Reflections on J.Krishnamurti

LIFE...LIVE...The ‘f’ in life renders it so many dimensions-failures, fears, fame, forlorn and on and on. LIVE is so uncomplicated, so within the moment, mindless, fleeting and atomic. The other day I was wondering, human mind is very well exemplified by a squirrel-restless, impatient and wandering.

As a species, we are a crisis in motion, aware of our diminutiveness to the whole and yet suffering from the syndrome to strive for identity. Why is anonymity such a sin? Why can’t I be nobody? Not identify with anything but emptiness and consequently not identify emptiness with negation and finiteness but with beauty and infiniteness.

It is always engrossing to hear J. Krishnamurti and read his commentaries and writings on living(not life!). His answer to the question ‘who are you or who am I’ was enquiring and penetrating. Are we the ‘story of mankind’? Product of imitations? If our education is not largely a pursuit of imitations of various kinds, then how is it that the self is so attached to the want of an identity? The self finds it impossible to be free from the clutches of identity....it cannot be anonymous. All our inner and outer activities become gratification of our self, to be made exclusive, to be recognised. The famous, the popular is pursued and the anonymity is deprecated. We strive.

Everyday is lived with a purpose, a goal. An achievement made and another to make. It gives gratification to self, a meaning to life. If one day you wake up and are told that life is meaningless, you will get depressed. But why? When only the finite has the meaning. A rose is totally meaningless. It is just there for no reason at all.....beautiful, infinite, mysterious.

The self makes all the effort to move away from what it is. Through renunciation or acquisition, either way it continues moving away from what it actually is. Apart from the name, the position, the profession, the attributes, the idiosyncrasies what is ‘the self’? Is there the ‘I’ when the very qualities are snatched away? Or is it the very fear of being totally poor that drives the self into constant activity; for it is nothing but emptiness. The emptiness that is beautiful like the rose and whose embrace brings about the transformation within. It is the experiencing of what is without naming it to get freedom from what is.

Structure & the Tree

Somehow, I have always found this gift of wry smile very dear to me. Dear Uncle Dick was quintessentially for this blog to wake up from its slumber, wearing a grey suit last worn in 1960s. And, when I start smiling while standing across him in the Delhi metro, he looks at me with an eye that has sympathy (the one for a crackpot weirdo). Behold Delhi Metro! Uncle Dick feels the sudden surge to strangle me with his words of wisdom. Seeing the awkwardness, I point him to the poster behind......”Manipal university- Now in Jaipur”..........nearby all the eccentrics, visionaries, a man reading obituary, another having a blackberry; all look up. One of them from that elite club sheds his inhibitions and asks “so?”.....and I say that “nothing, I was just reminded of a similar poster that read BIG BAZAAR-Now in Bangalore”

Ladies and Gentlemen, facebook-err(s) and suckers, today I plan to get adrift from the world of cronies and ponies, the world made of gravitas, pietas, dignitas and virtus.......”all the children are insane, waiting for the summer rain.....”so rambles Jim Morrison and intermittently interrupted by the buzz of cell phone orchestrated by another of those nagging, dragging, sagging wags....I wonder! So has been the evolutionary outcome that we mask the savage with structure....The manifestation of structure contradicts the very essence of existentiality but still exists as a manifestation all the time.....a projection or a paradox? Or perhaps both?

Listen to Bach.....it flows.....flows and stays....See a Michelangelo....it stays and stays....the quintessential beauty in its two forms or rather one with a form and other with none.But beauty like that belongs to everyone so love like beauty should too and then do I intend to proclaim “everyone belongs to everyone else” courtesy Aldous Huxley, Brave New World? Hell, No! But rather like a point source of light (for my love for optics!!) it should radiate in all directions........like my Boss!! Who does the complete antagonistic process to be hailed as “the Black Body” radiation...

For, in fact, what is man in nature? A Nothing in comparison with the Infinite, an All in comparison with the Nothing, a mean between nothing and everything. Since he is infinitely removed from comprehending the extremes, the end of things and their beginning are hopelessly hidden from him in an impenetrable secret; he is equally incapable of seeing the Nothing from which he was made, and the Infinite in which he is swallowed up.

I saw ‘The Tree Of Life’ last night. Just like Sean Penn, who spends the day in the office remembering about his brothers and family, the most urgent thing I feel I have to do this morning is to write about the movie. I haven't be so much impressed by a story, a song or a a film from a very long time.

