You give them a call, order food of your choice and half an hour or so later they will be knocking at your door with your supplies. They are the delivery boys of numerous fast food centers across the city. At our doorsteps we see this polite and soft-spoken guy who looks fresh and charming. What their faces do not tell us, however, is that on their way to deliver you the foodstuff they curse the rush on the city's roads and think its traffic sergeants are a mean lot.

"One day, while I was rushing to deliver a meal at Sharae Faisal, this traffic constable, a fat chap with a heavy moustache, asked me one of the most pointless questions someone had ever asked," said 30-year-old Mohammed Khalid Abbasi, a deliver boy at the Golden Fork, a fast food centre at I.I. Chundrigar road. "The man, ruthless in his speech, wondered why there was only one leg piece in the chicken broast box that I was carrying and asked me where the rest of the chicken was."

The policeman asked Abbasi some other unusual questions during that little encounter as well. The moustached man wanted to know what he was doing on Sharae Faisal if he lived in Ram Swami. Delivering a chicken meal was not a valid excuse for him to be where he was, the sergeant had told Abbasi.

After Abbasi convinced the sergeant that all of his documents, including national ID card, driving license and papers of the motorbike were original, the sergeant let him go. But only on condition that Abbasi bring him one chicken broast, no matter whether it is leg piece or whatever, the next time he visited Sharae Faisal. "The sergeant, humbled by now, told me that they stood there all day under the scorching sun just for our safety and a chicken was a mere return for their services," said Abbasi.

He never saw the sergeant again in his life. He, however, met people with more ruthless tactics to get free meals from him. Not many days after his encounter with the poor traffic constable, his proprietor sent him to a bungalow in Clifton, near Abdullah Shah Ghazi's shrine. When Abbasi, who was carrying chicken handi, broasts and burgers worth 3,000 rupees, reached the bungalow, he was welcomed in by an armed man. "The man was the guard of the house and when I entered the house premises, I saw more armed men. There were around seven of them and I immediately thought that how I was going to ask them for money," Abbasi said. "They were tall men, all of them. I was alone and very scared to be honest," he added with a smile.

Minutes later, the armed men helped Abbasi resolve his dilemma. They said they did not have money and their owner, who was away in the US, would pay him once he returned. Knowing that he would never get the money, he came out of the house as fast as he could, kick-started his bike and left.

However, not all of the delivery boys have the same style of work as Abbasi. "I ask for the money first wherever I take food," said Nadir, an employee at the Bar BQ Hut, a food center in DHA Phase I. "It is not that I mistrust every customer but because this saves me time."

He is glad that he never left without his money after delivering the food. "For this I must be thankful to a kid who taught me how to be efficient in getting the money," he said. The kid had helped him one day while he was searching for an address near Sea View. He gave Nadir the address but also cautioned him to ask for the money first, as the people who had given the order had fooled another delivery boy an hour ago.

"The little boy told me that the people in the apartment came down to the delivery man and took the food, saying they would go up and bring the money but vanished after receiving the delivery," Nadir added. "The kid was right. The same people came down to me and suggested they would go up and bring the money. I rudely refused. The idea of me waiting for the money like a fool was unbearable."

The customer paid him. He gave a ten-rupee note to the boy as a reward and felt relieved that he could not be cheated.

Though tricky and exhausting at times, Nadir loves his job. He has enjoyed roaming the streets of the city in the cold days of winters as well as in the scorching days of summer. He has had fun as well as faced problems while delivering food across the metropolis. All of this, he says, contributes to adding sweet memories to his life. There was one tough day he loves to talk about whenever he meets new people.

One day last year, while he was on his way to deliver an order somewhere in Defence, his bike gave up on him for the first time in his life. It had been raining since the morning and two-foot deep water was streaming on the street he was passing through. He had to hurry as his customer was making phone calls to him repeatedly but the engine of his bike had stalled. He talked to his manager and the customer, asking them to rescue him, but no one could help him as there was water everywhere. He was marooned on a street in Defence and it was getting dark.

