shortstories

NO END TOGAMES WOESNEW DELHI: Organisers of theCommonwealth Gamesreportedly made thou-sands of performers,including schoolchildrenrehearse for hours withoutproviding food or water,the artistes alleged. P20

>> FOR MORE ON GAMES,

TURN TO PAGES 3, 4, 21

Maoists free fourabducted policemenRAIPUR: The four policemenkept hostage by Maoists ina remote forest in the bor-der areas of Chhattisgarhand Andhra Pradesh werefreed after 11 days in cap-tivity on Thursday night.Dantewada SeniorSuperintendent of PoliceS.R.P. Kalluri said, “All thepolicemen will report tomy office by midnight.” P16

hindustantimes.com

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 01, 2010NIFTY 6,030.0 +38.7 SENSEX 20,069.1 +112.8 DOW JONES 10,835.3 -22.9 NASDAQ 2,376.6 -3.0 RUPEE/$ 44.9 0.0 RUPEE/EURO 61.3 -0.2 GOLD/10G 19,500 +30 SILVER/K 33,700 -50

NewDelhi / METRO ■ Vol. LXXXVI No. 234 ■ R 3.00

Disputed site is Ram birthplace: HCEQUAL SHARE Area will bedivided equally among three keylitigants: two Hindu, one Muslim

NEXT BATTLE Both Muslimsand Hindus will appeal againstthe verdict in Supreme Court

STATUS QUO Enforced forthree months to enable peacefulmeasurement & division of area

theayodhyaverdict

Ayodhya verdict: Whatwas it all about?a) Who owns the disputedsite at Ayodhya 64%b) Who were responsiblefor the demolition ofthe Babri Masjid 7%c) Punishing those guiltyof demolishingBabri Masjid 6%d) Don't know/Can't say23%■ Surprise! More than a thirdof respondents didn't knowwhat the verdict was about.

How important is theAyodhya verdict to you?a) Very important 23%b) Not so important 41%c) Irrelevant 36%■ Three-fourths of YoungIndia don’t really care.

How important is the buildingof a mandir or masjid at thedisputed site to you?a) Very important 19%b) Not so important 43%c) Irrelevant 38%■ Less than a fifth are concernedabout the issue.

You will support a party thata) Promises to build a mandir ormasjid at disputed site 9%b) Follows policies thatpromise economic growth 73%c) Promises both 18%■ Show me the money, that'swhat the youth are saying.

Do you believe in God/religion?a) Yes 97%b) No 2%c) Don't know/Can't say 1%■ India's youth is god-fearing butnot fundamentalist.

Hindustan Times-Cfore Mood of Young India Survey

MANDIR, MASJID: YOUNG DON’T CAREIt's official: 2010 isn’t 1992. Our poll shows the vast majority ofyoung people is no longer interested in Ayodhya. Findings:

Figures indicate percentage ofrespondents voting for each option

METHODOLOGY: Hindustan Times commissioned research organisationC fore to conduct this survey among young people (18-35 years) across 12cities (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Lucknow,Patna, Bhopal, Chandigarh, Guwahati, Ahmedabad) on Thursday, immedi-ately after the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had delivered itsverdict on the Ayodhya title suit. The pollsters interviewed 1,468 people (48per cent women) using a structured questionnaire to gauge their responseto the Ayodhya dispute. The survey has a 3 per cent margin of error.

HT Correspondent■ letters@hindustantimes.com

LUCKNOW: The much awaitedAllahabadHighCourt judgmenton Thursday took the first steptowards resolving the 60-year-old Babri Masjid-RamJanmabhoomi ownership dis-pute by including all the con-testing parties in the process.The court gave its stamp of

judicial approval to the Hindubelief thatLordRamwas indeedbornat thedisputed spot. It alsoruled by amajority verdict thatthe disputed 120 feet by 90 feetarea should be divided intothree equal parts among threepetitioners—theSunniCentralWakf Board, the NirmohiAkhara and the party repre-senting the deity, Ram Lalla.This means that even after

dismissing the cases, the courthas kept awindowopen for fur-

ther talks.That the judgment is inclu-

sive has been reflected in thereactions of political opponents.There was political accept-

ance of the verdict by all main-streamparties.Muslim leaders,however, made it clear theirnext stop was the SupremeCourt even as they called thejudgment a “step forward”.Congress spokesman Janar-

dhan Dwivedi said: “The courthasgiven theverdict.Weshouldall welcome it.”Justice D.V. Sharma, one of

the three judges on the bench,gave a separate ruling that saidthedisputed sitewas indeed thebirthplace of LordRamand themosque was built by Mughalemperor Babar against thetenets of Islam. “Thus, it can-not have the character of amosque,” he said in his order.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 16

inside>> OUT OF GAMES DUTY, P4>> TAKING IT IN STRIDE, P10>> LIBERHAN VIEW, P10>> MUSLIMS UPSET, P11>> EXPERTS SPLIT, P11>> ROLES THEY PLAYED, P11>> FAITH IN THE LAW, P14ON PAGES 12-13:>> JD-U UNNERVED, P13>> CONGRESS WAITS, P13>> MULAYAM WARY, P13

PEACE PREVAILS,BUT UP REMAINSON HIGH ALERTHT Correspondent■ letters@hindustantimes.com

LUCKNOW: The nation took theAyodhya verdict in its stride,with no violence or tensionreported from anywhere. Butsecurity forces in all states, par-ticularly Uttar Pradesh, stillkept their fingers crossed.Toppoliceofficers inLucknow

said the next 24 hours wouldbe crucial. Not taking anychances, securitypersonnelwillcontinue aerial surveys ofAyodhya by helicopters withpowerful searchlights onThursday night and Friday.OnThursday, senior officers

stationed at the office of DGPKaramveer Singh were busyprocessing reports from dis-trict police chiefs and issuinglast-minute instructions. Theconference room in the DGP’soffice resembled a war room.“Our three-dimensional secu-

rity arrangement — by land,airandwater—isready tomeetany challenge,” saidAdditionalDirector General (Law andOrder) Brij Lal.

NOTHING WILLCHANGE, STAYCALM, SAYS PMHT Correspondent■ letters@hindustantimes.com

NEW DELHI: Prime MinisterManmohanSingh onThursdaycautioned people against “dis-ruptive elements” spreadingrumours to create ill willbetween communities.Singh’s appeal to the nation

followedhismeetingswith sen-iorministers and the Congresscore group that reviewed thesecurity situation and the polit-ical repercussions of theAyodhya verdict.“The correct conclusion... is

that status quo will be main-tained until the cases are takenup by the Supreme Court,” thePrime Minister said.“The high court itself has

directed the status quo, as pre-vailing till date, shall be main-tained for three months,” hestressed.“I know that often it is only a

few mischief makers who cre-ate divisions in our society,”Singh said, urging people to bevigilant against troublemakerswho’d want to disrupt peace.

HC’s formula of one-thirdland is not acceptable to theWakf Board and it willappeal against it in the

Supreme Court.Z A FARYAB J I L A N I ,Sunni Wakf Board lawyer

RESPONSES

The majority ruled thatthe location of the makeshifttemple is the birthplace ofRam, and this spot cannot

be shifted.RAV I S H ANKAR PRASAD ,

L aw y e r f o r o n e o f t h e g r o u p s

The judgment is not awin or loss for anybody.We invite everybody,

including Muslims, to helpbuild the temple.MOHAN BHAGWAT ,

RS S c h i e f

■ A Muslim cleric and a sadhu enjoy each other’s company inAyodhya on Thursday. ASHOK DUTTA/HT PHOTO

DECONSTRUCTING THE VERDICTWhat is the gist of thejudgment?The disputed site will be dividedequally between Ram Lalla (thedeity), Nirmohi Akhara andSunni Central Wakf Board. RamLalla gets to keep the landwhere he is seated at present inthe makeshift temple.

Who were the parties tothe suit?There were 28 parties,including Sunni Central WakfBoard, Nirmohi Akhara, HinduMahasabha and Ram LallaVirajman.

How’s Ram Lalla a party?According to Hindu Law, an idolis a juristic entity, meaning ithas all the legal rights of anindependent entity.

How did Hindus gettwo-thirds of the site?Hindus and Muslims, as such,were not parties to the suit.Muslim and Hindu organisa-tions were the parties. Basedon legal and archaeologicalevidence, the court has ruled in

favour of three of theseorganisations, two of whichhappen to represent Hindus.

Is the judgment based onevidence or faith?It is based on both.

Was there an ancientRam Temple at the site?The court has held that therewas a temple in ancient times.

Who was holding prayersat the disputed site?The court has held that bothHindus and Muslims offeredprayers at the disputed site.

What next?The High Court has orderedstatus quo for the next threemonths. Within this period, thematter is likely to reach theSupreme Court, as the SunniCentral Wakf Board has said itwill challenge the verdict.

(SUPREME COURT

ADVOCATE SAURABH

KIRPAL INTERPRETED THE

VERDICT FOR HT)

TODAY: 46 pages, including 16 pagesof HT City. (Areas specific Lives andadd-on supplement pages extra).

The final verdict inthe Babri Masjid casecould take severalyears. By then, weshould have movedon from such sectarian disputes,writes Ramachandra Guha >>P14

commentLife after Ayodhya

HIGH35°CLOW22°C

HOTTEST IN INDIABIKANER 37°CCOLDEST IN INDIADARBUK -05°C

FORECAST: Morning will be pleasant.Afternoon will be warm.

weathertoday

India weather report, P 6

WHO GETS WHAT

The high court has divided thedisputed structure betweenthree rival parties.