It should go without saying, but let me tell you that this is not a film you should see if you just want to stop thinking about your life for a couple of hours. This should be kind of automatic, i know: but it's worth mentioning, as it would be really a pity to see flourishing such comments or opinions like "i was expecting something else" or "it's very slow paced" or "i didn't really understand that part of the story". Go watch this movie if you want (or: if you NEED) to think about yourself and your life and your story and your future MORE than you usually do, not less. Go watch this movie if you want to find a companion voice wondering together with you about what kind of relationship can be found between our personal stories and the story of the universe, between the quickness of a lizard running across a summer cornfield in Texas and the infinite spaces dividing the countless stars of the universe, between the tenderness of the love that you felt for your parents as a child and the plain fact that in order to grow up, to reproduce that love, you had to leave that child and that love behind you. The voice will help you to realize that the missing links are actually there, in front of your eyes; that in order to see them, your eyes must be open; and that regaining the innocence that seemed lost forever is the key, and the result, of understanding and accepting the presence of those links, opening your eyes.

THE ILLUSION

The illusion of remembering is both gratifying and devastating; moreover, so much is its pervasiveness that the existence of an extended insomnia is deceived with an illusion of life. And we wake up from the sleep to realize that the eternal sleep is not the illusion, rather its very cognizance is the precursor to the discovery of existentialism for every soul. But, the preponderance of illusion over realism, though seemingly a hyperbole on the outset, is the stimulation of our being and the quintessence of that ever criticized delusional divinity. Then, why we suffer from that need to be awakened from the illusion? The biological, that arrogant scientific answer is too polemical and becomes prostrate with impudence too soon; an illusion it casts in itself. May be we shall never arrive at a conclusion but the ramifications of the illusion throws our brevity and fragility on our face and shows how beguiling this greatest paradox probably is…..The illusion of the earthly virtues and the ever ephemeral rationale, the illusion of enigmatic belief…..the illusion that leads to the most mystic illusion – “the illusion of I”

Viddy well little brother, Viddy Well!

For those that view cinematic entertainment as popcorn with CGI sequences of continual action then this will annoy and likely disappoint you, and for those that will not look past this film's exterior, I am sorry you missed out, but this is cinematic entertainment at its purest, thoughtful and thought-out theatre which will play with your mind, and you may not even know it.As many know, A Clockwork Orange at its heart is the story of state control versus free will, but at such extreme ends of the spectrum that it can off-put some.Stanley Kubrick takes an allegedly unfilmable novel by Anthony Burgess and transforms it into one of the great masterpieces of cinema. What, exactly, is A Clockwork Orange? A sci-fi social study? A fiercely thought-provoking and disturbing black comedy? A prescient warning of where society is headed? A criticism of how the law deals with crime and criminals? The list could go on and on, for the film could indeed be described as many things. But whichever way one chooses to approach the film, one thing is certain: it is without doubt one of the most uncompromisingly challenging examinations of the many faces of violence ever made. Where lies the attraction of violence, what are the consequences of violence, is there a solution to violence? It would be easy to expect a glib and sentimental answer to such questions, perhaps some comfortable conclusion that even the most evil of individuals is good at heart. But A Clockwork Orange avoids sentimentality and glibness and comfortable conclusions. This is a chilling film which points out that a solution to one evil is very often the evolution of another.Clockwork Orange places characters into categorical extrema. There are the ultra-conservatives who refuse to believe in a problematic society (Alex's parents). There are the women and men who become victims of brutality (rape and beaten victims). And finally exists the stereotypical sexually aggressive, libido-driven males who wreak havoc on society (the gangs). These stereotypical extrema exaggerate society in a way which critiques the behavior of individuals. Deriving from these specifics is a theme of predator-prey between males and females. Females appear only in powerless situations, which they have no control and no resolve. Women become a backdrop to the film, casting their importance away in society.