Realising, that circumstances had become too unusual for normal services, he opened the packet he was to deliver, ate the food and dragged his bike towards home. "That was one tough job, dragging the bike," he said. "But seeing dozens of cars that had been abandoned in the water on the roads, I felt I was the bravest person in the city."

He perhaps was.

Nadir reached home at about midnight that day. It was still raining.

With the recession and an economic crunch looming large, people in Karachi are coming up with more and more innovative ways to earn money. Khadim Online is one such novel enterprise, working on a completely different philosophy. They send a delivery boy to buy everything for you, be it your monthly grocery, medicines, food or anything that you want, all in 20 minutes.

Working out of a small but well-kept office in Khayaban-e-Shahbaz in DHA, a pleasant looking plump man greets you and instantly starts speaking about the project and who thought of it first. Terming it a "one of a kind idea," Saleemuddin, Operations Manager at Khadim Online, started the delivery service in July this year. The thought was to do something for people in the vicinity, and after an initial experience expand it to other areas as well.

A customer may order a pizza, cold drinks and a cake and the delivery boy, after getting the order, gets Rs100 as a service charge. "We save Rs75 and give the remaining Rs25 to the delivery boy," says Saleem and added quickly that apart from that the delivery boys are getting a fixed commission of Rs 5,000 every month.

At the same time, if the delivery service gets a call from PECHS or even as far as Gulshan-e-Iqbal, they charge Rs 300 to Rs 500 depending on how far they have to go to provide the service.

The tagline 'Relax and let Khadim do your work' is catchy enough to get the attention of people around, he points out. Pleased with the services they were doing in the vicinity, he said that at present they are providing delivery for Hobnob, Copper Kettle and many restaurants. "Apart from that, our delivery boys will go to every corner of Karachi to get whatever our customers demand."

Although it is clearly mentioned on their brochure that they won't deliver anything 'illegal or alcoholic', yet people still call at times thinking their every wish will be granted. Sharing a recent experience, Saleem said that some people took their motto of 'bringing everything to them' a tad too seriously. "One day, I got a call from our delivery boy who said that a customer is asking for a carton of beer and wants me to catch a few DVDs on my way as well. That completely shocked us because the customer started arguing with us to do as he said," he laughed. After this incident, they made sure that the delivery boy calls the office if someone makes such a demand to them.

Mohammed Sarfaraz, a young man in his early 20s, has been working as a delivery boy for the past three months with Khadim Online. Hailing from Shireen Jinnah Colony, he says that the salary is not that good but enough to sail through the month. Though, Sarfaraz has to work seven hours a day, he stays behind for a bit longer at times too.

As the area has many people who are either bachelors or have families where all the members are working throughout the day, the idea of someone doing the work for them is appealing.

Sarah, 32 a mother of two, has to work nine to five every day at a nearby bank. Things go smoothly most of the time, but she has to seek the help of the online service if she has to stay longer in case of presentations at work. She says her main worry is that her kids do not miss getting a meal in time after they get back from school. "At first I was a bit suspicious, because I had not heard of anything like this service before. But now I can rely on it because they willingly do all the work for you."

The idea of someone doing all the work for you is a blessing in disguise for many busy working people like Sarah. One does not have to think about long parking queues, the heat and heavy traffic on the roads. But not everyone shares this view. For some it is a way of being lazy.

Living just next to the building where the delivery is being done, Zunera, a housewife, says that she herself has taken the services of the online delivery at times but she does not want to rely too heavily on it. "It is good at times when you are not feeling like working in the kitchen but I think it is better if you to sit around with your family deciding what to eat and hang out together. Because for me, even buying groceries is a way of getting together with the family. Otherwise we are all becoming too isolated."

For services like Khadim Online, however, business is thriving reflecting the faster pace of life and pressures of living in the metropolis.

Spending most of his working life as an accountant, Shaukat Ali Qazi is better known today as a man who supplies home-cooked food to shopkeepers at Gul Plaza on MA Jinnah Road and Arshi Shopping Mall in Azizabad.