The Babri Masjidwas demolished bythe kar sevaks onDecember 6, 1992.

Sita kiRasoi

■ The area belowthe central domegoes to Ram Lalla.■ Ram Chabutara,Sita ki Rasoi andBhandar go toNirmohi Akhara.■ The rest of theproperty will bedivided amongSunni CentralWakf Board, RamLalla and NirmohiAkhara so thateach gets a thirdof the total area

RamChabutara Bhandar

Temporary structure,which hosts the Ram Lallaidol. This spot is where thecentral dome existed.

ASI excavationsite beneaththe disputedstructure.

Artist’s impression. Not to scale.

SinghDwar

AYODHYA

UTTARPRADESH

Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site

Dashrathmandir

Hanumangarhi

INDIA

Ram kipaidi

Lakshman kila

Saryu river

HT GRAPHICS: TRINANKUR

Harbhajan’s availability is skipper Dhoni’sbiggest concern >P22

BOLLYWOOD’SR400-CROCTOBERRobot among 21 new films that will hit screens this month

HTCITY SPORTINDIA-OZTESTSTARTSTODAYPak’s terror import fromEurope

German’s arrest in Afghanistan renews focuson Europeans visiting Pak terror camps >P19

EXC LUS I V E PARTNER

GETTINGRICHER69 billionaires onForbes India Richlist 2010 >P25

BUSINESS

WHAT NEXT? TWOOPTIONS EXISTLUCKNOW: The high courtverdict is in but the battle isn’tover. The litigants can now gotwoways:move the apex courtor amicably work out thedemarcation of the disputedpremises, as directed by thecourt.The secondoptionwouldrequire some sincere politicalintervention. >> P10

FRESH START FORINTEGRATION: BJPNEW DELHI: The BJP and theSangh Parivar welcomed theAyodhya verdict and appealedto Muslims to accept it too.SeniorBJP leaderL.K.Advanisaid the high court ruling wasa harbinger of “a fresh chapterfor national integration and anew era for intercommunityrelations”. >> P12

VERDICT SETSWEB ON FIRENEWDELHI:TheAyodhya verdictset cyber cafes and chat roomsacross the world buzzing as itbecame themost talked about,tweeted and searched topic onThursday. On Google TrendsHot Searches, eight of the top10 searches in Indiawere linkedto the subjectwhile itwasnum-ber eight on the US list. >> P10

ONLY SOLDIERS ONAYODHYA STREETSAYODHYA: Children walked toschool, shopswere open, itwasbusiness as usual in Ayodhya.But thatwasbefore theverdict.By 4 p.m., shops and marketshad closed andmost of the cityfolkwereathome,glued to theirtelevision sets. Out on thestreets, only security forcescould be seen marching. >> P11

D E VOT E D TO TH E C AU S E

Battle ends, war goes on for Ayodhya veteransPankaj Jaiswal■ pjaiswal@hindustantimes.com

AYODHYA:Minutes after theAllahabad High Court pro-nounced its verdict in thesix-decade-old Ayodhya titlesuit cases, a 90-year-oldMuslim—who is hard ofhearing, has a wobbly gaitand few teeth — and an 82-year-old Hindu — who haskidney problems, is diabeticand has suffered at least oneheart attack — became the

focus of media attention.Mohammad Hashim

Ansari, representative of theSunni Wakf Board, living in acramped house a kilometre

away from the disputed site,and Mahant Bhaskar Das ofthe Nirmohi Akhara, wholives 20 km away in Faizabadtown, are the two mainlitigants in the case — andhave spent several decadesfighting for their respectivecauses.“We had said we will

respect the court’s verdictand we respect it,” Ansarisaid on Thursday. “TheBabri Masjid ActionCommittee will decide

further course of action.”Das said the verdict had

come as a relief. “The bestpart is that Lord Ram (idols)will not be removed from thejanmabhoomi,” he said. “Letthe verdict be upheld. Letthere be peace.”Ansari, who filed the title

suit in 1961, has a picture ofthe Babri Masjid in his room.Das’ single-room house hasidols of Ram.

WITH INPUTS FROM

SACHIDANAND SHUKLA

■ Ansari (L) and Das. FILE PHOTO

MAOISTS RELEASE FOURABDUCTED POLICEMENRaipur: After spending 11 daysin Naxal captivity, four abductedpolicemen were released late onThursday. They were learnt tohave been set free somewherebetween the forests of Bijapurand Madder. �We will be able togive details only after theyreturn,� Dantewada SSP said. P4

ANOTHER BLACKBUCKDIES IN DELHI ZOO

News Delhi: Another blackbuckdeath was on Thursday reportedfrom the Delhi zoo, taking thetoll to 13. The blackbucks aredying due to infection in theirintestines caused by theconsumption of sewage water.However, the authorities addedthat there was no possibility offurther deaths of animals. P2

BARRING TWO DISTRICTS,VALLEY UNDER CURFEWSrinagar: Barring Pulwama andShopian district towns in southKashmir, curfew was re-imposedin all major towns of the Valleyincluding Srinagar on Thursday.

AUTUMN BREAK FOR CITYSCHOOLS STARTS EARLYNew Delhi: The schools in thenational Capital are heading foran early autumn break fromFriday as schools will be closedduring the Games to make moreroom for traffic and help theauthorities ensure a smoothevent. As per a Governmentdirective, the holiday periodaround Dussehra has been re-worked and extended to coincidewith the Games. P2

NOW, METRO TO LINKANAND VIHAR, DKNew Delhi: The Sheila DikshitGovernment has a plan toconnect Anand Vihar in EastDelhi to Dhaula Kuan in SouthDelhi in the third phase of DelhiMetro Rail connectivity. The totallength of this corridor will be25.66 km. P2

MUKESH IS RICHESTINDIAN, SAYS FORBESNews Delhi: Reliance Industrieschairman Mukesh Ambani hasemerged as the richest Indian,with his $27 billion fortunesurpassing that of billionairerivals L N Mittal and AzimPremji, according to Forbes Indiamagazine. P10

CAPSULE

INNOVATIVE VERDICT! It is lord Ram�s birthplace, rules HC quoting ASI ! Gives one-third land to Muslims for mosque

PIONEER NEWS SERVICE nLUCKNOW

The makeshift temple oflord Ram at Ayodhya

belongs to Hindus and theBabri masjid was an illegalconstruction, this was the sumand substance of a historicjudgement delivered by theLucknow Bench of AllahabadHigh Court on Thursday.

Considering the sensitivityand emotion attached to the dis-puted land, the court came outwith a balancing order thatruled that 2.77 acre land com-prising the disputed site shouldbe divided into three equalparts and be given to SunniWaqf Board, Nirmohi Akharaand the party representing ‘RamLala Virajman’ (Ram deity).

The majority 2-1 verdict of thecourt, said to berunning into nearly8,000 pages, comesafter nearly 60 years of tortu-ous litigation over who holdsthe title to the disputed site.Still, the order may not be thelast word and the issue mayland up in the Supreme Court.

As an anxious nation await-ed the court verdict in the high-ly-sensitive issue with lakhs ofsecurity personnel deployed inUttar Pradesh and other sensi-tive places across the country,the order of Justices SU Khan,Sudhir Agarwal and DV Sharmabecame public just before 4.30pm amid high drama.

The judges wrote threeseparate judgements, but themajority verdict held that thearea covered by the centraldome of the three-domedstructure where the idol oflord Rama is presently situat-ed belongs to Hindus.

The decision to apportion

the land among Hindus,Muslims and Nirmohi Akharawas a majority verdict of JusticeKhan and Justice Agarwal,while Justice Sharma, who wasdue to retire, gave a clear rul-ing favouring the temple.

With the majority viewprevailing, the judges alsomade it clear that the placewhere the makeshift temple issituated (along with idols) willremain with Hindus wherethey can perform worshipunhindered.

The Akhara was entitled tohold possession of RamChabutra, Sita Rasoi andBhandar while Muslims wouldhave to settle with the outercourtyard area of the 2.7 acredisputed territory. This seemsto be the reason the Sunni

Central Wakf Boardannounced its resolveto challenge the ver-dict in the SupremeCourt. The HC even

ordered status quo for threemonths, giving no rights to anyparties to disturb the presentposition at the disputed area.

Justice Khan, who notedthat there existed ruins of tem-ple at the site where mosque wasconstructed, did not agree withthe contention of Muslims thatthe same was built by Babar orby Mir Baqi. He noted that notemple was demolished for con-structing the mosque but agreedwith the popular belief that thedisputed site was where lordRam was born.

Justice Agarwal who con-curred with Khan’s view, clear-ly held “the area covered by thecentral dome of the three-domed structure, i.e., the

Continued on Page 4See Edit: Faith

vindicated — Ayodhya verdict triumph of law

PIONEER NEWS SERVICE nLUCKNOW

The final showdown inAyodhya dispute will now

take place in the SupremeCourt. Disappointed with thehigh court verdict, Sunni WaqfBoard and All India MuslimPersonal Law Board onThursday said they wouldknock at the apex court's door.But the 90-year-old lone sur-viving original plaintiff, MohdHashim Ansari, welcomed thedecision and said he would notgo in appeal.

Reacting to Thursday'sjudgement, Wakf Board'sadvocate Zafaryab Jilani saidthey were not ready to accepta ruling that was “very con-fusing”. Saying he was disap-pointed, he added that hewould challenge the orderdividing the land among threeparties. However, Jilani clari-fied that the verdict was not avictory or defeat for any com-munity, but a step towardsresolving the vexed issue.

