06 December 2019
Last Update: 2019-12-06 00:00:00

This Video Recommends Leftwards sleeping







Magar(Sudi)10,Nanak Shahi 551.

. Message of the Day .

Ignorance is related to stupidity instead of information. Lack of information is very limited definition of Ignorance. The world has become vast and complex for having all round information of everything. A normal child is born with senses known as instincts. He cries when gets born.  He is supposed to cry when feels hungry. He weeps when his clothes or bed is soiled. These are sign of his being normal and sensible but he is confined to himself only. His senses grow when he comes in contact with external world. He is supposed to be able to differentiate between good and bad before attaining adulthood. A person who is unable to establish relationship between cause and effect to differentiate between good and bad for himself, his family, society and humanity at large and remains confined to himself is abnormal and stupid. We come across such stupid despite having being well educated where as many illiterates prove themselves to be sensible.

Though the democracy has not achieved the goal of being the government of the people, by the people and for the people yet in the age of Human Rights, the time has arrived to follow the life style to live and let others live. Life should not remain burden. Thoughts and actions must result in contentment and happiness to him and develop the society of his origin in particular and humanity at large. The life will be meaningful to deliver

 .History of Mankind-52 .

Reconstruction of Homo heidelbergensis which may be the direct ancestor of both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens. H. heidelbergensis ("Heidelberg Man") lived from about 800,000 to about 300,000 years ago. Also proposed as Homo sapiens heidelbergensis or Homo sapiens paleohungaricus.

H. rhodesiensis, estimated to be 300,000–125,000 years old. Most current researchers place Rhodesian Man within the group of Homo heidelbergensis, though other designations such as archaic Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens rhodesiensis have been proposed.

In February 2006 a fossil, the Gawis cranium, was found which might possibly be a species intermediate between H. erectus and H. sapiens or one of many evolutionary dead ends. The skull from Gawis, Ethiopia, is believed to be 500,000–250,000 years old. Only summary details are known, and the finders have not yet released a peer-reviewed study. Gawis man's facial features suggest its being either an intermediate species or an example of a "Bodo man" female. 

Historical . 

Significant Event of 4th December. .

Ayodhya case:

A brief history of India’s longest running property dispute

One of the longest-running battles in India’s legal history has just concluded. The first case in the Ayodhya title dispute was filed 134 years ago. Over the decades, it has wound its way up through the legal hierarchy, starting from Faizabad Civil Court to Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court, even as India went from being a colony ruled by the British to an independent republic, with its own fault lines.

Here are some of the important milestones of the case, which also saw the birth of one of the most significant political mobilisations in modern India, in the form of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.
Before Independence

The first recorded legal history in Ayodhya dispute dates back to 1858. An FIR was filed on November 30, 1858, by one Mohd Salim against a group of Nihang Sikhs who had installed their nishan and written “Ram” inside the Babri mosque. They also performe havan and puja. Sheetal Dubey, the thanedar (the station house office of yore) of Avadh, in his report on December 1, 1858, verified the complaint and even said that a chabutra (platform) has been constructed by the Sikhs. This became the first documentary evidence that Hindus were present not only in the outer courtyard but also inside the inner courtyard.
The legal fight began in 1885, when Mahanth Raghubar Das filed a suit (No. 61/280) against Secretary of State for India in Council in the civil court of Faizabad. In his suit, Das claimed that he was a mahanth and was located at the chabutra in the outer courtyard and should be permitted to construct a temple there. The suit was dismissed. In 1886, a Civil Appeal (No. 27) was filed against the 1885 judgment. District Judge of Faizabad, FER Chamier, decided to visit the spot before passing the order .
He later dismissed the appeal.
A second Civil Appeal (No. 122) was filed against this dismissal, which was also dismissed by the court of Judicial Commissioner. For the next 63 years, there was no legal progress in the case. In 1934, a riot took place in Ayodhya and Hindus demolished a portion of the structure of the disputed site. The portion was rebuilt by the Britishers.
In the intervening night of 22 and 23rd December of 1949, idols were found inside the central dome of the mosque. Then Faizabad DM KK Nayar on December 23 morning informed UP chief minister Govind Ballabh Pant about a group of Hindus entering the site when it was deserted and placing the idol. An FIR was filed in the case and the gates were locked the same day. On December 29, the city magistrate passed an order under Section 145 CrPC to attach the entire property and appointed the Nagar Mahapalika president Priya Datt Ram as receiver. A week later, on January 5, 1950, Priya Datt Ram took charge as receiver.