Recalling the history of his small business, Qazi, better known as Shaukat Bhai, told Kolachi,l "I still remember the incident that gave my wife this opportunity some ten years ago". My brother-in-law used to work at an office at Gul Plaza and was given the responsibility of arranging Biryani for an office party one day. So he asked my wife to help him out, a task for which she was paid. The recipe was such a hit that the very next day orders for home-cooked meals started to pour in from his colleagues, followed by some from the shopkeepers in the vicinity."

At the time, Qazi, a dual degree holder, was content at his accountancy job. But since the popularity of his wife Abida's food accelerated rapidly, she succeeded in persuading her husband into helping her manage the orders. Qazi was initially reluctant but eventually gave in. "The number of orders to be entertained per day went up to 50, which was getting beyond our capacity. At that point, my wife asked me to leave my job and instead focus my attention on the orders with her," explains Qazi. Initially, he was very reluctant to work on the plan as he was afraid of the impression it would create about him, an educated professional. "Ultimately, I took the plunge and left my job," said Qazi.

Today, Mr and Mrs Qazi are sending out 60 to 70 lunch boxes every day.

Each morning, the couple starts the preparation for the day at around five am, preparing food for approximately 200 people. They finish the entire task by 10:30am at the latest. The dispatch of orders takes place in the afternoon, and is delivered by an employee hired by the couple. Each order comprises three dishes costing Rs 110, referred to as a 'set', which feeds three people.

The menu of the day varies from one day to the other. "We offer an extensive range of dishes. From Haleem to meat items, Karahi to Biryani, traditional Daal Chawal to vegetable dishes, many other food items can also be ordered by our customers during the six working days," Qazi said. He further added, "The 'set' is not offered with home-cooked Chappatis and desserts. However, the former is available on request and was discontinued as a regular item due to the heavy monetary input involved."

Offering the same kind of service from her residence at Sindhi Muslim Society under the name of Aminah's Kitchen (AK), another professional and a Montessori-trained teacher, Sabahat Raza (known as Saba to her acquaintances) has also carved a niche for herself. Relatively new to the business, Saba has her own assorted menu to offer.

Like Mr and Mrs Shaukat, the menu of AK has quite a wide range. The Friday menu is the most popular, consisting of Basun ki roti and Allu kay Parathay. "Friday is a very demanding day for me as we have to make a lot of Parathay and Basun ki Rotis which my customers ask for take-aways for their families as well. Besides the regular food items, frozen foods, cold drinks and desserts are also available. A delivery takes at least 30 minutes and is free of charge. Despite trade being little slow on Saturdays, Sundays is the day when AK takes a break during the week. For Saturdays, a take-away service is available and orders can be entertained only on the request of some private shops.

Sabahat Raza's morning starts at 9am when she starts preparing the orders. All the cooking is done latest by 12:30pm followed by the dispatching service which takes place between one pm and three pm. The menu of the day can be changed but a request has to be lodged early morning so that proper preparations can be made. "My customers can always change the day's menu but they have to give prior notification, with seven or eight orders the minimum".

Sharing the story of AK's inception, Sabahat recalled that two years back she had been working for a local NGO focusing on teachers' training. Since her first baby was very young and needed her attention, she decided to quit her job. In addition to Sabahat's services at her workplace, her home-cooked food was something which was always appreciated by her co-workers. "My manager used to eat my lunch while I had to eat my colleagues' food," told Raza with a laugh.

After leaving her job, her colleagues jokingly suggested that she should not end providing food to them. This filled her with a new spirit since she had to work to support her nuclear family, which was the beginning of her small service by the name of her daughter, Aminah. "My cooking was never too phenomenal. I always did regular cooking but I have always worked on improving my recipes. Starting off from my own former workplace, I extended this lunch-box service to some other offices including my husband's workplace," said Sabahat. Operating from her residence, Raza has no fixed number of customers per day. The count varies from 15 to 35 orders. "The business took a little while to stabilise but is doing well now," she said.

When Sabahat was working at the NGO, she used to cook food on her own with a helper. But after stepping into this business, she has hired three female helpers and two delivery boys. "I have one elder woman who helps me in cooking. The other workers comprise two young girls, who do all the packaging, and two delivery boys." It has been 21 months now since the inception of Aminah's Kitchen which caters to different workplaces in miscellaneous areas. From each area, the least order should be for approximately six or seven individuals. The deals offered by AK ranges between Rs 90 and175.