“The AIMPLB is aggrievedby the verdict. The Muslimsparties in the case will appealagainst this judgement in theSupreme Court,” board's generalsecretary Mohd Abdul RahimQuraishi said. “The decision todeclare that the place whereRam's idol is installed is hisbirthplace is without any basisin documentary and other evi-dences,” he said.

Quraishi also said theSunni Central Wakf Board ofUttar Pradesh suit's dismissalwas “meaningless” as it waswith time limit.

Continued on Page 4

PIONEER NEWS SERVICE nNEW DELHI

Proving the sceptics wrong,India on Thursday reacted

in a mature manner to the sen-sitive Ayodhya title suit verdictwith petitioners on either sideof the religious divide, majorpolitical parties, opinion mak-ers and common man showingremarkable restrain in reactingto the landmark judgement ofthe Lucknow Bench of theAllahabad High Court.

The attention of the worldmedia was focused on theoutcome of the 60-year-old lit-igation that has for decadeskept the Hindus and Muslimsbitterly divided and influ-enced the course of Indianpolitics in a big way.

With much at stake forboth the communities, therewas an air of tension across thecountry. The unprecedentedsecurity around the high courtin Lucknow and across thecountry only highlighted the

fact that everyone was keepingfingers crossed. Schools andcolleges were shut down, airsecurity beefed up, and tens ofthousands of security person-nel pressed into keeping thecommunal elements at bay.

With thousands of foreigndelegates and sportsmen gath-ered in New Delhi for theCommonwealth Games, thecountry’s mature reactionwould open the eye of manynations which felt that theaftermath of the Ayodhya ver-dict could have been a com-munal frenzy, shifting the focusaway from sports to violence.

Everyone, including theRSS, the BJP, the Congress, theLeft, Muslim clergies and sad-hus or the man in the street,they all reposed faith in India’sdemocratic tradition and judi-ciary and hailed the judgement,which could also be seen as aninnovative step by the judicia-ry to once for all put the djinnsof communal discord in itsright place — history.

BISWAJEET BANERJEE nLUCKNOW

The verdict of the LucknowBench of Allahabad High

Court has brought cheers amongthe sants of Nirmohi Akhara,who were among the first to filetitle suit in the Faizabad court,almost 50 years ago.

“We respect court order.Justice has been done to us,”Mahant of the Nirmohi AkharaBhaskar Das told The Pioneer.

Though he is very elo-quent about getting possessionof the one-third of the disput-ed land, he is circumspect oversharing land with the RamJanmabhoomi Nyas, which hasalso been given the ownershipof one-third land, including theplace where Ram Lalla exists.

“I cannot say nowwhat we will do.We have to discussthe matter withthe sants of oursect and then onlyI can tell whetherwe would joinhands with RamJ a n m a b h o o m iNyas,” he said.

N i r m o h iAkhara and RamJa n m a b h o o m iNyas have long been at log-gerheads. The NirmohiAkhara does not like the VHP-dominated Nyas and hadopposed them.

Bhaskar Das, the Mahantof Nirmohi Akhara, was theman who had filed the firstpetition seeking ownership

rights of the land in Ayodhyawhere Hindus claim a mosquewas built on a Ram Temple. Itwas 1959 when Bhaskar Das, inhis early 30s, filed the case onbehalf of Mahant RaghunathDas, who was heading theTrust Panth MahanandiNirmohi Akhara at that time.

“I was young at that timeand the Maharaj ji (Mahant ofthe Trust) had entrusted me thejob of getting the petition filed.Every day I used to travel toFaizabad court and sit with theadvocate for hours and watchthe petition being typed metic-ulously,” Das told this reporter

as he reminisces the time whenthe first petition was filed.

He said: “You know whofiled the petition on our behalffor the first time? He was aMuslim, one Siddiqui sahib.”

Nirmohi Akhara is a reli-gious denomination followingits own religious faith and cus-toms and is one of the 14 akha-ras recognised by the AkhilBharatiya Akhara Parishad.The akhara belongs to theVaishnav sampradaya.

Nirmohi Akhara filed asuit in January 1885 with thesub-judge of Faizabad, seekingconsent to construct a templefor Lord Ram in the area calledthe Ram Chabutra, adjacent tothe Babri mosque. The sub-judge held then that two largereligious structures in close

proximity could potentially bea threat to public order.Permission was denied by thecourt, though the NirmohiAkhara has since kept up itseffort to reclaim the land andconstruct the temple.

Why Nirmohi Akhara filedthis petition? “In 1949 whenGovernment locked the gates ofthe temple after idols of LordRam appeared there mysteri-ously, we petitioned the localadministration to give us theownership right because rev-enue records of the land werein the name of NirmohiAkhara since 1940. When wedid not get any response fromthe administration, we decid-ed to move the court in 1959,”the Mahant of the NirmohiAkhara said.

Muslim pleaded for Nirmohi Akhara in 1959

India�s mature reactionchanges world�s view

Majority decisioncomes after 60 yrs

What next?AIMPLB,Sunni WaqfBoard planto move SC

Schoolchildren participate in a special prayer for peace ahead of the Ayodhyaverdict, at a school in Ahmedabad on Thursday AP

Mahant Bhaskar Das; the Nirmohi Akhara office (right)

www.dailypioneer.com

Published From DELHI LUCKNOW BHOPAL

BHUBANESWAR RANCHICHANDIGARH DEHRADUN

Established 1864RNI No. 53466/91, REGD. No. DL (C)-05/1219/2009-2011

*Late City Vol. 20 Issue 272*Air Surcharge Extra if Applicable

MARKETSSENSEX 20,069.12 7 112.78NIFTY 6,029.95 7 38.65

WEATHERMAX 34.20C (+1)MIN 20.00C (+1)

Clear sky

NEW DELHI, FRIDAY OCTOBER 1, 2010; PAGES 16 `2

{ }SPECS NOLONGER ATABOO INBOLLYWOOD13 VIVACITY

NEWS 12WATCH OUT FOR RISE OFINDIA, CHINA: OBAMA TOAMERICANS

SPORT 15INDIA TAKE ONAUSTRALIA IN THEFIRST TEST AT MOHALI

OPINION 8SINCE INDIA IS PAYINGFOR CWG, PRESIDENTSHOULD OPEN IT

Lord Ram�s makeshift temple, whose ownership the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has ruled in favour of Hindus, at the disputed site in Ayodhya

AYODHYAVERDICT

LAND FOR ALL

On the 28 issues decided bythe three-judge high court

Bench, views differed on cer-tain crucial aspects. It hasopened up the possibility ofgrounds for an appeal in theSupreme Court. Save for agree-ing upon that the disputed sitewas the birthplace of lord Ram,the judgement was noteworthyfor the divergent views main-tained by the judges in theirrespective decisions. Here areexcerpts from their individualviews that made the verdicttruly historic.

1. Birthplace of lord RamJustice SU Khan: For a longtime, it was treated/believed byHindus that somewhere in avery large area of the disputedpremises is a small part wherethe birthplace of Ram was sit-

uated. After the construction ofthe mosque, Hindus startedidentifying the disputed area asthe exact birthplace.Justice Sudhir Agarwal: Site ofdisputed structure is place ofbirth of lord Ram as per faithand belief of the Hindus.Justice DV Sharma: Deity is ajuristic person. The disputedsite is birthplace of Ram.

2. Whether temple or non-Islamic structure pre-existedthe mosqueSUK: No temple was demol-ished for constructing themosque. Mosque was con-structed out of the ruins of tem-ples, which were lying in utterruins at the site.SA: Hindus worshipped at theplace in dispute before con-struction of the disputed struc-

ture. Outer courtyard exclusive-ly used by Hindus while innercourtyard used for worship byboth Hindus and Muslims.DVS: Disputed structure builtafter demolishing a Hindutemple, supported by ASI exca-vation report.

3. Whether Babar built themosque in 1528 ADSUK: The disputed structure wasconstructed as mosque by or underorders from Babar. No direct evi-dence that premises in disputebelonged to Babar or the personwho constructed the mosque.SA: No evidence to prove thebuilding in dispute was built byBabar or by Mir Baqi in 1528.DVS: Disputed structure builtby Babar, year is not certain butwas built against tenets ofIslam, hence bears no charac-

ter of mosque.

4. Whether Muslims usedmosque prior to 1949SUK: Calls it “unique” and“absolutely unprecedented” thatHindus worshipped in theirreligious places inside themosque boundary, with namaz(Muslim prayers) being simul-taneously offered in themosque.SA: Namaz last offered in innercourtyard on Dec 16, 1949.DVS: Muslims had access toinner courtyard but the outercourtyard in exclusive posses-sion of Hindus.

5. Whether idols were placedin the mosque in 1949SUK: The idol was placed forthe first time beneath the

Continued on Page 4

Unravelling the HC Bench judgement

THUMBS-UP FROM ALL SECTIONSCong hails decision,PM sounds caution

BJP: New chapter innational integration

Order paves way forgrand temple: RSS

NEW DELHI: Striking a cautiousnote on the HC order, PrimeMinister Manmohan Singh onThursday said it needed to beexamined carefully while theCongress welcomed thejudgement. However, both the PMand the Congress appealed to allsections of society to maintainpeace and tranquility.In a statement, Singh asked thepeople to remain vigilant againstmischief-makers. �I know thatoften it is only a few mischief-makers who create divisions in oursociety. I would appeal to mycountrymen to be vigilant and notlet such people succeed indisrupting peace and harmony,� hesaid. On the other hand, Congressgeneral secretary Janardan Dwivediwelcomed the judgement.