Foundations of the Present Case
On January 16, 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad of the Hindu Maha Sabha became the first person to file a suit in independent India in the case. Gopal Visharad filed a suit against five Muslims, state government and the district magistrate of Faizabad praying for the right to pray and conduct pooja in the inner courtyard. On the same day, the civil judge passed an order of injunction and allowed the puja.
On May 25, the second suit was filed by Pramahans Ramchandra Das against Zahoor Ahmad and others and it was similar to that of the first suit. Nine years later, on December 17, 1959, Nirmohi Akhada filed the third suit to take over the management from the receiver.
Two years later, on December 18, 1961, Sunni Central Waqf Board along with all those defendants named in the earlier suits, filed the fourth suit in the court of civil judge, Faizabad, praying for removal of idols and handing over the possession of mosque. On March 20, 1963, the court held that the entire Hindu community can’t be represented by a few persons. It ordered for a public notice to implead Hindu Maha Sabha, Arya Samaj and Sanatan Dharma Sabha as defendants to represent the Hindu commu ..
On July 1, 1989, a fifth suit was filed by former Allahabad High Court Judge Deoki Nandan Agarwal as “next friend” of Ram Lala Virajman (the deity, deemed a minor legal person) before the civil judge in Faizabad. It prayed that the whole site be handed over to Ram Lala for the construction of a new temple. In 1989, Shia Waqf Board also filed a suit and became a defendant in the case.
Pandora’s Box Opens
On January 25, 1986, Umesh Chandra Pandey, an advocate, filed an application with Munsif magistrate, Faizabad, praying that the locks should be opened and people should be allowed to have darshan of the idols that had been found inside. The Munsif magistrate rejected the application saying files related to the matter are before the high court. Pandey appealed the order in the Faizabad district court on January 31, 1986.

On February 1, both DM and SP of Faizabad admitted in the court that there won’t be any problem in maintaining peace if the locks are opened. The court ordered the opening of the locks and it were opened on the same day. That was a turning point in Ayodhya dispute and it altered India’s political course. After the locks were opened, the Muslim leaders met in Lucknow on February 6 and a Babri Masjid Action Committee was formed with Zafaryab Jilani as the convenor.
Demolition Aftermath
On December 21, 1992, Hari Shankar Jain filed a petition in the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court that it was his fundamental right to worship Lord Ram. On January 1, 1993, the high court held that every Hindu has the right to worship at the place believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram.

However, sensing further trouble, the central government on January 7, 1993, promulgated an ordinance — the Acquisition of Central Area at Ayodhya — and acquired 67 acres of land, including the disputed site and the areas around it. Also the central government sent a reference to the Supreme Court to determine whether there was a temple prior to the construction of the Babri mosque.
Immediately after the acquisition by the government, Mohd Ismail Farooqi filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court ..

Thirteen years after the Allahabad High Court took the case in March 2002, hearing began for the title suit of the Ayodhya dispute. In July 2003, the Allahabad High Court ordered excavation at the disputed site. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) did the excavation and submitted its report on August 22, 2003. In its report, ASI said that there was a massive structure beneath the disputed structure and there were artifacts of Hindu pilgrimage.
Three-way Split..
On September 30, 2010, the three-judge bench of Justice Dharamveer Sharma, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice SU Khan of the Allahabad High Court gave its judgment in the title suit. It divided the disputed land into three parts, giving one each to Ram Lala, Nirmohi Akhada and Sunni Waqf Board.
All the parties — Ram Lala Virajman, Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhada — appealed in the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court judgment.
On May 9, 2011, a bench of Justices Aftab Alam and RM Lodha, admitting a batch of appeals from both Hindu and Muslim organisations, stayed the 2010 judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the high court and directed the parties to maintain the status quo at the site.
The Countdown
On 8 January this year, the SC set up a five-judge bench to hear the title suit in Ayodhya. Two days later, Justice UU Lalit rescued himself from the five-judge bench. In February this year, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi formed a five-judge bench under him, along with Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Nazeer, Justice Bobde and Justice Chandrachud.
The bench proposed a court-monitored mediation Former SC Judge Justice FM Kalifulla, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu were in the mediation panel. The mediation began on March 13 at Awadh University in Faizabad. Seven rounds of discussion took place but it didn’t yield results. On August 2, the court decided to start regular hearing from August 6.
The apex court heard the case regularly for 40 days and in the last 11 days one extra hour was given for parties to comment..
The arguments from all the sides in the case was completed on October 16 and the judgment was reserved..

