If ever there was a rule of law in India, we would not have been an underdeveloped country. Fact is that Rule of Law does not existin India and hence you have the Babri Demolition.

Pankaj of KL .... "..... I broke into the house ...."

Ends don't justify the means. This is a basis of "rule of law" - as per "rule of law" of any modern developed nation, this would be unlawful, i.e., a criminal act. We are of course very far from any sembelance of "rule of law" but for those of us who want this, we have to start travelling on that path and hence cannot justify exception whatever we the merits or demerits. If the parties cannot negotiate, then the courts have to.

My great Gradfather had a house. It was FORCEFULLY occupied by someone else. When I went to reclaimthe house he said - Show me the evidence. I broke into the house and produce that the house belonged to my Great Grandpa and hence must justfully belong to me.

Am I right or wrong?

Now apply this to Babri Masjid (though it gave all temple breakers to point a finger at hindus)!

The hypocrisy and hatred of CAIR supporters is astounding!

Agreed, Tieffenthaler proves that Hindus were praying at that spot even after that three domed structure came up, it's only in the 1850s that Hindus were artificially restricted by the English and the Muslims from praying in the spot they had considered holy for centuries. It's good that Hindus did not roll over this time and took back their rights. Now to build the temple and complete the process, as a show of goodwill, a mosque can be created somewhere else in Ayodhya.

Then we can start talking about the Mathura and Kashi and the healing process will finally be over