NEW DELHI: The BJP has reactedcautiously to the Ayodhya titleverdict, saying it was a �newchapter in national integration� anda �new era for inter-communityrelationship�. The party describedthe judgement as a significant steptowards construction of a grandRam temple at Ayodhya. Theparty's core group, comprisingsenior central leaders, met here onThursday to discuss the verdict'sramifications. Leader of Oppositionin the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitleybriefed the core group about itssalient points. �In so far as thejudgement upholds the right ofHindus to construct a temple at thegarbh-grih, it is a significant steptowards the construction of agrand temple at the birthplace

Continued on Page 4

NEW DELHI: Welcoming thehistoric verdict which among otherthings allotted the hitherto-disputed portion of land where theidols of Lord Ram and other Godshad been placed to the Hindus,Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat onThursday said: �The verdict haspaved way for the construction ofRam Mandir at Ayodhya. Thejudgement should, however, not beseen as a victory or defeat of anyparticular group. This is because ithas always been the contention ofall those crusading for RamMandir cause that a temple beconstructed there as a symbol ofour national values and not just forthe sake of Gods. This is essentialfor all of us.�

Continued on Page 4

REGIONAL PARTIESWELCOME VERDICT NEW DELHI/LUCKNOW/CHENNAI: Regional political partieshave welcomed the Allahabad HC verdict, saying it leaves scopefor appeal. Concerned over the fallout of the verdict on law andorder in the State, BSP supremo and UP Chief MinisterMayawati threw the ball in the Centre's court over the order�simplementation . The Lok Janshakti Party said nobody should try to derivepolitical benefit from the court verdict. SP Spokesperson Mohan Singh said, �The verdict is morepolitical and less judicial� The judgement has ignored the titlesuits and instead decided to divide the land among the threeparties.�The CPI(M) said, �This verdict requires to be fully studied.There may be questions on the nature of the verdict.� CPI nationalsecretary D Raja said, �The issue should not be taken to thestreet either in joy or in disappointment.�Tamil Nadu CM M Karunanidhi said: ��the judgement wouldsatisfy both the parties.� AIDMK supremo and Opposition leaderJ Jayalalithaa said, �Judges have delivered an admirable verdictconsidering the extremely sensitive and potentially inflammatorynature of the dispute and its long trail of religious conflict. It is ajudgement that opens the door to the path of reconciliation.�

Sports | Page 18

India-Australia first Test begins today; Harbhajan Singh doubtful

OF THE DAY

The New

Published from Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Orissa and Tamil Nadu

BECOME A FAN ON FACEBOOK

facebook.com/thenewindianexpress

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

twitter.com/newindianxpress

READ THE EDITION ONLINEhttp://epaper.expressbuzz.com

paper

`1.50 | Pages 50 | Late City Edition

C h e n n a iFriday, October 1 , 2010

Indices Sensex: 20,069.12Nifty : 6,029.95

SilverBar (1 kg): 33,830Retail (1 gm): 36.20

ExchangeUS$: 44.92Euro: 61.00

Gold24 ct (10gm): 19,26522 ct (1 gm): 1,792

Markets Today

PRITISHNANDY Now that the verdict has been announced, can we please leave Ayodhya behind and move on with our lives? We need to look ahead.

IAMKITS Come on guys get back to Kalmadi #CWG

w w w . e x p r e s s b u z z . c o m

Parties from both communities aggrieved, to move apex courtExpress News ServiceLucknow, September 30

THE ‘reaching out to both com-munities’ tone of Thursday’s ver-dict by the Allahabad High Court apart, Muslim as well as Hindu organisations are planning to move the Supreme Court against order splitting the disputed Ayod-hya land among three parties.

While the Sunni Wakf Board said they were “not going to sur-render” the plot on which a 16th-century mosque stood till it was pulled down in end-1992, the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust said it would challenge the Lucknow Bench’s decision to provide a third of the land to the Muslim body. The

Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, and another litigant, the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect that was ruled to get one portion of the pertinent land, too hinted at mov-ing the apex court, citing the same reason. The All Indian Muslim Personal Law Board also spoke about moves to file an appeal.

Wakf lawyer Zafaryab Jilani said the HC’s formula of one-third land was not acceptable to the Board and it would move the apex court. “We will do it after a meet-ing of the AIMPLB (All India Mus-lim Personal Law Board).”

He, however, said, the Board was open to “any negotiated settle-ment”, adding “talks can happen if a proposal comes”.

The AIMPLB said the point in the verdict about the birthplace of Lord Ram “has no documen-tary evidence”, and said it would move the apex court.

The Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Trust welcomed the order, but said it would challenge in the Su-preme Court the decision to pro-vide one-third of the disputed land to Wakf Board.

“We welcome the verdict, but will challenge the decision to give one-third land to the Sunni Cen-tral Wakf Board in the apex court,” Trust chairman Nritya Gopal Das said “We should not get over-excited as the verdict is being challenged.”

(With agency inputs)

Anand Raj Singh | ENSLucknow, September 30

THE disputed site in Ayodhya should be split into three parts among Hindus and Muslims, the Allahabad High Court or-dered on Thursday, and, on an anxiously awaited centuries-old question, ruled that the spot where a makeshift temple was built after the 1992 demo-lition of the Babri Masjid was Lord Rama’s birthplace.

By a majority 2-1 decision on the partition, the court’s Lucknow Bench also ruled that status quo must be maintained at the pertinent 2.7-acre land, but the separate jud-gments of the three justices agreed on one point: the area under the central dome of the 1528-built structure where the Ram idol now exists belo ngs to Hin-dus. Justices S U Khan and Sudhir Agarwal decreed that the plot be divided equal-ly among the Hindus, Muslims and one of the oldest litigants in the 60-year-old title suit. The third judge, Justice D V Sharma, registered a dissent-ing note, saying the entire land belonged to Hindus.

While Hindu organisations largely welcomed the verdict, the Sunni Wakf Board ex-pressed disappointment and announced its plan to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Ram Janmabhoomi Trust and the Nirmohi Akhara, a

Hindu sect which is among the three potential owners of the land, too spoke about identical future plans, challenging the decision to give one-third land to the Wakf Board.

The nation at large showed no possibility of a flare-up, as religious outfits and political parties reacted to the verdict with poise. An odd procession in Haryana or a random inci-dent of bursting of firecrack-ers in UP provoked none. And it wasn’t just the ruling Con-gress that said the HC order

should not be seen as a victory or defeat of any-body; even the Sangh Parivar was quick to ob-serve that it was “not against any particular com-munity”.

Besides that of the Wakf and the party repre-senting the ‘Ram Lala Virajman’ (deity), the court recognised the right of Nirmohi Akhara, a liti-gant since 1959,

to the land — the portion com-prising Ram Chabootara, Sita Rasoii and Bhandar.

The court, nonetheless, per-mitted “any adjustment” but only after ensuring that the “adversely-affected party may be compensated by some por-tion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central government”. The order, in effect, meant that the share of Muslims in the land would be in a part that ex-cludes what is meant for the two other litigants.

We welcome the verdict, but will

challenge the decision to give one-third land

to the Sunni Central Waqf Board in the

apex court”— Nritya

Gopal Das, chairman,

Sri Ram Janmabhoomi

Trust

Formula of one-third land is not acceptable to the Wakf Board and it will appeal against it in the apex court— Zafaryab Jilani, Lawyer for Sunni Muslim Wakf Board

The Allahabad High Court verdict

is a significant step towards building

of a grand temple

— L K Advani,

BJP leader

World | Page 14

Earth-like planet that could have life found

Forecast todayLight rain shower

30o

INSIDEPM appeals for peace, calm | P8A shot in the arm for Advani | P8Ayodhya litigants to move SC | P8Verdict paves way for temple | P8A much-awaited judgment | P8Mumbai calm after verdict | P8BJP, Congress, Left react | P8TV channels showed maturity | P9Is our swaraj so feeble? | P9A test of India’s secular soul | P10Gist of findings by judges | P11

IT’S RAMJANMABHOOMIDisputed site was where Lord Rama was born, rules Allahabad High Court; agrees that idols were placed within the central dome in the intervening night of December 22-23, 1949; allows “minor adjustments” in trifurcation of land

THE MUSLIMS...IF NECESSARY, MAY BE GIVEN SOME AREA OF OUTER COURTYARD....

THE ADVERSELY AFFECTED

PARTY MAY BE COMPENSATED

VOICES

ESHWAR ALLAH TERE NAAM: Religious leaders of Hindu and Muslim communities take out a peace procession in Haridwar on Thursday ahead of the Ayodhya title suit verdict | PTI

OVER THE YEARS

1949: Idols of Ram, Sita, Laxman placed

inside on night of Dec 22-23, 1949. Conflict

breaks out; govt declares site disputed, locks gates.

1853-59: Records say there was violence in

1853. British rulers allow inner court to Muslims,

outer courts to Hindus for worship in 1859.

1961: Sunni Waqf Board in UP files case

claiming mosque

Dec 6, 1992: Mosque demolished by kar sevaks; Hindu-Muslim riots claims

over 2,000 lives.

1950: Puja allowed but inner courtyard gates

remain locked.

Jan 2003: ASI begins survey to find out if Ram

temple existed on site

Aug 2003: ASI survey says evidence of temple

beneath the mosque

1989: Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi allows shi-lanyas in an undisputed site near the structure.