There were a spate of dystopian science-fiction movies made in the early seventies - Soylent Green, THX 1138, Rollerball, Logan's Run, etc - all of which vaguely look and feel like each other, but none of them are anything like Kubrick's future shock classic. Instead of spending a fortune on flashy spotless techno-sets, it was shot in incredibly ugly (even by sixties standards) concrete housing estates in Thamesmead and Wandsworth in south London and concentrates on its characters and social setups. Its genius is not to focus on what the future looks like, but what life would be like, and its prophecy of a bland, uncaring society and a government obsessed with popularity, social engineering and restricting personal freedom is absolutely bang-on (if you don't believe me, think about how much our leaders now spend on polls and thinktanks and how much legislation they pass simply because they don't trust us). Morally, it also has a completely original structure - it gives us a loathsome, horrible protagonist, shows him at his very worst, and then asks us to identify and sympathise with him as he is pulped through a cruel political machinery seeking only to exploit him. Through your reaction to this, Kubrick is really defining your own character, an incredible thing for a movie to do. If you think Alex really is an irredeemable thug (as so many self-appointed moral guardians did when the movie was released) then you know very little of human nature and how environment influences us. But if you sympathise with him (as I do), what does that say about you ? Through Alex, the movie examines the odd connection and conflict between morality and intelligence / identity / creativity, and does so on multiple levels - personal, social, religious, even biological. Kubrick's chief desire in his movies was to get the audience to think and ask questions, and the ultimate question here is when Alex is cured at the end, is that good or bad ? My answer is that it's both good and bad, but it's undeniably sensational and mindbending. The lynchpin of these questions, and the film in general, is the career-best performance by the sublime McDowell as Alex.He simply is Alex; he's physically amazing, he grasps the tone (especially the humorous aspects) of the character completely, he understands the movie's purpose and he plays each scene with incredible power, his cunning blue eyes and gleeful smirk burning up the screen. This is not straight drama or method acting, it's an extremely stylised performance to suit the movie, but it's just sensational in every way. The moment in the penultimate shot, when McDowell grimaces and stares insanely upwards, his bestial machismo restored, is the ultimate Kubrick Look, which recurs in many of his films, but never better personified than here. The rest of the cast are a terrific bunch of weirdos, notably Clarke, Morris and Stone, and Sharp gives his oily politician just the right mixture of snobbish disdain and patronising double-talk.

In the UK the film was stigmatised as glorifying violence (Straw Dogs and The Exorcist suffered similar fates) and a hate campaign against Kubrick resulted in his pulling it; outside of bootlegs it was impossible to see here until after his death in 1999. This is both extraordinary - that a director would have the power to pull his own movie out of circulation - and detestable - that philistine idiots who object to artistic freedom would resort to the type of violence they pretend to be protecting everybody else from. The movie remains a work of total genius, and its stunning originality and extraordinary imagery are to be savoured.The Background score is incredible (Beethoven anyone?), Malcolm McDowell is unbelievable and given his performance you can see why Kubrick said he wouldn't go ahead with the film if he couldn't get his signature. Visually the film is fantastic, and the vernacular used (called NASDAT I believe) is enthralling.

Kubrick was never a director afraid to take a risk, this was his follow up to 2001: a space odyssey (1968), it cost a mere $2 million dollars, how many directors can claim to make a risk like that, very few that I can think of. Which makes it all the more surprising whilst watching A Clockwork orange, with the fact that Kubrick was a man of his forties when he made the film, yet he has such an understanding of his young characters, he puts us with the evil droogs and still manages to make us care something for them. This was of course the problem with the film. Kubrick making us feel empathy for these amoral characters made the film one of the most controversial ever made (in Britain mainly) it seamed to be a culmination of all the problems that seemed to be around at the time - of course, as we all know now - Kubrick withdrew it.The first half is a joyously fast forty minutes, cut to a frantic, almost non-stop music score. The second half, much slower, much more silent, as if Kubrick is showing us what kind of pain Alex is going through, even if his character hides it under charm and constant exuberance.

Oddly enough in these modern days, the scariest thing about A Clockwork Orange is nothing that stems from the screen, but the growing notion that we are closer to the reality of Alex with every day...

lolita: a murder of morals or is it?