Besides support from her colleagues, she admitted that her husband was her biggest supporter. However, her mother still thinks that she is crazy. "Once I got an order to prepare 500 Shami Kababs. I called my mother to ask the ratio of ingredients since the order was huge. When she got to know the amount of Kababs I had to prepare, she disapproved of the idea and banged down the phone. Later, she called herself to know if I am still working on the order. Since I had agreed to entertain the order, I started working on it on own. Though my mother didn't support me much, I appointed my husband as my assistant for this especial project. He was a great help," laughed Sabahat. She also said that her 18-month-old son is also developing an interest in cooking as he roams around carrying utensils across the rooms!

Likewise Shaukat Qazi, Sabahat got the same sort of reaction from people when they learnt that despite her highly educated background she had chosen cooking as her final line of work. Her teacher, whom she admires the most and is like a godfather to her, was not of much support either. "This work does not suit you as you are well-qualified for a better job," were his words. Despite much opposition from every direction, she continued her plans. "I was confident about it and I have proven all of them wrong."

Both of the businesses which started through word-of-mouth are expanding with time making room for more customers with innovative ideas. "I do not mean to praise myself, but it is the truth that people like our food quality, said Shaukat with pride." They keep demanding that we want food only from Shaukat Bhai's place." This is no idle boast The owner of a small school uniform shop at Arshi Shopping Mall, Asif Memon, humbly acknowledged that he is a regular customer of the couple like some other shopkeepers in the market. "The home-cooked food that we get for lunch is really appetizing and healthy," confessed Asif.

Meanwhile, Sabahat Raza has plans to launch a small restaurant, with the same brand name as her delivery service, besides plans to expand her current business.

Following dismissal of Sunni Waqf Board India's appeal in the Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid case by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on September 30 last, the division between the Hindus and Muslims has become more pronounced, posing public order threats to the world's largest democracy.

As the losing litigant party Sunni Wakf Board has decided to challenge the 2-1 High Court judgment in the Supreme Court of India over equal division of the disputed 2.7-acre land in Ayodhya among Hindus, Muslims and Nirmohi Akhara, this verdict has attracted all sorts of views from religious scholars, campaigners and stakeholders on either side, lawyers and media.

The third party or the Nirmohi Akhara, which also gets one-third of the land by virtue of the judgment, had filed a suit in January 1885 with the then sub-judge of Faizabad District (Utter Pradesh), whereby seeking his consent to construct a temple for Hindu god Ram in the area called the Ram Chabutra (platform), adjacent to the Babri mosque.

The permission was then denied by the court, though the Nirmohi Akhara has since kept up its effort to reclaim the land and construct the temple.

A nostalgic fly back into the history reveals that soon after the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992; resultant communal riots had claimed between 2000 and 3000 lives throughout India.

A series of bombings in Mumbai had claimed 250 lives.

The mounting Hindu-Muslim tensions had also resulted in the 2002 Gujarat unrest, which had claimed another 1000 lives-though Muslims remained the major sufferers.

On December 16, 1992, the Justice Liberhan Commission was set up by the Government of India to probe the circumstances that had led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The commission submitted its report to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on June 30, 2009, more than 16 years after the incident.

Contents of the report were leaked to the media in November 2009. The report blamed the high-ranking members of the Indian government and Hindu nationalists for the destruction of the mosque. Its explosive contents had also caused uproar in the Indian parliament.

The Justice Liberhan report has pieced together a sequence of events, as they happened on December 6, 1992, the day the Babri Masjid was demolished by the Hindu hardliners (Kar Sevaks).

The Report, authored by Justice Liberhan, had blamed former Indian Premier A.B. Vajpayee, BJP key leader L. K. Advani, the then UP Chief Minister Kalyan Singh and a former Education Minister Murli Manohar Joshi for flaring up the incident up and for bucking up the hardliners.

The report notes: "This selected act of the leaders itself speaks of the hidden intentions of one and all being to accomplish demolition of the disputed structure."