1528: Mosque constructed at disputed site suppos-edly by Mir Baki, a nobleman in Mughal emperor

Babar’s court. Hindus say mosque built after razing temple of Lord Rama marking his birthplace.

WHO SAID WHAT

■ It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants — Justice Sudhir Agarwal

■ The portion below central dome where at present the idol is kept in a makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree. Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in said map. If while allotting exact (1/3) portions some minor adjustment in share is to be made...the adversely affected party may be compensated (with portion of Centre’s adjoining land)— Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan

The court has given the verdict. We should all welcome the judgment”— Janardhan Dwivedi, Congress general secretary

It is a verdict that can satisfy both sides... the

opportunity given for the party that finds the

judgment insufficient to go for an appeal is

welcome— M Karunanidhi

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister

COURT ORDERS STATUS QUO FOR THREE MONTHS AT DISPUTED SITE IN AYODHYA

TEMPLE STOOD WHERE MOSQUE CAME UP; AREA UNDER CENTRAL DOME BELONGS TO HINDUS

2.77 ACRE LAND TO BE SPLIT INTO THREE PARTS, CENTRAL DOME AREA GOES TO HINDUS

THE OTHER TWO PARTS OF LAND GO TO SUNNI WAKF BOARD AND NIRMOHI AKHARA

‘No winner or loser in this verdict’

Chennaiites were indifferent, had ‘better’ things to do

ENS & AgenciesNew Delhi, September 30

POLITICAL parties across the spectrum behaved like responsible commentators of Thursday’s Ayo-dhya case verdict, coming up with restrained reactions. With no un-rest reported from anywhere amid Prime Minister Manmohan Sin-gh’s calls for peace, the adminis-tration too sighed in relief.

The BJP and rest of the Sangh Parivar saw the judgement as a “significant step” towards build-ing a “grand temple”, but at no point sounded belligerent. Party leader L K Advani, once the face of the Ram Janmabhoomi move-ment, described the judgement as

one that would pave the way for the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site, but added that it opened a “new chapter for na-tional integration” and “inter-community relations”.

The RSS said the order should not be seen as anybody’s victory or defeat. “The movement for Ram temple is not a reactionary one,

nor is it against any particular community,” Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat said.

The ruling Congress noted that doors of the Supreme Court were open for any aggrieved party. The CPI(M) and the CPI said the judge-ment required to be fully studied as there may be questions on the nature of the verdict and the many layers of the issue.

Former Hindutva icon Kalyan Singh, who was UP chief minister when the 16th-century mosque was demolished in 1992, hailed the verdict. His current successor Mayawati expressed unhappiness — only about “insufficient” secu-rity forces the Centre had depl-oyed in her state currently.

Gokul Vannan | ENSChennai, September 30

THOUGH there was a perceptible sense of apprehension about trouble breaking out in the wake of the Ayodhya verdict, Chennai was calm and quiet as it could be on a Thursday evening with most people on the roads going about their business, showing little in-terest in what the Allahabad High Court had to say on the Ayodhya title suit, even as the media went berserk expecting some ‘action’.

Just before television channels started ‘breaking news’, at 4.30 pm, the media corps descended at

the Big Wallajah Mosque on Trip-licane High Road and urged the Special Action Group deployed there to pose for cameras.

Updating themselves on the verdict over mobile phones, the reporters, with a keen eye for ‘act ion’ asked the police if there would be anything.

“Only you people are creating a hype,” one of the officers re-plied mockingly and he was right on target as the nosey reporters soon found out.

Salim Khan, who was with his wife, said, “I was busy attending a special ceremony with rela-tives, I have no idea about it.”

Another elderly man, Moham-med, who was sitting in his tex-tile shop with friends, said, “I do not know anything about the verdict. I need to do business. I will watch television news later in the night.”

“If I waste time listening to the verdict, my wife will give her ver-dict to throw me out of the house if I don’t go home with money,” said Venkateshan (33), a laundry man, adding, “Money is impor-tant sir. We need to eat.”

All that tailor Azmath Ullah (46) would say is, “I need to de-liver this suit before night. I am busy.”

THE ROAD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEMPLE HAS NOW BEEN LAID, BUT SURELY THERE IS NO ROOM FOR FRENZY

— Narendra Modi, Gujarat CM

50 pages, including

32 of iNDULGE (Tabloid)

LEGAL EAGLES SCRATCH THEIR HEADSPrabhakar Rao Voruganti & ENSNew Delhi/Lucknow, September 30

THE legal fraternity seem di-vided over the verdict on the Ayo-dhya title suit with some lawyers saying there is scope for appeal, while others say it would be a futile exercise to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

Constitutional expert and sen-ior advocate of the apex court P P Rao said the relief granted ap-peared to be prima facie incon-sistent with the prayers in all the suits. “It is more like a panchayat justice dividing the disputed property among the three con-tenders. And it is not clear how after dismissing the suit of the Sunni Wakf Board, one-third of the property is given to Mus-lims,” Rao maintained.

The aggrieved parties have good grounds to move the Supr-eme Court, he added.

Senior advocate M N Krishna-mani said, “I am happy at the ver-dict…It is a good judgment. Even Justice Khan favoured 1/3 land to the three parties to the suits.”

Supreme Court advocate T V Ratnam felt the judgment sounded a bit confused. “They’ve tried to take care of everybody’s interest and in the process the issues have not been clearly resolved. Further confusion may arise during the implementation of the verdict.”

With both the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs and the Nirmohi Akhara having announced their decision to appeal, eminent lawy-ers from Lucknow and Allahabad said it would change nothing as the apex court would most likely

reject the appeals and uphold the High Court verdict in toto.

A senior lawyer, who is not re-lated to the dispute from either party’s side, said, “The High Court has, in fact, forced the con-testing parties to reach a compro-mise or be disappointed after the Supreme Court decides the mat-ter on appeals.”

Another lawyer said, “While the Hindus have been told in no uncertain terms that they cannot ignore the right of the Muslims, the representatives of the minor-ity community have, in turn, been told that if what happened five hundred years ago (building of Babri mosque) cannot be to-tally ignored, then what hap-pened sixty years ago (placing the idols inside the mosque) can also not be ignored.”

c m y k c m y k

THE LARGEST CIRCULATED ENGLISH DAILY IN SOUTH INDIA

Vol. 73 No. 273 Established 1938 www.facebook.com/deccannews, www.twitter.com/deccannews, www.deccanchronicle.com 42 pages `̀ 2.00HYDERABAD �� FRIDAY � 1 OCTOBER 2010

A clear path to buildRam temple: Advani

MATTERS OF FAITH

DC CORRESPONDENT

NEW DELHI

Sept. 30: Lord Ram is backat the centrestage of saffronpolitics. An upbeat BJP andRSS on Thursday said theAllahabad High Court’sverdict on Ayodhya hadpaved the way for the con-struction of a “magnificentRam temple” at the dispu-ted site.

Both the RSS chief, MrMohan Bhagwat, and thesenior BJP leader, Mr L.K.Advani, also appealed forrestraint and said the ver-

dict had opened a “newchapter of reconciliation”in the country.

Mr Advani said: “It is asignificant step forwardtowards construction of a

grand temple at the birth-place of Lord Ram.”Echoing the RSS line, headded that the “verdictopens a new chapter fornational integration and anew era of inter-communi-ty relations.” He said, “TheASI has clearly opined thatthere were remains of aHindu religious structure atthe disputed site.”

Mr Bhagwat said onThursday evening that theRam temple movementwas “not a reactionaryone... nor is it against anyparticular community”.

RSS cry

The RSSchief urged

people to become“active collaborators inorganising the constitu-tional and practicalmeans to build a mag-nificent temple.”

temple

AMITA VERMAwith agency inputs

DC | LUCKNOW

Sept. 30: The Lucknowbench of the Allahabad HighCourt in a majority verdict onthe Ayodhya title suits onThursday ruled that the 2.77acres of disputed land inAyodhya is to be dividedequally into three partsamong Hindus and Muslims.It dismissed the SunniCentral Waqf Board’s claimto the Babri mosque with a 2-1 majority and accepted thatthe land in question was thebirthplace of Lord Rama.

A three-judge bench com-prising Justices S.U. Khan,Sudhir Agarwal and DharamVeer Sharma, however, wereunanimous in the opinionthat the makeshift temple ofRam Lalla could not beremoved and the land onwhich it was located rightful-ly belonged to the Hindu liti-gants.

The detailed judgment wasof over 8,189 pages.MrZafaryab Jilani, the counselfor the Sunni Central WaqfBoard, said the court verdict,which came after 60 years,was “partly disappointingand against expectations”. Hesaid the board would appealthe judgment in the SupremeCourt.

Mr Jilani ruled out the pos-sibility of accepting one-thirdof the land.

“The Babri mosque cannotbe reduced to a part or por-tion,” he said.

Justices S.U. Khan andSudhir Agarwal ruled that thedisputed property should beequally divided among theHindu Mahasabha, theNirmohi Akhara and theSunni Central Waqf Board,with each party getting one-third.

■ Page 4: Court to invitesuggestions to divide land

Parties to moveSC over verdictDC CORRESPONDENT

LUCKNOW/ HYDERABAD

Sept. 30: The SunniCentral Waqf Board onThursday said it wouldappeal in the SupremeCourt against verdict of theLucknow bench of theAllahabad High Court onthe Ayodhya title suits.

