Demolition of a political structure is a political act, comparable to an act of war.
Czars had built an Orthodox Church in the heart of Warsaw during their occupation of Poland. When Poland gained independence in 1918, the Polish Government pulled down the Orthodox Church.
About this pulling down, the judgement of a historian, Arnold Toynbee was this: "I do not greatly blame the Polish Government for having pulled down that Russian Church. The purpose for which the Russians had built it had not been religious but political, and the purpose had also been intentionally offensive." (Azad Memorial Lecture: One World and India, 1960).
I wonder why the Babri issue or a mandir for Sri Ram is being litigated in the courts. A political act of constructing the Masjid has been undone by another political act of tearing the structure down.
![Image result for ayodhya mandir]()
How does this political act become a subject of judicial adjudication? I suggest that the judicial institutions should not interfere in the time-barred Babri case and leave it to the judgement of history. One offensive act (building a Masjid) has been undone by another offensive act (bringing it down). Both are political acts, not subject to adjudication by the justice system.
I cite the doctrine of jus bellum iustum which justifies offensive action as morally justifiable. Morality justifies demolishing a structure which is a product of war. I think the courts err in invoking a doctrine of jus in bello (just conduct in war) because even under this doctrine, bringing down the offensive structure is NOT the worst option. Didn't Rousseau argue for insurrection against oppressive rule?
The issue is about land use. State should exercise its sovereign jurisdiction and decide on how the land should be used. If the State decides to use the Ayodhya land (where Masjid stood) to build a temple for Sri Ram, it is a political act in facets of both just bellum justum and jus in bello (just war and justice in war). There is no cause for action in any court of law because the courts are unlikely to arrive at justice in determining if the act of constructing a Masjid in the first place was a just act (by Babar or whoever).
An act of political offense is non-justiciable, since the rules of insurrection go beyond the framework of Rule of Law and hence, beyond the jurisdiction of the justice system -- even for determining the proportionality of the original offence and the counter-offence.
The key requirements of Just War Theory -- jus ad bellum (the right to go to war), and jus in bello (right conduct within war) are satisfied in the case for mandir for Sri Ram. The reasons for going to war are just and the reasons for the particular conduct of the war are also just -- by the touchstone of inalienable human rights.
To summarise, what the State decides is just.
Kalyanaraman
Czars had built an Orthodox Church in the heart of Warsaw during their occupation of Poland. When Poland gained independence in 1918, the Polish Government pulled down the Orthodox Church.
About this pulling down, the judgement of a historian, Arnold Toynbee was this: "I do not greatly blame the Polish Government for having pulled down that Russian Church. The purpose for which the Russians had built it had not been religious but political, and the purpose had also been intentionally offensive." (Azad Memorial Lecture: One World and India, 1960).
I wonder why the Babri issue or a mandir for Sri Ram is being litigated in the courts. A political act of constructing the Masjid has been undone by another political act of tearing the structure down.
How does this political act become a subject of judicial adjudication? I suggest that the judicial institutions should not interfere in the time-barred Babri case and leave it to the judgement of history. One offensive act (building a Masjid) has been undone by another offensive act (bringing it down). Both are political acts, not subject to adjudication by the justice system.
I cite the doctrine of jus bellum iustum which justifies offensive action as morally justifiable. Morality justifies demolishing a structure which is a product of war. I think the courts err in invoking a doctrine of jus in bello (just conduct in war) because even under this doctrine, bringing down the offensive structure is NOT the worst option. Didn't Rousseau argue for insurrection against oppressive rule?
The issue is about land use. State should exercise its sovereign jurisdiction and decide on how the land should be used. If the State decides to use the Ayodhya land (where Masjid stood) to build a temple for Sri Ram, it is a political act in facets of both just bellum justum and jus in bello (just war and justice in war). There is no cause for action in any court of law because the courts are unlikely to arrive at justice in determining if the act of constructing a Masjid in the first place was a just act (by Babar or whoever).
An act of political offense is non-justiciable, since the rules of insurrection go beyond the framework of Rule of Law and hence, beyond the jurisdiction of the justice system -- even for determining the proportionality of the original offence and the counter-offence.
The key requirements of Just War Theory -- jus ad bellum (the right to go to war), and jus in bello (right conduct within war) are satisfied in the case for mandir for Sri Ram. The reasons for going to war are just and the reasons for the particular conduct of the war are also just -- by the touchstone of inalienable human rights.
To summarise, what the State decides is just.
Kalyanaraman