It took me a lot of time to convince myself that Lolita was not a love story but a tale of self-deception and rationalization masquerading as "love". Its a conundrum,an illusion that requires a lot of insight into Humbert Humbert and still one might be on the edge.The character's construction is a marvel in itself,you will repel and sympathise at the same time while forgetting his lecherous desires.The narrator, Humbert Humbert, is a fascinating construction. As readers, we find ourselves simultaneously repelled by his actions and sympathetic to his yearning. We are utterly charmed by his wit, intelligence and verbal acrobatics, sometimes to the point where we lost sight of what he's doing to his object of desire, Lolita.
I would suggest that all readers reaquaint themselves with the concept of the "unreliable narrator" before they sink into Humbert's hypnotic web of logic. When you find yourself sympathizing with Hum about Lolita's "cruelties", try to remember that you are seeing everything through his twisted and self-serving lens. Humbert has rationalized his behavior so deeply and reports it to us so entertainingly, that we find ourselves accepting his interpretations of people and events at face value. However, we must remember that Hum is capable of the most monsterous of deceptions (note how long it takes him to inform Lolita of her mother's demise), and of self deceptions. Read between the lines. Question his reading of events. Pay attention when his reporting is at odds with his interpretations of them. As one example, Humbert tells us that he was seduced by Lolita, giving us the impression that she was sexually mature and a willing partner. Contrast that with his throwaway mentioning of her "performing" for him in exchange for treats, and watching television as he took his pleasure in her. And don't ignore Lolita sobbing each night, as he seems to do.
Look beyond the circus to the grime beneath it, and appreciate the mastery that gives us both.

I would therefore like to restrict my comments to the morality of the book, and to those who to this day view the book with outrage. Even those who admire the book somehow feel compelled to comment that they are "disturbed" by it. Why is this? Let us first examine the novel itself.
As everybody knows, it is the story of Humbert Humbert, a full-grown, adult male--not an old man--who seduces a compliant twelve-year old girl, and then goes on to have a year or so long "affair" with her. I put the term "affair" in quotation marks, because it probably isn't appropriate to describe a sexual relationship between a full grown male and a female child in such terms. Is it safe to say that most rational human beings disapprove of such relationships? It is certainly safe to say that Nabakov--and his narrator--know that such relationships are wrong. This is important. The tale is not only told in the context of a moral universe, it is also told by a character who is in acceptance of a moral universe. Oh, he makes a comment here and there about some medieval king marrying his twelve year old cousin, but clearly, his heart isn't in it. He knows that he is a monster, a "brute."
Indeed, his goal was never to have sex with a conscious Lolita to begin with. His goal initially was only to fondle her after drugging her to induce sleep; she was never to know what he was doing. Of course this is also reprehensible, but clearly it shows a conscience at work. A conscience motivated in part by fear, to be sure, but also a conscience for the welfare--at least early on--of this little girl. Conscience is not normally a factor in purely prurient forms of entertainment.
Following this encounter, he takes Lolita on a journey across, around, and through the United States, living in hotel rooms, and buying clothes and food on the move. Toward the end of this, we find one of the most moving paragraphs in literature: "And so we rolled East . . . We had been everywhere. We had really seen nothing. And I catch myself thinking today that our long journey had only defiled with a sinuous trail of slime the lovely, trustful, dreamy, enormous country that by then, in retrospect, was no more to us than a collection of dog-eared maps, ruined tour-books, old tires, and her sobs in the night--every night, every night--the moment I feigned sleep." The narrator's revelation of such anguish on the part of his victim clearly works against the argument that this novel was merely intended to be pornographic.
Humbert makes it clear that he loves his Lolita. There can be no mistake about this. He loves the way she moves. He loves the down on her arm. He loves her grace on the tennis court. He loves the way she flicks her head at him when looking up from a book. He loves her toes, her shoes, her name. He describes her in beautiful, poignant, poetic language, memorable and moving in every respect. Indeed the English language has rarely been used so wonderfully. But nowhere in this book does he describe in such terms or any other terms her sexual characteristics, or comment at length or in glaring detail his physical relations with her.
Finally, there is no effort to sugar-coat the effect of all of this on Lolita herself. We learn that after she left Humbert, she entered into a series of tawdry sexual escapades--still at too young an age--with a debased playwright. We last see her in her late teens, married to a bumpkin, and living in a clapboard shack surrounded by weeds.
Obviously, to anybody who has bothered to read this book, the presentation of the subject matter is not what is objectionable. Therefore, what apparently disturbs most people is the subject matter itself. But why? Why doesn't the latest grisly serial-killer-of-the-month novel inspire such protest? (Has there ever been a time in the history of the world in which so many novels have been written about serial killers?) Why not the barely-disguised soft-porn trash by Danielle Steele or Jackie Collins? Or the latest Anne Rice gore fest? While Lolita is not really a morality tale, it certainly doesn't glorify its subject matter the way novels such as these do.
So what is it? I think that with Lolita Nabakov has perhaps unconsciously touched a nerve. We, as humans, are rational creatures. We know what is right, and we have set rules for ourselves to follow. Everybody agrees that murder is wrong. But sexual mores have changed and continue to change in our affluent Western societies. Abortion has become legal, which gives women more sexual freedom. Homosexuality has become acceptable, which allows men more sexual freedom. Prostitution and pornography are rampant. Without discussing the morality of any of this, our society is now in rapidly changing and uncharted territory. Perhaps the objection to Lolita is from those who look at the book, and wonder how far we are going to go.