Interestingly, the AkhilBharat Hindu Mahasabha,one of the early litigants inthe Ayodhya title suits,also said it would chal-lenge the HC order todivide the Ramjanmabhoo-mi land in three parts.

Mr Zafaryab Jilani, coun-sel for the Sunni CentralWaqf Board, said the courtverdict, which came after60 years, was “partly dis-appointing and againstexpectations”.

He ruled out the possibil-ity of accepting one-thirdof the land. “The Babrimosque cannot be reducedto a part or portion,” hesaid.

“The board will move theSupreme Court after ameeting of the All-India

Muslim Personal LawBoard,” Mr Jilani said,adding that not much morecould be said withoutstudying the judgment indetail.

The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen presi-dent and Hyderabad MP,Mr Asaduddin Owaisi, saidMuslims will appeal in theSupreme Court against theAllahabad High Court ver-dict.

“We are hugely disap-pointed by the HC judg-ment,” said Mr Owaisi.

■ Page 5: Division ofland not acceptable

High alertacross thecountryNAMRATA BIJI AHUJA

DC | NEW DELHI

Sept. 30: The Centre indi-cated on Thursday that thesecurity across the countrywill continue to remain onhigh alert. Following theAyodhya verdict and withbeginning of theCommonwealth Games, theCentre is not taking anychances. The control roomin the home ministry ismonitoring the situationround the clock.

Though the concernedpolitical and religious out-fits like the BJP and theVishwa Hindu Parishadhave asked their cadre toexercise retrain followingthe verdict, the securityestablishments have askedforces to continue the vigil.

“We cannot issue direc-tions against celebrationsbut hope that peace commit-tees and other groups do notindulge in any activitieswhich may trigger unrest,”an official said.

■ Page 4: Roads deserted,shops shut

“The court verdictwhich came after60 years was part-ly disappointingand against expec-tations. The Babrimosque cannot bereduced to a part.”

Zafaryab JilaniCounsel, Sunni Waqf Board

The 3 judges wereunanimous in theopinion that themakeshift temple ofRam Lalla could notbe removed and theland on which it waslocated rightfullybelonged to theHindu litigants.

◗ The third judgeJustice D.V. Sharmaruled that the site isthe birthplace of LordRam and that the dis-puted building con-structed by Mughalemperor Babar wasbuilt against thetenets of Islam anddid not have the character of themosque.

HISTORIC 8,189-PAGE VERDICTFOUR MAIN POSERS TO THE COURT:

◗◗ Akhil Bharat HinduMahasabha to challengethe Allahabad High Courtorder.◗◗ Sunni Wakf Board tomove the Supreme Courtadding they were notgoing to surrender.◗◗ Sri Ram JanmbhoomiTrust to challenge thedecision to provide one-third land to Sunni CentralWaqf Board, in theSupreme Court. ◗◗ Majlis-e-IttehadulMuslimeen to will appealin the SC against theAllahabad High Court ver-dict in the Ayodhya case.

1Who ownsthe Site?ABHM,

Nirmohi, SunniWakf or RamLalla Virajman.

2Whetherthere was atemple at

the site before1538?

3Did theidols ofRama, Sita

and Lakshmanexist inside themosque?

4Were theidols plac-ed inside

the mosque onDecember 22,1949.

◗ Justices S.U. Khan andSudhir Agarwal said thearea under the centraldome of the three-domedstructure where LordRama’s idol exists belongsto Hindus. The justicesalso ruled that status quoshould be maintained atthe disputed place forthree months.

◗ The 2.77 acre landshould be dividedbetween Sunni WaqfBoard, Nirmohi Akharaand the party represent-ing Ram Lalla Virajman(Ram deity himself).

IT ISPROBABLY

FOR THEFIRST TIME

THREEJUDGES

HAVE READOUT THEIRVERDICTS

SEPA-RATELY.

NORMALLY,WHEN THERE

ARE CON-CURRING

OPINIONS,ONE OF

THE JUDGESREADS OUTTHE OPERA-

TIVE POR-TION OF THE

ORDER.

MORE STORIESON PAGES...2, 3, 4, 5

MAJORITY VERDICT

Justice S.U.Khan

JusticeD.V.Sharma

Justice SudhirAgarwalA Hindu and a Muslim share a laugh in Ayodhya on Thursday after the Allahabad

High Court’s verdict on the Ayodhya title suits on Thursday. — PTI

1 8 8 5 - 2 0 1 0

◗ Page 4: Don’tgive in to evildesigns: PM

◗ Page 2: Twintowns welcomeverdict withhumility, grace

● ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT SPLITS THE AREA INTO 3 EQUAL PARTS ● RULING SAYSLORD RAMA’S BIRTHPLACE AT DISPUTED SITE ● STATUS QUO FOR THREE MONTHS

AYODHYAVERDICT

JUDGES DIVIDE LAND TO UNITE INDIAWHAT PARTIES SAY

◗ Page 5:Ayodhya hasindeed movedon since 1992

c m y k c m y k

THE LARGEST CIRCULATED ENGLISH DAILY IN SOUTH INDIA

CHENNAI ●● FRIDAY ●● 1 ●● OCTOBER ●● 2010 www.facebook.com/deccannews, www.twitter.com/deccannews, www.deccanchronicle.com 42 pages `̀2.00Vol. 6 No. 188

INTERNATIONALCITY

412

TN MAY BRINGCEMENT FROMOTHER STATES

POLITICS

12CRICKETIND-AUS FIRSTTEST AT MOHALIFROM TODAY

ACTOR TONY CURTIS DIES OFCARDIAC ARREST

HOLLYWOOD SPORT

17

Chennai: Noted Tamil filmmusic director ChandraBose died on Thursday fol-lowing illness, familysources said.

Bose, 60, is survived bywife and two sons. Themusician, who had com-posed music for about 100films including Rajinikanthstarrers Viduthalai, RajaChinna Roja andManidhan, was not keepingwell for the past few daysand had been in coma.

He breathed his last thismorning in hospital, sourcessaid. Scores of industry per-sonalities paid homage toChandra Bose. —PTI

Music directorChandra Bosepasses away

SUNSET Today 5.59 pmSUNRISE Tomorrow 05.58 am MOONRISE Today 12 amMOONSET Tomorrow 1.26 am

ASTROGUIDE:Vikruthi: Purattasi (15) Tithi: Ashtami Star: ThiruvathiraiRahukalam: 10.30 am to 12 noonYamagandam: 3 pm to 4.30 pm

PRAYERS (MASJIDUS-SALAM)Fajar: 5.20 am Zohar: 1 pmAsar: 4 pm Maghrib: 6.05 pm Isha: 7.45 pm

FORECAST: Generally cloudy Max: 33.8 Min: 25.1RH: 81% Rainfall: Nil

windows

counterpoint

DC CORRESPONDENT

CHENNAI

Sept. 30: Three studentsdied after the DarbhangaExpress coming towardsChennai hit a group ofyoungsters who were walk-ing along the railway track.Following this, angry stu-

dents and local residentspelted stones at the Minjurrailway station and twoEMU trains causing dam-age. Train services in thesection were disrupted for

an hour.The incident occurred at

1.30 pm when a group of

seven students belonging tothe Chandraprabhu JainCollege were chatting andwalking through the railtracks.

The Darbhanga Expresswas then moving towardsChennai and was suddenlydiverted into the loop line.

Railway officials said thestudents saw the train com-ing but were expecting it toply through the main lineand not through the loopline. Before they couldmove away, the train hit

them.Paramesh, 19, and

Vijayakumar, 20, died onspot and Vinod, 20, on theway to the hospital. Fourother students, Majid,Jayakumar, Daniel Raj andRaj, suffered seriousinjuries and were admittedat the Stanley MedicalCollege and GeneralHospital.

Bodies of the dead stu-dents have also been movedto the General Hospital, said Korukkupet railway

police.The incident angered local

residents and students whogathered at the Minjur rail-way station and conductedprotests.

Southern railway officialssaid that the station suffereddamages in the protests andstone pelting.

Two EMU services werecancelled and three wereturned back. The tensionalso affected the incomingand outgoing express trainservices for about one hour.

Train runs over 3 college students MINJUR STATION ATTACKED

Railway officialssaid the studentssaw the train com-ing but were expect-ing it to ply throughthe main line andnot through theloop line

DC CORRESPONDENT

CHENNAI

Sept. 30: Educational insti-tutions, private businesshouses and even some gov-ernment offices closeddown post-lunch onThursday apprehending vio-lent backlash from theAyodhya verdict but thefears turned out baseless.

The Allahabad high courtorder had taken the sting outof any simmering hostilityamong the contesting par-ties by making it seem thateveryone gained and nonelost. Besides, the views

expressed earlier from vari-ous leaders, including PrimeMinister Manmohan Singhand chief minister M.Karunanidhi that harsh reac-tions are uncalled forbecause there is an appellateforum for anyone unhappy,appears to have sunk in.

“This verdict will satisfyboth the communities,” said

Mr Karunanidhi. “The factthat it allows the aggrievedpersons to go in for appealis welcome.”

Opposition AIADMK lea-der Ms Jayalalithaa hailedthe verdict as ‘admirable’and expressed hope it would“open the doors to the pathof reconciliation.”

Both Hindu and Muslimoutfits exercised restraint,barring a few Hindus burst-ing crackers and some strayincidents happening inCoimbatore. “The Hindusburst a few crackers becausethey had already boughtthem,” said a senior police

officer, adding that therewould be a nightlong vigilacross TN, specially in sen-sitive areas likeCoimbatore.