The report held that the "icons" of the demolition movement present at site that day, could easily have prevented the knocking down of the Babri Masjid.

Ayodhya is one of seven most holy places for Hindus in India, with the city of Varanasi being the holiest of all.

The chronology of events, timeline of the Ayodhya debate and the contrasting reactions to the September 30 Allahabad High verdict have been summarized below to have a better understanding of the issue and its possible ramifications:

Timeline of the Ayodhya debate

1528 The Babri Mosque was built in Ayodhya (Faizabad District, Utter Pradesh) in 1527-28 on orders of King Babar, shortly after he had won the 1526 Battle of Panipat against the Lodhi dynasty. Hindu groups claim it was built after demolishing a temple. Muslims contend that King Babar's Army General Mir Baqi had built the mosque here and named it after the first Mogul Emperor.

1853 The first recorded communal clashes over the site date back to 1853 during the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah. A Hindu sect called the Nirmohis claimed the structure, contending that the mosque stood on the spot where a temple had been destroyed during Babar's time.

1859-1886 In 1859, the colonial British administration put a fence around the site, separating the worship areas for Hindus and Muslims. Efforts in 1883 to construct a temple on this site were halted by the local Deputy Commissioner who prohibited it on January 19, 1885.

In 1886, the Faizabad District Judge dismissed a petition filed by one Mahant Raghubar Das, who claimed the site was the birth place of Hindu God Ram. A Second Appeal was filed on May 25, 1886, before the local Judicial Commissioner W. Young, who also dismissed the appeal. With this, the first round of legal battles fought by the Hindus came to an end.

1905-1918 The District Gazetteer Faizabad 1905 states, "Up to this time (1855), both the Hindus and Muslims used to worship in the same building. But since the Mutiny (1857), an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the Masjid and the Hindus forbidden access to the inner yard, make the offerings on a platform (chabootra), which they have raised in the outer one."

The earliest mention of the 40-metre Babri water well can be read in the Gazette of Faizabad District 1918 which states, "The Babri Mosque is an ancient structure with a well which, both the Hindus and Mussalmans claim, has miraculous properties."

The reported medicinal properties of this well have been featured in various news reports such as the BBC report of December 1989.

1934-36 During the "communal riots" of 1934, walls around the Masjid and one of the domes were damaged. These were reconstructed by the British.

The mosque and its appurtenant land, a graveyard known as Ganj-e-Shaheedan

Qabristan (Graveyard), were registered as Waqf No. 26 Faizabad with the UP Sunni Central Board of Waqf (Muslim holy places) under the 1936 Act.

1949 In December 1949, idols were put inside the mosque. Both sides to the dispute filed civil suits. The government locked the gates, saying the matter was sub-judice and declared the area "disputed."

On hearing this news, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru directed UP Chief Minister Govind Ballabh Pant on December 23, 1949, to see that the deities were removed and the mischief was undone because "a dangerous example is being set there." However, Faizabad's Deputy Commissioner K. K. Nayar dismissed Nehru's concerns. While he admitted that the installation of the idols was "an illegal act," Nayar refused to remove them, claiming that "the depth of feeling behind the movement ... should not be underestimated." The background of harassment of Muslims during the period has been recorded in two reports prepared by the Waqf Inspector Mohammad Ibrahim, dated December 10 and 23, 1949 respectively and addressed to the Waqf Board Secretary.

1961 Case filed in Indian courts against occupation of the Babri Mosque and placing of idols within it.

1984 The movement to build a temple at the site, which Hindus claimed was the birthplace of Lord Ram, gained momentum as Hindu hardliners formed a body to spearhead the construction of a temple at the Ramjanmabhoomi site.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) then launched a movement for the opening of the mosque's locks and the Rajiv Gandhi regime acceded to the demand.

1986 A judge ordered the opening of mosque's gates and allowed Hindus to worship. A Babri Mosque Action Committee was hence formed, as Muslims staged protests against the court order.

1989Led by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, foundations of a temple were laid on land adjacent to the disputed structure.

