Hi Friends,

Even as I launch this today ( my 80th Birthday ), I realize that there is yet so much to say and do. There is just no time to look back, no time to wonder,"Will anyone read these pages?"

With regards,
Hemen Parekh
27 June 2013

Now as I approach my 90th birthday ( 27 June 2023 ) , I invite you to visit my Digital Avatar ( www.hemenparekh.ai ) – and continue chatting with me , even when I am no more here physically

Wednesday 6 March 2019

We can do…….




And we must 


While hearing the Ayodhya dispute case yesterday, Hon Justice Bobde said :


  We have no control over the past . We can only do something about what exists in the present , that is the dispute “


Sources :


[ A ]

Shri Tushar Mehta ( tusharmehta.asg@gmail.com ) – Solicitor General for UP , said :


“ The court should refer the matter for mediation only when there exists an element of settlement “



[ B ]

Senior advocate, C S Vaidyanathan ,


 appearing for Ram Lalla Virajman, said :


  In a case of this nature, when Ayodhya is accepted as Ram Janmbhoomi, if any mediation is to take place, nobody can agree to some other place as Ram Janmsthan . That is non-negotiable.


Only thing to negotiate is an alternate place for a mosque. 


For this, we will be willing to crowdsource funds. 


This practically ended any scope for negotiation before it could begin


Mediation has not yielded any results in the past despite repeated attempts “




[ C ]

Senior Advocate, Rajeev Dhavan , ( rdhavan@gmail.com ) , appearing for the Muslim parties said :


“ There is no difference between court adjudicated verdict or a compromise which would
  result in a decree


  Both would be binding on the parties


  I would go one step further and suggest that it should be contempt of court if anyone
  reported about developments in the mediation process “



Muslim Bodies supported the court’s suggestion of mediation and said it should be done in-camera and nobody should be allowed to disclose the proceedings till the final report is given ( - like locking up the members of the jury in a room  ? Possible )




[ D ]

Supreme Court :


#  Asked all the parties concerned for the names of possible mediators for reaching an
    amicable settlement . “ Give names of mediators by today. We will pass orders shortly

 .
    Instead of one mediator, there could be a panel of mediators to thrash out the issue “



#  Media need not talk about what efforts are going on and what developments have taken
    place. 


We are considering whether it should be reported at all. 


It will not be a gag order
    but there should be confidentiality of the mediation process



#  Justice Chandrachud said :

    It could be difficult to ensure secrecy of the mediation process. In the event of reaching a
    compromise, could it be binding on the public, who are not parties to the case ?




#  Justice Bobde said  :


      You are pre-judging it .


       We are trying for mediation because it is not about a land dispute but involves
       sentiments and faith of people


       We are conscious of the gravity and importance of the dispute and its impact on the
       body polity  of the country


      It is all about mind, heart and feelings. But the law mandates that the court try and
      heal the minds and hearts.


      We cannot understand how anyone can reject it outright


      Desirability of a negotiated settlement cannot be ignored


      Why do you presume that you have to compromise ?




[ E ]

Dr Subramanian Swamy  ( swamy39@gmail.com ) said :


“ Any compromise must be within certain parameters – that all the land belongs to the
  Government and can be given to anyone to construct a temple “



=========================================================


From yesterday’s proceedings, the following is apparent  :



#    By reaching a “ negotiated settlement “ , all parties are afraid of being accused of a “
      Sell Out “ by their respective constituencies !


      Eg : “ If this is what you managed to get, why did you play with our feelings for 70
      years ? “



#   They would all like to “ Save their faces “ by having someone else ( even Supreme Court
     or a panel of mediators ) hand out a decision , so that they can say , 


“ What can we do ?

     We tried our level best !  We have to obey the law of the land “




#   They may not give names of any mediator/s , and start a new round of “ negotiations “
     in respect of the panel members !


     They would feel “ relieved “ if the Supreme Court selects those mediators on its own


     [  I have given 4 names of eminent persons in my earlier mail  ]




#   Supreme Court itself may be wanting to hand out a decree along the lines of my email

     [  A Home for Ram  ]

 

     but may not want to appear “ arbitrary – biased – dictatorial “


     For SC as well , it is necessary to appear “ Rational by adopting a well established
     legal process !


=========================================================

Dear

 Tushar Mehta  /  C S Vaidyanathan /  Rajeev Dhavan /  Subramanian Swamy  :


I urge you to enable “ Birth of Peace “ in Ayodhya , as described in :

 Reach - Out Time   ?    -                                    20  Sept  2013 

   

 Sarva Dharma Sthanam ?                                   02  Oct  2017  


 Let Ram’s Ayodhya be Secular                            31  Jan  2019  

 


=========================================================
07  March  2019

Rsvp :  hcp@RecruitGuru.com

No comments:

Post a Comment