Official sources said somegroups, including a fewMuslim outfits and lawyers,were planning to holddemonstrations on Friday toexpress unhappiness overthe verdict. “They feel thatMuslims did not get theirdue. Hindus are not upset.However, we must ensurethat no minor skirmishoccurs as that could triggerlarger conflict,” anotherofficial said. ■■ See P 3,4

TN calm, but cops up vigilboth communities

“This verdictwill satisfy both thecommunities,” said M.Karunanidhi.

happy

● AYODHYA TITLE SUIT VERDICT HANDS OVER ONE-THIRD LAND EACH TO HINDU MAHASABHA, NIRMOHI AKHARA, SUNNI WAQF BOARD

Divide disputed land into 3: HC AMITA VERMA with agency inputs

DC | LUCKNOW

Sept. 30: The Lucknowbench of the Allahabad highcourt in a majority verdicton the Ayodhya title suitson Thursday ruled that the2.77 acres of disputed landin Ayodhya is to be dividedequally into three partsamong Hindus andMuslims. It dismissed theSunni Central WaqfBoard’s claim to the Babrimosque with a 2-1 majorityand accepted that the land inquestion was the birthplaceof Lord Ram.

A three-judge bench com-prising Justices S.U. Khan,Sudhir Agarwal andDharam Veer Sharma, how-ever, were unanimous in theopinion that the makeshifttemple of Ram Lalla couldnot be removed and the landon which it was locatedrightfully belonged to theHindu litigants. Thedetailed judgment was ofover 10,000 pages.

Zafaryab Jilani, counselfor the Sunni Central WaqfBoard, said the court ver-

dict, which came after 60years, was “partly disap-pointing and against expec-tations”. He said the boardwould appeal the judgmentin the Supreme Court. MrJilani ruled out the possibil-ity of accepting one-third ofthe land. “The Babrimosque cannot be reducedto a part or portion,” he said.

Justices S.U. Khan andSudhir Agarwal ruled thatthe disputed propertyshould be equally dividedamong the HinduMahasabha, the NirmohiAkhara and the SunniCentral Waqf Board, witheach party getting one-third.

Justice Dharam Veer

Sharma was categorical thatthe land belonged to Hindusand rejected the claim of theSunni Waqf Board. JusticeSharma ruled that the dis-puted site is Lord Ram’sbirthplace and that the dis-puted structure constructedby Babur was built “againstthe tenets of Islam” and“did not have the characterof a mosque”. Justice S.U.Khan said the mosque wasbuilt by Babur, not bydemolishing a temple, buton the ruins of a temple, asfound in the ArchaeologicalSurvey of India report.

The court pointed out thatthe mosque was not in useand hence the disputedstructure could not betermed a mosque in the truesense of the term. However,the entire bench held theview that the central domeof the disputed structure —where the idols had beeninstalled since 1949 andagain in 1992 after thedemolition of the Babrimosque — belonged to theHindu Mahasabha. The SitaRasoi and Ram Chabutarahave been given to theNirmohi Akhara. ■■ See P8

Order may help Centreto look out for consensus S.S. NEGI

DC | NEW DELHI

Sept. 30: While it may takesome time to go deep intothe detailed reasons forarriving at the historic deci-sion by the Lucknow benchof the Allahabad high courtin the four title suits on theAyodhya dispute, it is clearthat the judgment has strucka “conciliatory” note, andcould become the guidingfactor for the Centre to tryfor a “consensus” on accep-ting the findings as the

judges have handed it thetask of dividing the land.

Former attorney-generalSoli J. Sorabjee had in factpredicted in an interview toDC only four days back thatthe high court verdict mightnot be explicitly in favourof one party or another, but“by indicating certain pro-posals, or making certainsuggestions ... (it) may helpthe parties to reach an ami-cable settlement.” It appearsthat the HC has tried to doexactly that.

Since the idol of Lord

Ram had been placed in a“makeshift temple” in aplace where the centraldome of the demolishedstructure stood, there was“unanimity” among allthree judges that this place,as Hindus believe, “is thejanamsthan” of Lord Ram,and hence it should not bedisturbed and must be hand-ed over to them.

Justices S.U. Khan, SudhirAgrawal and D.V. Sharma,while writing separate judg-ments, concurred on thisvital point.

idol area to Hindus● The judge said the por-tion below the centraldome, where the idolremains in a makeshifttemple, will be allotted toHindus in the final decreeand that the NirmohiAkhara would be allotteda share including that partshown by the words “Ram Chabutra” and “SitaRasoi” on the map.

● The verdict ran into a stag-gering 8,189 pages. Thethree judges, Sibghat UllahKhan, Sudhir Agarwal andDharam Veer Sharma, gaveseparate judgements.

● The cyberspace was floodedwith tweets and blogs forpeace within minutes afterthe verdict with netizenssaying it was a “diplomatic”judgement where no onehas won and no one haslost. Peace and calm is theneed of hour, was the refrainof tweets.

RULING AFTERMATH

Waqf unhappy Maya’s demand

PM plays it safe Advani gratified

We will move theSupreme Court against thecourt order dividing the dis-puted land in Ayodhya amongthree parties. Waqf Boardlawyer Zafaryab Jilani saidthey were not going tosurrender it.

The Centre mustensure implementation of theverdict and also protection ofthe makeshift temple inAyodhya.

The verdict is a sig-nificant step towards building ofa grand temple. The BJP is grati-fied that the nation received theverdict with maturity.

The correct conclu-sion, at this stage, is that thestatus quo will be maintaineduntil the cases are taken up bythe Supreme Court.

YOJNA GUSAI

DC | NEW DELHI

Sept. 30: Lord Ram is backat the centrestage of saffronpolitics. An upbeat BJP andRSS on Thursday said theAllahabad high court’s ver-dict on Ayodhya had pavedthe way for the constructionof a “magnificent Ram tem-ple” at the disputed site.

Both RSS chief MohanBhagwat and senior BJPleader L.K. Advani, archi-tect of the Ram Janma-bhoomi movement, alsoappealed for restraint andsaid the verdict had openeda “new chapter of reconcili-ation” in the country.

VHP international generalsecretary Pravin Togadia,who “saluted” and wel-

comed the verdict, however,demanded that the temple bebuilt across the entire areaof the site. He too appealedfor peace and calm.

Evoking the name of“Maryada Purushottam SriRam”, Mr Bhagwat said thatthe Ram temple movementwas “not a reactionary one...nor is it against any particu-lar community”.

RSS, BJP see Ram temple

DC CORRESPONDENTwith agency inputs

LUCKNOW

Sept. 30: The Sunni CentralWaqf Board on Thursdaysaid it would appeal in theSupreme Court the verdictof the Lucknow bench ofthe Allahabad high court onthe Ayodhya title suits.

Zafaryab Jilani, counselfor the Sunni Central WaqfBoard, said the court ver-dict, which came after 60years, was “partly disap-pointing and against expec-tations”. He said the boardwould appeal the judgmentin the Supreme Court. MrJilani ruled out the possibil-ity of accepting one-third ofthe land. “The Babrimosque cannot be reducedto a part or portion,” he said.

He said they were notgoing to surrender the land.However, he said, the Sunniboard is open to any negoti-ated settlement. “Talks canhappen if a proposalcomes,” he said.

“The board will move theSupreme Court after a meet-ing of the All-India MuslimPersonal Law Board. Thereis no hurry,” Mr Jilani said,adding that not much morecould be said without study-ing the judgment in detail.

“This proposal will betabled before the All-IndiaMuslim Personal LawBoard for consideration butwe won’t accept any pro-posal to surrender,” he said,adding, “The judgementpronounced in the case isnot only partly disappoint-ing but also against the set-tled principles of law andevidence adduced by theMuslim side.”

Waqf Boardto challengeorder in SC

c m y k c m y k

counterpoint

BATTLE ROYALEAS DHONI’S MENTAKE ON AUSSIES

INTERNATIONALBUSINESS

7JOBS

HOW 5FT7 TOMSTANDS TALL WITH5FT9 CAMERON

CELEBS CRICKETVol. 3 No. 129 Established 1938 BENGALURU ●● FRIDAY ●● 1 OCTOBER 2010

THE LARGEST CIRCULATED ENGLISH DAILY IN SOUTH INDIA

www.facebook.com/deccannews, www.twitter.com/deccannews, www.deccanchronicle.com 38 pages Rs 2.00

OBAMA FEARSCHINDIACOMPETITION

14 18SPORT

Tony Curtisdies at 85

India billionaireclub swells to 69

windows

SUNSET Today 6.10 pm SUNRISE Tomorrow 6.09 amMOONRISE Today —MOONSET Today 12.44 am

FORECAST: Generally cloudy sky.One or two spells of rain likely in someareas. Max: 30.2 Min: 20.6 RH: 55%Rainfall: 0.4 mm

ASTROGUIDE: Samvatsara: Sri Vikriti NamaDakshinayana Tithi: BhadrapadaKrishna Ashtami (8.48 pm) Star: Ardra(8.13 pm) Yoga: Variyan (1.08 pm)Rahukalam: 10.30 to 12 pm Kali Day:1867005

PRAYERS (Jamia Masjid)Fajar: 5.35 am Zohar: 1.30 pm Asar: 5.00 pm Maghrib: 6.18 pm Isha: 8.15 pm

Actress Katrina Bowdenat the screening of TheSocial Network at the Sc-hool of Visual Arts Theaterin New York Wednesdaynight. — AFP

Los Angeles: Tony Curtis, aclassically handsome moviestar who earned an Oscar no-mination as an escaped con-vict in Stanley Kramer’s1958 movie The Defiant On-es, but whose public prefe-rred him in comic roles in fi-lms like Some Like It Hotand The Great Race, diedWednesday of a cardiac arre-st in his Las Vegas area ho-me. He was 85. ■ P7

New Delhi: India’s fast-exp-anding economy has minted17 new billionaires in thelast 12 months, pushing thetotal to a record 69, accord-ing to a new Forbes RichList released Thursday. Mu-kesh Ambani, chairman ofReliance Industries, retainedhis title as the richest Indianfor a third year in 2010,Forbes said. — AFP

● ●● ●

● RAM LALLA SHRINE TO STAY ● WAQF BOARD TO APPROACH SUPREME COURT ● INDIA REMAINS PEACEFUL, CALM

JUDGES DIVIDE AYODHYA TO UNITE INDIAAMITA VERMA

DC | LUCKNOW

Sept. 30: The Ram Lallamakeshift shrine is to stay.One-third of the disputedproperty goes to the Musl-im litigants. The remainingone-third to the NirmohiAkhara who get the sitewhere the Ram Chabootraand Sita Rasoi stand.