1990 The then BJP president Lal Krishna Advani launched a countrywide campaign to garner support for the move to build a Ram temple at this site. VHP volunteers partially failed. Many were gunned down by the police on orders of the then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Sing Yadav, when they gathered in Ayodhya and their bodies were thrown into the river.

1991 Riding high on the success of Advani's campaign to build a temple on the Babri Masjid site, the BJP emerged as India's main opposition party in the Parliament and grabbed power in Uttar Pradesh.

1991 The temple-building campaign gained pace when Hindu volunteers kept on pouring into Ayodhya to build the temple and knock down the Babri Masjid.

1992 The Babri Mosque was demolished by Hindu hardliners and communal riots erupted across India, killing over 2000 people.

1992 10 days from the demolition, the Narasimha Rao government formed a probe commission, headed by Justice Liberhan.

1993 Three months after being constituted, the Liberhan Commission began investigations into the demolition incident and its causes.

2001Tensions mounted on the demolition anniversary as Hindu hardliner groups reaffirmed their resolve to build a temple at the site.

2002At least 58 people were killed in Gujarat in a train attack. Muslims blamed Hindu volunteers from Ayodhya for the incident. Riots resultantly sparked throughout Gujarat, killing and injuring thousands-predominantly local Muslims.

2003 The court ordered a survey to find out whether a temple to Lord Ram existed on the site. In August, the survey presented evidence of a temple under the mosque. Muslims disputed the findings.

2003 A court ruled that seven Hindu leaders, including some prominent BJP leaders, should stand trial for inciting the destruction of the Babri Mosque.

2004 An Uttar Pradesh court ruled that an earlier order, which had exonerated LK Advani for his role in the destruction of the mosque, should be reviewed.

2007 The Supreme Court refused to admit a review petition on the Ayodhya dispute.

2009 The Justice Liberhan Commission finally submitted its report on June 30 this year- almost 17 years after it had begun probing the demolition incident. Its contents were kept secret though.

2010 The Allahabad High Court pronounced its verdict on four title suits relating to the Ayodhya dispute on September 30, 2010. According to the judgment, Ayodhya land would be divided into three parts---with 1/3 going to Hindus, 1/3 to Sunni Wakf Board and the remainder 1/3 to the Nirmohi Akhara.

Senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L.K. Advani:

"This is the judiciary's reconciliation formula. It has marked a new era for inter-community ties, a new chapter for national integration. The judgment has paved the way for the construction of the temple."

Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat:

"Today the Ayodhya Ramjanmbhoomi controversy judgment has come. After this decision I tell everyone there is no room for an unbridled reaction. Gujarat has chosen a path of peace, security and development."

Nilofar Suhrawardy:

"The three-way split of Ayodhya land, as ordained by the court, has gone a long-way in cooling the pestering rage over the controversial and contested real estate. The court's farsightedness in proclaiming a 90-day moratorium on any actions in dividing the land, as per the verdict, will also help offset communal tension over an issue that had kept successive governments since the 1992's demolition of Babri mosque on the tenterhooks."- (Reported in Khaleej Times)

Nilofar Suhrawardy:

"Though stakeholders have vowed to move the appellate forums, the fact that the Allahabad High Court's three-member bench has so successfully interpreted the sensitivities involved in the 8,000 plus pages will always be taken as a valued reference and cited as a precedent." (Reported in Khaleej Times)

Nilofer Suhrawardy:

"One of the most promising signs of the verdict is that it doesn't condone the act of demolition - an aspect that has to a great extent taken heat out of the issue. It has come as a great consolation for the Muslim community, irrespective of the ire that the Sunni Waqf Board members may nurse against the decision. This will go a long way in healing the wounds of communal hatred that the current history from Ayodhya to Gujarat had inadvertently set in Indian politics."- (Reported in Khaleej Times)

Political analyst Chintamani Mahapatra at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University:

"This is a fair and balanced judgment, an effort to ideally satisfy all the sections of society, to some extent. We hope the issue does not get embroiled in legal complications for the next 15 years now."

