ISSUES

 

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

January 

February 

 


A b o u t  U s

F e e d b a c k

Disclaimer

C o p y r i g h t 

P E R S P E C T I V E

Of ‘adverse possession’ & perverse secularism

T R Jawahar


The journalistic judges, the wise men of the secular media, obviously deem themselves superior to the judicial judges. Otherwise, how else could one describe their temerity in pre-empting a pending judgement in the Allahabad High Court that has ordered an excavation at Ayodhya? These super judges, editorial eminences, now claim that even if the excavation reveals the existence of an ancient temple, it would amount to nothing vis-a-vis the case! 

This is their desperate refrain day in day out, not only in the opinion, or rather opinionated sections, but also in the news pages of their dailies. The chorus has reached a crescendo with all the usual suspects – JNU historians, Commies, NGOs and of course, the super secular Bukharis, Bannatwallas and sundry other wallas holding forth on how and why the judiciary has erred in ordering the excavation and as to the total irrelevance of a temple at the site. Their intellect had probably taken a brief adjournment because they seem to have missed the point that one of the issues framed inter alia in the title suit was whether an ancient temple really existed there as claimed by the Hindus. The court is perfectly at liberty to check this point of fact, and enjoys even more legal discretion to interpret this fact when it is established either way. But the mediamen would not countenance any of that because it is inconvenient to them and their sponsors.

Let the seculars say that a temple never existed which can pass off as their counter claim. But how can they say that if the excavation revealed that a temple indeed existed, then it is of no significance to the case? Is saying that not the prerogative of the Court? Do these men, who harangue endlessly on the rule of law and respect for judiciary, then deem themselves above law and immune to contempt of court? Aah, things like sub-judice matter only for intellectual novices, not for these all-knowing apologists. So why dig up when the need of the hour is a grand cover-up? Would that not put plunderer Babar a few notches above the righteous Rama on the legal rung? But really, are their wailings not a self-goal, an admission of defeat, if as they fear a temple indeed surfaces? But if you excavate the secular mindset deeper you would come up with a greater revelation; that is their absolute disdain for the prospect of the Hindus winning the legal battle or should we say, the Muslims losing it. To put it bluntly, these seculars would be the happiest, happier than even the Muslims, if Babar prevails over Rama! From intent arises rhetoric and action! Now to the moot question: who is really communal, loaded to the brim with hatred?

And what remarkable arguments to bolster their case, a virtual parallel trial being conducted in the pages of the secular national dailies! Their prime contention is this: Even if an excavation reveals the existence of an ancient temple at the site, it in no way affects the Muslims’ title to the place because they have enjoyed ‘adverse possession’ of the site for over four hundred years! To enlighten the laymen which is what most of us are, ‘adverse possession’ means the acquisition of title to real property by continuous possession for a prescribed period of time. It is a method provided in the common law for a person to obtain title to land through use. The law has clearly laid down the circumstances to which it is applicable and also not applicable.

The learned judges could be expected to interpret the same and it i s best left to them, at least till they give a final verdict. But the media’s invocation of this legal phrase is a flippant, off the cuff gag thrown with malicious intent, just to confuse the people and more importantly, to further their sworn agenda of Hindu baiting and denigration of its symbols. Most of these men are atheists and so have no stake, moral or cultural, in a Ram temple. Logically they have no locus standi, and therefore they have pitched their camp with their enemy’s enemy, as stooges of rabid minority elements whose vile interests they promote unabashedly under the garb of secularism. But since they have sought to parrot this legal jargon as a bogey, it is imperative to let them know what a boomerang they have unleashed. It has been universally well established that a person’s right to acquire real property by adverse possession begins with the wrongful occupation of another person’s property . Adverse possession is a tenet that only usurpers, overstayers, trespassers ...... all illegal occupants, in short, use as protection to legalise what is essentially not theirs. And this is a law that is already under severe scrutiny for its unseemly record of siding with illegality, in all innocence albeit, to the detriment of genuine owners.

A property gained by adverse possession could be a legally valid right but remains a morally inferior act of dispossessing a legitimate owner. All these ingredients are present in abundance, in intent and action, in the claims of secularists and their Muslim backers. By resorting to ‘adverse possession’ they are in effect forfeiting even any semblance of ethics or values and making the entire Ayodhya issue seem like a simple land dispute instead of a matter of abiding faith of millions of people over thousands of years. To see it just through the prism of a title issue is a typical shortsightedness willingly inflicted upon themselves by motivated men.

But, for these seculars, this is the stick that has now come handy for use, at least till the last legal word is out. And so, Babar by virtue of occupying the site for over four hundred years, forcibly at that, should automatically become its owner, even if Rama was to rise from the depths in the course of an excavation, to prove his title! We must salute these secularists for a signal service they have rendered by their profound discovery, not just to the law of the land, but to international law too. For, by the same logic, the entire India –– the undivided one, that is –– has to be forthwith handed over to the British, for did not the whitemen enjoy ‘adverse possession’ of our country for nearly three centuries? These secular zealots can even go a bit deeper into history and try to trace out some legacy of Babar and handover not just a site at Ayodhya but the entire Bharat to him, for his ‘adverse possession’ could be even more strong than the Britishers! Ridiculous? May be, but no more preposterous than the suggestion of the editorial eminences! What perversion, to believe that adverse possession could be superior to absolute possession!

And from that flows their second objection to a Ram temple. An extremely un-Hindu, and therefore wholly secular, national daily has subtly planted a sinister suggestion that the Muslims’ interests have been jeopardised because the idol of Ram lalla was ‘surreptitiously placed in the site at the dead of night’. Possible. But what about the Hindu sentiments and interests that were blatantly violated in broad daylight by medieval Muslim marauders over centuries on centuries whilst scores and scores of temples were looted, destroyed and desecrated with mosques coming up over their ruins? Is it not a sad commentary that while righteousness needs the cover of darkness to sustain itself, barbarism can be paraded naked with pomp and glory!

That this historic sadistic streak is still secure in the minds of Babar’s legacy comes as no big revelation. Otherwise, they themselves would have come forward to hand over the site to Hindus for they know well that the Hindus have believed over thousands of years and still do, that Rama was born there. Not just the site, but Ayodhya itself is symbolic of Rama. If not Ayodhya, where else could Rama be housed? Mecca? Jerusalem? Vatican? And this fanatical fad for a masjid has been no less enhanced by a more fanatical secular crowd who have struck a perfect rhythm with the former – an alliance akin to the one between Kaikeyi and Kooni –– with identical fallout for Rama. Only that, while K & K wanted Rama banished from Ayodhya only for fourteen years, the current conspirators are planning for an eternal exile for the Righteous as well as rightful prince of Ayodhya. And like the helpless Dasharatha, the country is paying the price for having courted one too many partners! There is a message for the true sons of the soil in Rama’s continuing tale of torment!   

Home

 Copyright©2002-2003 Kashmir Bachao Andolan

All Rights Reserved