Sixty years after the casewas first lodged, the Luc-know bench of the Alla-habad HC in a majority ver-dict dismissed the SunniCentral Waqf Board’s cla-im to the Babri mosque wi-th a 2-1 majority and acce-pted that the land in ques-tion was the birthplace ofLord Ram. It divided thedisputed holy site — all of2.77 acres — between Mu-slims and Hindus, dousingfears of a violent backlashin one of the nation’s mostreligiously divisive cases.

Justices S.U. Khan andSudhir Agarwal ruled thatthe disputed property shou-ld be equally divided amo-ng the Hindu Mahasabha,the Nirmohi Akhara andthe Sunni Central WakfBoard, with each party get-

ting one-third. The three-judge bench comprising Ju-stices S.U. Khan, SudhirAgarwal and Dharam VeerSharma in a detailed 8,180page judgement, were un-animous that the makeshifttemple of Ram Lalla couldnot be dismantled and theland on which it was locat-ed rightfully belonged tothe Hindu litigants.

Justice Agarwal observedthe area within the inner co-urtyard belongs to Hindusand Muslims since bothhad been using it for cen-turies.

Justice Sharma ruled thatthe disputed structure con-structed by Babar was built“against the tenets of Is-lam” and “did not have thecharacter of a mosque”.

Justice S.U. Khan said themosque was built by Babar,not by demolishing a temp-le, but on the ruins of a te-mple, as found in the ASIreport.

The court pointed out thatthe mosque was not in useand hence the disputed str-ucture could not be termeda mosque. The bench dire-cted maintenance of statusquo for three months.

Tejas Mark II: Indian body, US heartB.R. SRIKANTH

DC | BENGALURU

Sept. 30: A day after defe-nce minister A.K. Antony’sreturn from the United States, the ministry of de-fence handed a major con-tract to an American firmfor supply of engines to po-wer the ‘Made in India’ fig-hter,Tejas Mark II.

The contract, worth about$750 million for 99 F414engines of General ElectricAviation-hints at the poten-tial winner of India’s bigg-est defence deal yet: the $11billion acquisition of 126Medium Multi-role CombatAircraft. The same enginepowers the US-manufac-tured F/A-18 Super Horne-ts. These American military

jets were the first of the sixcompeting aircraft to beevaluated by the Indian AirForce for the multi-billiondollar acquisition in August2009. Two jets were flownover the skies of Bengaluru,Jaisalmer and Leh.

Sources in MOD said thedecision to pick the F414over the other competitorEurojet’s EJ200 (which inc-

identally powers Eurofig-hter, another jet in the reck-oning for MMRCA deal) si-gnals an edge for the SuperHornets over other fighteraircraft, assessed for themega-buck procurement.“Both the engines were sui-table to power Tejas MarkII, but with today’s choicethe prospects of Super Hor-nets are certainly high. It gi-

ves the vendor (Boeing)many advantages as the en-gine line (for manufactureof engines) will be ready inadvance and benefits underthe off-set policy would al-so be transferred to Indianfirms. This will reduce thecost of the fighter significa-ntly and give the IAF thebenefit of using engines inits inventory,” sources said.

BOOST FOR BOEING

Son held, but Katta won’t quitDC CORRESPONDENT

BENGALURU

Sept. 30: The multi-croreKIADB scam took a sensa-tional turn on Thursdaywhen the Lokayukta policearrested Katta Jagadish,son of BWSSB and IT/BTminister Katta SubramnyaNaidu, for offering a bribeto a witness in a bid toefface evidence.

The arrest of the Vasa-nthnagar corporator, KattaJagadish, from his GandhiNagar office around 3.30pm could have enormouspolitical implications as hebecomes the second majorfigure with links to the rul-ing party to come under thescanner for wrong-doing.

Lokayukta ADGP RupakKumar Dutta said that theaccused corporator hadbeen harassing one of theprime witnesses in the `300crore KIADB scam.

The witness, Ramanjana-ppa, a resident of RKHegde Nagar approached

the Lokayukta police with acomplaint on Tuesday, whoon Thursday laid a trap for

the high-profile corporator.“The complainant stated

that Katta Jagadish had

called him and instructedhim not to co-operate withthe Lokayukta police, andoffered him money inreturn. We registered a caseof abetting a private personto influence a public ser-vant under section 10 of thePrevention of CorruptionAct and for attempting toefface evidence under sec-tion 201 of IPC, ADGP,”Mr Dutta said.

The Lokayukta policeregistered the FIR on We-dnesday and on Thursday atrap was laid. The com-plainant was asked come toa hotel in Gandhinagar Th-ursday morning. AccusedMr Katta Jagadish spoke tothe complainant and offe-red him `1 lakh.

However, Mr Jagadishasked Ramanjanappa tovisit his house in Sad-ashivanagar where a personby name Kumar would givehim the money.

“The complainant visitedKatta Jagadish’s house in ■ Turn to Page 5

BJP, RSS get back their plank

What the threejudges said

YOJNA GUSAI

DC | NEW DELHI

Sept. 30: Lord Ram is backat the centrestage of saffronpolitics. An upbeat BJP andRSS on Thursday said theAllahabad High Court’sverdict on Ayodhya had pa-ved the way for the con-struction of a “magnificentRam temple” at the disput-ed site. Both RSS chief

Mohan Bhagwat and seniorBJP leader L.K. Advani,who was the architect ofthe Ram Janmabhoomi mo-vement, also appealed forrestraint and said the ver-dict had opened a “newchapter of reconciliation”in the country. VHP inter-national general secretaryPravin Togadia, “saluted”the verdict.■ See Pages 8&9

VHP and Bajrang Dal activists burst crackers as they celebrate the court verdict onthe Ayodhya title suit, in Amritsar on Thursday. — PTI

DC EXPOSÉThe arrest of Vasanthnagar coporator Jagadish Katta, son ofsenior BJP minister Katta Subramanya Naidu in the KIADBland scam has put the spotlight firmly on V Tech City, a 325acre-SEZ proposed by Itasca Software Development Pvt.Ltd. The younger Katta’s arrest also raises serious questionson who set the ball rolling for the illegal acquisition of land for`120 crore, 300-acre land scam which is being investigatedby the Lokayukta in Bandikodigehalli in Jala hobli that focus-es solely on Itasca. Documents and vital information avail-able with Deccan Chronicle reveal that investigators areinching towards unearthing the scandal in its entirety andthat big names in the BJP, both at the national and state areinvolved. And equally, that all the players are set for a wind-fall as they have only spent a few lakhs. ■ Turn to Page 5

— R. Jayaprakash

Shortly after Vasanthnagar corporator KattaJagadish was arrested by the Lokayukta,his father, IT-BT minister Katta SubramanyaNaidu was summoned to an emergencymeeting, convened by CM B.S. Yedd-yurappa in a bid to control the damage fromdisclosures about wrong-doing by seniormembers of his cabinet. As speculation mounted on whetherheads will roll, Katta emerged from the meeting and said in abrazen show of defiance “Nobody asked me to resign.”

Wakf, Mahasabha to move SCZafaryab Jilani, counsel for the Sunni Central WakfBoard, said the court verdict, which came after 60 years,was “partly disappointing and against expectations”. Hesaid the board would appeal the judgment in theSupreme Court. Mr Jilani ruled out the possibility ofaccepting one-third of the land. “The Babri mosque can-not be reduced to a part or portion,” he said as Muslimorganisations said they would appeal the decision, in ameasured response crafted not to inflame public ten-sions. ■ See Pages 8&9

9 HRS: KATTA JR INTERROGATED ALL NIGHT

The disputed site isthe birthplace of

Lord Ram and idolsa n d

other ob-jects therehad beenworship-ped sincetime imm-e m o r i a l .The disp-uted building was built byBabar against the tenets ofIslam, after demolishing atemple. Thus it cannot havethe character of a mosque.”

— Justice D.V. Sharma

No te-mple

was dem-olished tobuild themosque. Itwas builtover theruins of

temples. Both Hindus andMuslims had joint posses-sion of the disputed site. Itmust be divided among allparties to the extent of one-third share each.”

— Justice S.U. Khan

The land with theGovernment of India

under the Ayodhya Act1993 should be given to allthree par-ties sothat theymay eachutilise th-eir respe-ctive are-as withs e p a r a t eentry andexits and without disturbing each other’srights.”

— Justice Sudhir Agarwal