Aijaz Ilmi (Chairman of the editorial board at the Kanpur based Urdu newspaper Daily Siyasat Jadid):

"With the verdict dismissing the claim of the Sunni Waqf Board on the land title, and with credible evidence -- as the court opines -- to support the contention that temple ruins existed prior to the construction of the mosque in 1528, rebuilding the mosque at the same place is now virtually impossible. Secondly, if the title suits are dismissed by a majority opinion, why have the Muslims been given one-third of the entire land?"- (Reported in The Indian Express)

Sudheendra Kulkarni (Indian Express):

"No less a person than Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, in his book Pakistan or The Partition of India, has written about Mahmood Ghaznavi's repeated attacks on the Shiva temple in Somnath.

Quoting Al'Utbi, an Arab historian, Ambedkar writes: "He (Mahmood Ghaznavi) demolished idol temples and established Islam. He then returned home and promulgated accounts of the victories obtained for Islam...and vowed that every year he would undertake a jihad against Hind."

In recent years, a perverted interpretation of Islam and secularism is goading some people into denying any place for Ram, an embodiment of many universal and eternal virtues, in the national and civilization life-current of India."

Sudheendra Kulkarni (Indian Express):

"The three judges have also affirmed that Babri Masjid was built on a site where a Hindu temple existed. This important observation, based on clinching archaeological and architectural evidence, demolishes the claim advanced by many opponents of the Ramjanmabhumi movement that Babar did not order the demolition of any Hindu temple."

Shekhar Gupta (Indian Express):

"There were no motives imputed to the judiciary, nobody said it was fixed by the government, and nobody said he had lost his faith in the system."

Ashwini Kumar, senior leader of the Congress Party:

"This is an important step in the eventual resolution of a long-standing dispute. We should respect the Court's judgment."

Sanjay Kumar (fellow at the Center for the Study of Developing Societies, a New Delhi-based think tank):

"This is the best judicial remedy to create harmony among the conflicting parties."

Sudheendra Kulkarni (Indian Express):

"The judgment itself is demonstrative of considerable judicial wisdom. What Ram means to India, and what Ram means to Hindus, has been upheld by the court. All three judges who delivered the verdict have respected the Hindu sentiment and ruled that the place where the idols of Ram, Sita, Laxman and Hanuman are located, and which many Hindus believe to be the birth place of Ram, shall belong to Hindus."

1) Ashwini Kumar, senior leader of the Congress-party:

"This is an important step in the eventual resolution of a long-standing dispute. We should respect the Court's judgment."

2) Nalin Kohli, spokesman for Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP):

"The Court has come up with a solution in the larger interest of peace and paved the way for the construction of the temple. This would cease to be a thorn if all the parties come up with a compromise."

The Times of India writes on October 4:

"Yadav's comments look out of place and mischievous. Yadav has the right to respond to the court ruling. His criticism that the verdict gives precedence to faith over law and evidence may be valid. Many others, including legal experts, have expressed a similar view. But it is important that he does not make sweeping generalizations, especially in the name of a community."

1) Mohan Bhagwat, chief of Hindu nationalist group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh:

"We should not take it as a victory or defeat. This is the opportunity for us to show our unity as a country."

2) Kamal Farooqui, member of the Muslim Personal Law Board:

"The rule of the law has to be accepted. We can work out something so that the temple and mosque can coexist in the interest of the nation."

Zafaryab Jilani (a lawyer for the Sunni Waqf Board):

"We will not surrender; we will appeal for declaration and possession of the entire land."

Mohammed Hashim Ansari (the oldest litigant in the Ayodhya land dispute):

"I welcome the court decision and appeal to all the Muslims not to get upset over the decision as our fight has now become tough."

Barkha Dutt:

"It was "panchayat-styled" justice. The judgment seems to aim at being politically astute rather than legally brilliant. And indeed many questions are being raised about whether a dangerous precedent has been set by the specificity with which matters of faith seem to have become points of law.

