I agree that in the pulic interest obstacles must be removed. The only thing is can the court give to demolish a minority constructions. When the highway was built from Eluru to Vizag in AP, about 25 tmeples and innumerable trees which were sanctuaries for a variety of birds were demolished (I was told) but when ever a mosque or church came, the h.way was diverted. In the public interest they needed to go too. If I were the judge I would order the wall to be removed if it is a nusance to public-but would still remain the judge if I deliver the same verdict for minority Institution? Somehow I do not think so.
Mr.D'Souza u said "a wall that should never have been built" , what do u mean by that , do u mean let the hindu temples be with out any security and let the terrerists attack them at will. What r ur comments on the minority rioters who go on damaging public property when the authorities try to touch their religious places most of which are built inbetween the roads. yes go and see the old city in hyderabad and remember the riots in a Gujarat city when authorities tried to demolish a muslim religious place after demolishing some 40 hindu religious places. No secular idiot said a word when hindu religious places were demolished but a single muslim religious place was touched and it became a national issue. Let ther be a new wall built with-out causing inconvenience to public. And please write a column about the illegal minority religious places which are great inconvenience to the people.
I agree with Dilip and also agree that justice has been done. On the other hand, I find it strange. A D'souza or a Firdaus Ali can easily talk about how Hindu temples create problems in the city (I think I can detect a sense of communal rivalry in Dilip's tone). But wonder why a Hindu can never talk logically about Muslim azaans from a mosque near a hospital creating problems. Or Christian masses in the Little Mount church in Guindy, chennai causing a traffic jam almost everyday in one of the busiest intersections in chennai? WHY???? When will the Hindus find their voice??
I have gone through all the articles written by you in rediff. It is clear from it that you want to come in politics and want to use so called minority vote bank. You seems to be well educated, please don't try to devide the nation and stop writting such articals.
The wall around siddhivanayak is needed for safety of Mumbai and Mumbaikars.
A lawful action
by Azad on Oct 19, 2006 10:07 AM Permalink
The Siddhivinayak temple is located right abutting the twin forks at either side. This makes the whole place a very busy one at all times of the day. The devotees of the temple only add to the crowd. The devotees form the slow moving crowd around the temple, the small flower and puja material stalls further restricting the traffic movement. The wall is clearly an obstruction and it is only appropriate that it is removed to make space for pedestrian movement. The blatant encroachment has been rightly corrected and must be welcomed in public interest. Jai Hind
RE:Dear ONLY YOU need mental treatment !
by Ahimsa Anand on Oct 19, 2006 03:12 AM Permalink
If even demolishing a wall in public interest built around a temple is minority appeasement you are surely suffering from a "Minority Phobia"!!! It is people like you who are dividing the country on religious lines and not such write-ups. You advise yourself first and then come to others.
RE:Dear you need mental treatment
by mac on Oct 19, 2006 02:30 PM Permalink
I agree to this.. Sir, while I do agree that our courts do give sound and unbaised judgements tmie and again, I do not agree to the baised and irresponsible judgements you have given.. Why choosen these examples out of the countless we have where courts have been fair..
I would really like to know what you would say if at all there is indeed an attack on the sacred place and the security forces are not able to counter after the protection is removed.. Would you still complain..
Rediff editiors, do you edit and challenge irresponsible judgements from being published online ???
i always mantain that our lower judiciary at all levels is the most corrupted in the developed nations.city magistrates upto CJM,trial courts mainly having PCS(J)/black coat(DEEDS) promoted ones are main culprits
RE:most corrupted lower judiciary--mentally/greed
by Satish on Oct 20, 2006 03:13 PM Permalink
Dear Dilip,
The city of Bombay has been renamed as "Mumbai" more than 12 years ago. However, you are constantly refusing to recognize this change. In this column as well as in your previous columns (I remember one column with title "Give me my Bombay"), you have constantly used Bombay instead of its legal and official name "Mumbai".
Can I ask you why you are not ready to use "Mumbai"? Is their any harm using it? Will it harm you, any community, minorities, dalits etc.? Is it a shame to use "Mumbai" instead of Bombay?
You may not have liked the new name, but the change is legal and official. Just like Peking became Bejing, Burma became Myanmar, Madras became Chennai, Trivendram became Tiruvanantapuram, Badoda became Wadodara . . . erstwhile Bombay has also became Mumbai.
Do you still use the old names for all cities mentioned above? If not, then why are you still using Bomabay instead of "Mumbai"?
Or is it because you are a D'Souza and thus you are more comfortable using a non-Indian sounding name?
If you are not ready to recognize a valid legal change, what rights do you have to write on justice and legal systems?