book review:Satanic Verses

This is a tour de force, a show of strength, a performance. It's the sort of novel that requires a Big Style and a lot of learning to write. It's not the sort of thing that can be attempted by just anybody. I could not write this book. Few people besides Rushdie could even attempt it. It is stamped with the mark of the man himself--his culture, his milieu, his education, his beliefs, his passion and his experience. And what are "The Satanic Verses"? They are lyrical yearnings made verbal depicting the clash between the world of rationality and that of superstition, between the world at the time of the Prophet and today's world, between the cold fog of England and the hot sweat of India and the Middle East, between the rationality of the Enlightenment and the mythology of a time long ago, between a secular interpretation of life and a religious one. In short there really is a clash of civilizations that is being worked out in today's world, and Rushdie is here to give us his take on this earth-shaking process.

Better to risk the time on Tolstoy, Melville or Joyce where one has the report of literary history as a guide. Here we have a novel reviled and revered but only a little over 22 years of age. A lot of flash and glimmer goes by the way of the popular mind toward something Great, but in time may be more clearly seen as pedestrian, even banal, faddish and brought before our eyes by the celebrity of some event--like a sentence of murder upon its author--only to fade with the yellowing of the newspapers of yesteryear.

It will stay in print for decades and remain a torn in the side of the followers of the Prophet until they lose their hatreds, their prejudices and especially their fears. Yes, Islam fears. It fears science, education, Western culture, women and much of what constitutes the post-modern world. Unlike learned arguments and reasoned debates or shouting matches that change no minds, this novel will persuade many (mostly young) minds that a religion born in the barren, superstitious desert, sired by the tribal mentality of the Bronze Age, and forced upon others by the sword has no more relevance to today's problems and challenges than the religions it replaced. The problem for the reader is not the length of the novel. It is in the fact that few readers will have the background necessary to appreciate much of the references, allusions, puns, jokes, asides, and other bits of wordsmithing from the very cosmopolitan and worldly Salman Rushdie. But no matter. It will require some effort of attention and concentration, some very real investment of time and effort on the part of the reader; but as the pages turn and the fantasy begins to stand out from the realism, as the time of Mahound clashes clearly with the time of an Indian/Muslim Bollywood actor, as the Ayesha of ancient is differentiated from the Ayesha of today, as the Gibreel of the film is made distinct from the Gibreel of legend--indeed as the web of mystery and magic, of fact and fantasy, of goats and gods becomes a fabric like a woven rug of artistry, one begins to appreciate Rushdie's intent and artistry. And this is the way it is with all great works of literature: there are levels. On the level of the mass mind, there is a world of people and events; on the level of the initiated, there is added a rich vocabulary of shared intellectual experiences. But Rushdie is no dry intellectual novelist: he can create intriguing characters and the tension necessary to sustain a narrative. Now what is needed (I believe) for all but the most learned readers is a guide to the novel written by someone who knows Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, modern culture and has a good grasp of their histories. Such a guide will be written by some academic somewhere--and indeed may have already been written, or is being written. And so I read the novel from beginning to end and found it uneven and marvelous, a bit obtuse at first but as my familiarity with Rushdie's intent, style, and structure grew, so too did my enjoyment of this rich satire. Yes, this is a satire similar in intent to the works of Voltaire or Twain however distant in style they may be. It is a satire upon not only Islam and Hinduism and the mass culture from Dhaka to Manchester, but a satire on the never-ending delusions of a pitiful, but ever hopeful humanity.

the land of misinterpreted faith...