Could the majority judgment not have reached the same conclusion without, for instance, being evidentiary in approach? - (Reported in Khaleej Times)

Barkha Dutt:

"It is important to underscore that this verdict -- with its varied perspectives on what the nature of the structure was -- does not change the fact that there needs to be accountability for the appalling breakdown of the law in 1992. We must understand that the Babri Masjid per se was not as important to the Indian Muslim, as the demolition made it." - (Reported in Khaleej Times)

1) Pratap Bhanu Mehta (President, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi):

"We should remember that nothing in this judgment exonerates the thuggish acts of demolition carried out in 1992." - (Reported in Indian Express)

2) Romila Thapar (Historian, The Hindu):

A mosque built almost 500 years ago and which was part of our cultural heritage was destroyed willfully by a mob urged on by a political leadership. There is no mention in the summary of the verdict that this act of wanton destruction, and a crime against our heritage, should be condemned."

Barkha Dutt:

"The Allahabad High Court's Ayodhya verdict is likely to be one of the most furiously debated judicial conclusions in the history of Modern India." (Reported in Khaleej Times)

Mihir S. Sharma (Indian Express):

"Can an Indian which believes there is a place for expertise in public life, be comfortable with the use of an archaeological report that can be read by judges in different, mutually exclusive ways?

A temple there was demolished by Babur; or it was already in ruins before the mosque was built; it can't be both.

Does it matter which? Does this, we think quietly, help us trust expertise?"

Malini Parthasarathy (The Hindu):

"The horrifying story of the Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992 by Hindu chauvinist vandals who sought to preempt a judicial resolution of the ownership of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site, on which the 500-year-old mosque stood, by reducing it to rubble, was one of the darkest chapters in our history. It also severely dented India's image as a pluralist democracy committed to the secular character of its public space. Given that the Babri Masjid had been razed to the ground precisely to avenge an act presumed to have been done centuries ago, to provide any link in juridical terms between the ruins of the temple, the razed mosque and the proposed temple of the future would be setting a dangerous precedent in a democracy governed by modern civil laws."

Malini Parthasarathy (The Hindu):

"The sharply contested findings of the Archaeological Survey of India's excavations suggesting the ruins of a 10th century temple lay underneath the mosque's rubble, a point repeatedly highlighted by the Hindutva temple agitation, have been given credence by two judges of the Special Bench who observed that the mosque was built after the demolition of a temple."

T.R. Andhyarujina (former Solicitor-General of India):

"The absence of any condemnation of the vandalism of the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 is a conspicuous aspect of the Ayodhya verdict of the Allahabad High Court."

Rasheeda Bhagat (The Hindu Business Line):

"Will it be remembered for some scintillating or imaginative interpretation of legal principles that would put it in the company of the finest judgments in the world? Certainly not!"

The Hindu writes:

"The majority verdict of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute is a compromise calculated to hold the religious peace rather than an exercise of profound legal reflection."

Meghnad Desai (Indian Express):

"The three judges--Sudhir Agarwal, DV Sharma and SU Khan--note that there was joint use of the site by Hindus and Muslims before 1857. They observe, though with some difference, that there was no temple on the site when the mosque was built. They then note that by tradition and belief, Hindus think that Ramachandra was born at a spot somewhere under the central dome. This can't be proved as a fact."

The Times of India writes:

"The split verdict of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court neither brings legal clarity to the Ayodhya dispute nor paves the way for an amicable settlement. It is most apposite that one party to the case has decided to move the Supreme Court against the verdict.

The essential non-judiciability of the dispute has manifested itself in the verdict as a jumble of faith, evidence, compromise and an implicit appeal for a negotiated partition of the disputed site among three claimants, including the Muslim body that claims to own the site on which the Babri mosque stood before its undisputed demolition in 1992.

It is difficult to accept such a jumble as a reasoned judicial verdict."

Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav:

"Muslims feel cheated. There is a sense of despair in the entire community."

Manoj Mitta (The Times of India):

"Though thousands of pages in this verdict have been devoted to quotes from Hindu scriptures, it made little effort to examine the illegality of the 1949 act. The mischief played with the idols, in a bid to convert a masjid into a mandir, was central to the adjudication of the title suits.

Yet, the three judges on the bench, despite delivering separate judgments, adopted the common approach of treating the forcible installation of idols as a fait accompli. They did not dare question its legality or validity."