. News & Views . 

A Tech-savvy Chief Minister

Chandrababu Naidu

Nara Chandrababu Naidu, president of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and chief minister of Andhra Pradesh between 1995 and 2004, was born on 20 April 1950 in the Chittoor district of the state.

He was the eldest child of Karjoora Naidu, a farmer, and Ammannama. He had two younger sisters. Not educated himself, Karjoora Naidu ensured that his children got a decent education.

Chandrababu did his basic schooling from the Seshapuram gram panchayat and secondary education from Chandragiri. He later pursued B.A. Economics at the S.V. Arts College in Tirupati, where he got interested in political and social issues.

He reportedly helped in the laying of a road to Bhimavaram and took up irrigation initiatives for the community. He actively took part in student politics. He later also secured an M.A. from the same university. Other politicians such as Pileru Ramachandra Reddy and K.S. Narayana were also from the S.V. University and Naidu’s contemporaries.

Starting as a youth leader, Naidu became a local Youth Congress president.

In 1978 he was elected to the Andhra Pradesh assembly as a Congress member. As a 28-year-old minister of technical education and cinematography, he was the youngest minister in the state cabinet.

He soon married Bhuvaneswari, daughter of film star N.T. Rama (NTR) Rao.

In 1982, NTR created his own political party, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP). Though Naidu contested the next assembly election as a Congress candidate, after the TDP swept the polls, he joined the TDP. Naidu soon became a close aide of NTR.  

After the 1989 assembly election, Naidu was an opposition leader in the state assembly as the Congress was in power. Following a political coup by Naidu in 1995, he became Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh on 1 September 1995. He also became the TDP president. After NTR’s death, he led the TDP to victory in the next assembly polls.

As Chief Minister, Naidu is perhaps best known for his focus on urban governance and turning Hyderabad into an Information Technology hub. He liked to try out innovative ideas, especially when it came to governance and technology. 

Comparing NTR with his son-in-law, a professor who knew Naidu for many years, told media “NTR had charisma. Anything he did—wearing ear studs, saffron dress, doing Kali puja—became the talk of the town. He mixed religion with regionalism (by playing roles like Lord Krishna) with telling effect. Naidu thought he would have no future if these continued. So he has been spreading the concept of a working CM.”

Several foreign leaders made Hyderabad a must-stop in their India trips during Naidu's tenure. There were many positive stories in the international media about the technology-savvy Chief Minister, with the prestigious Time magazine even naming him South Asian of the Year. Many global computer and IT firms established centres in Hyderabad.

As the journalist Soutik Biswas wrote in the Outlook magazine in September 1998: “N. Chandrababu Naidu, Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh Inc. Yes, more and more people are referring to this scruffy-bearded, regulation khadi shirt-cotton trouser-sandal-clad, halting-English-speaking man as India's best CEO rather than CM. Many call him India's only politician with a 21st century vision. And perhaps the only chief minister in independent India whose objectives and achievements are difficult to describe without using terms out of classic management texts.”

However, the TDP lost the 2004 assembly election. Some critics blamed the loss on a disconnect with sections of the rural voters. Naidu himself said the drought in parts of Andhra Pradesh and anti-incumbency were factors.

Though out of power, Naidu continues to be one of the key leaders of Andhra Pradhesh (and now Seemandhra, the state formed after the splitting up of Andhra Pradesh). And though it is a regional political outfit, the TDP’s Lok Sabha MPs play an important role in an era of coalition politics at the national level.


Messages of



published in


are also posted

in the blogger



In case, the site

does not respond,

readers may visit

the Blogger.