The dispute over Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid, it is said, is creation of the colonial rule. It is difficult to be very sure on how far direct is the hand of the colonial rule in inventing and or sustaining the dispute between some elements from both the communities. However, there is little doubt that the colonial rule benefited from the dispute and therefore did not seem to take effective steps to see the dispute resolved. The authorities under the Colonial rule allowed the dispute over title of the land to acquire communal overtones. Whatever the former colonial masters did, or omitted to do, the post-Colonial state fared even worst in the matter. Post-Colonial State allowed the dispute over the land title to almost completely polarise the two communities. Essentially a title suit between the plaintiffs and the defendants over a piece of land was allowed to acquire religious and communal colour with competing all India mobilisations by political leadership belonging to both the communities. Even the most secular Prime Minister of the country - Jawaharlal Nehru found himself unable to resolve the dispute and / or stop it from acquiring communal colour, when he had the opportunity in 1949.

There are no two opinions that in the year 1528 a mosque was built by Mir Baqi by one of the Governors of the Mughal Emperor Babar. The Sangh Parivar maintains that this mosque was built after destroying a Ramjanmabhoomi temple, which existed on the land whereas the Muslim political leaders as well as most reputed historians of integrity insist that there is no credible proof that there was any Ramjanmabhoomi temple.

After the anti-British rebellion in 1857, the crown proclaimed that it would remain aloof and would not interfere in the religious matters of people of the Country. The Colonial power however, was often called upon to mediate disputes between communities. The Colonial State did not prove to be an honest mediator in the disputes. The state had its own axe to grind - legitimising the rule of the intruder being the uppermost. At times, the state even invented and created new disputes so that it was called upon the mediate. Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute appears to one of such disputes created by the Colonial rulers. The District Gazetteer of 1905 notes that till 1855, Hindus and Muslims prayed in the same premises which is now contentious Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. After 1857 rebellion, an outer enclosure was put in front of the mosque and the Hindus who were forbidden access to the inner yard raised an outer platform (chabutra).

Hindu priests wanted a temple constructed on the Chabutra to be able to conduct their worship without vagaries of weather, as Chabutra was an open platform. It is not clearly known as to when and how the Chabutra came to be constructed, and whether the Chabutra was raised on a land having legal title or an usurped land adjoining the mosque called Babri Mosque.

In 1934 riots, which were triggered off by the slaughter of a cow in the village of Shahjahanpur near Ayodhya, riotous mobs demolished part of the wall surrounding the mosque and damaged the domes. However, the mosque was restored at the cost of the Government.Interestingly, there was also litigation between Shia Central Board of Waqf and Sunni Central Board of Waqf in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. An inquiry was conducted the Commissioner of waqfs under the UP Muslim Wafqs Act. By judgement dated 23/3/46, it was held that the mosque was found by Babar Shah and used by members of both sects.

Till 22nd December1949, Muslims offered namaz in the Babri Masjid. However, on the night of 22nd December 1949, idols of Bhagwan shri Ramchandra were surreptitiously smuggled and installed inside the mosque. Constable Mata Prasad at Ayodhya Police Station reported the incident next day morning and the District Magistrate K.K. Nayar sent the following message to the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary by radiogram:
"A few Hindus entered Babri Masjid at night when the masjid was deserted and installed a deity there, DM and SP and force at spot. Situation under control, Police picket of 15 persons was on duty at night but did not apparently act."
K. K. Nayar, who later contested elections on the then Jan Sangh ticket, wrote in his diary:
"The crowd made a most determined attempt to force entry. The lock was broken and policemen rushed off their legs. All of us, officers and men, somehow pushed the crowd back and held the gate. The gate was secured and locked with a powerful lock brought from outside and the police force was strengthened."

The decade of 1980 will be remembered as a bloody decade with communal clashes all over the country as the issue of Ramjanambhumi was politicised and nationalised by the Sangh Parivar. The Ramjanambhumi, which had hitherto remained a dispute between some elements from both communities in Ayodhya, was taken to every nook and corner in most cities and even rural areas all over the country. The demand for which the mobilisation was aimed was to open the lock of the Babri Masjid and permit puja and darshan. After the lock was opened, the next demand was handing over the entire site for construction of Ramjanmabhumi Temple and shifting of the mosque outside panchkoshi parikrama. Legally, it was difficult to achieve this fete without the intervention of the courts and the state. The issue of title of the property, which is the main legal issue involved in the dispute pending in the courts operates against the protagonist of Ramjanmabhumi temple. For right to worship cannot be claimed as an easement on somebody else's property. So far as law is concerned, faith and belief, or even proof of place of birth of Bhagwan Ramchandra is also not a relevant issue to decide the title and / or grant right to worship. Agitational mobilisation by the Sangh Parivar was to pressurise the state and the courts to act and the pressure did work.
First the UP State acquired the place surrounding the place in the name of providing certain facilities to the pilgrims, the site on which Rajiv Gandhi laid foundation stone of the Ramjanmabhumi on in November 1990. Babri Masjid was then demolished on 6.12.92 by mobs mobilised by the Sangh Parivar. The Courts as well as the state allowed the mob to assemble in the naïve belief that the Mosque will not be touched.

Then the Union Government issued ordinance named 'Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance' on 7.1.93 for acquisition of 67.703 acres of land, including the site of Babri Masjid. The Ordinance was later replaced by an Act. The Union Government also made a Special Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court for the opinion of the Court on:
"Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi - Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood".
The reference itself was slanted in favour of the majority community. The Court was called upon to give its opinion whether any Hindu religious structure existed prior to construction of Ram Janma Bhumi - Babri Masjid. ... The structure that stood was certainly not "Ramjanma Bhumi" but Babri Masjid admittedly constructed by Mir Baqi. The only contention of the protagonist of Ramjanma Bhumi Temple being that the same was after demolition of Janam Asthan Temple. Secondly, no time frame was prescribed for examination of existence of Ram Janma Bhumi - Babri Masjid. If the referendum had been answered in positive, the Union Government would have been compelled to hand over the entire site on which Babri Masjid stood to the Hindu litigants or a trust or association. The Supreme Court however rejected the reference as superfluous.

To summarise, admittedly, Babri Masjid was built by Mir Baqi in the year 1528 and is noted in the waqf register of Sunni Central Board of Waqf. In 1885 and 1886, the claim of the Hindu litigants was only on the Chabutra as they wanted to construct a structure to protect the devotees from the vagaries of the weather and no more. On the strength of adverse possession, the courts dealing with the dispute during the colonial period rejected the prayers of the Hindu litigants to construct any structure even on the Chabutra. The prayers were rejected even though the courts held (it is not known on what evidence) that the Masjid was built on land held sacred by the Hindus but that occurred 356 years ago on the same spot. After independence, the Hindu litigants adopted incremental approach, slowly enlarging their rights and claims with combination of surreptitious acts, agitational mobilisation and repeated applications to the court. Surreptitious acts when no legal claim left on their side. Another round of litigation on threat of agitational mobilisation. The claims were based not on the strength of title to the property but on their right to unhindered and unrestricted worship. After the idols were smuggled inside the Mosque, there was another round of litigation, which virtually ignored the title and turned the court into a receiver of the property giving the Hindus increasing access to the property as and by way of right to worship, while the Muslim community was denied the access in spite of the fact that the property was a waqf property. After the locks were opened in 1986 on the ground that there would be no problem maintaining law and order if the locks are open, the Hindu nationalist forces were emboldened even more. As they were mobilising their forces and indulging into hate propaganda, the State remained a mute bystander refusing to act and take preventive measures for maintenance of law and order. Even the courts when they had the opportunity did not act decisively and the hoodlums of Hindu nationalist forces were allowed to assemble in large numbers, ultimately resulting in demolition of Babri Mosque and construction of a make shift temple. The Courts as well as the executive rewarded those who demolished the Mosque by legitimising the "rights" acquired by force in the name of maintaining status - quo and maintaining law and order. The Central Govt. acquired the disputed site and the surrounding areas under the Acquisition Act, thus depriving the Muslim litigants of their defence or claim of adverse possession to the disputed site. The Supreme Court majority Judgement legitimised the acquisition by state in the name of maintaining public order. The litigants from the minority community, we feel, are fighting a losing battle - not because their claim to the title of the disputed site is weak or defective, but because they cannot match the power of the Hindu nationalist forces in creating law and order problem, which is material in influencing the decision making in our country. The Hindu nationalist forces have enlarged their rights and claims from Chabutra to worship on the very disputed site not because of their legitimate claim but by threatening not to obey the orders of the Court in matters of "faith".