Thoughts on economics and liberty

Category: Uncategorized

My mother’s paintings

A few years ago my mother, Adarsh Sabhlok has taken up painting as a hobby . Here are some results.

Continue Reading

I agree with Purushothoman Mulloli’s concerns re: Babri judgement but this HAS to be resolved by the Supreme Court

Purushothoman Mulloli has made a petition to the Indian Supreme Court to NOT make the Babri judgement. I largely agree with the events described in the petition but do not agree that the court should refuse to adjudicate. This IS a matter for the SC to resolve. No one else can do that.

I have suggested a land acquisition and compensation solution which is the only reasonable and rational way forward. Sadly, no newspaper that I sent this article, dared publish it. They are so deadly afraid of free speech. The land acquisition and compensation solution will also allow the criminals who have played a significant role in smuggling in the Ram lalla statue + the Babri demolition to be punished.

Let me add that the way the Supreme Court resolves this matter will tell us whether we are a Constitutional republic or already a Hindu rashtra. This is going to be perhaps the single most important judgement after the Kesavananda Bharati judgement. Any judgement that regularises the criminals who have taken over this issue over the past 70 years will destroy fundamental rights and make Indians subject to a fascist Hindutva state.

Below is Mulloli’s petition + the OCRd text.



Dated: 7.11.2019




NEW DELHI 110201

Hon’ble Supreme Court should refrain from passing a judgment on the Ayodhya Ram Janma Bhoomi – Babri Masjid matter, in view of the manifest massive manipulation of the issue and associated judicial process, by the ruling dispensations (be it Congress or BJP) to implement their political agendas.

Judiciary has not yet adjudicated upon the 70 years old criminal fraud committed against the nation by so called ‘Hindu’ groups who planted Ram Lalla idols in the Masjid. The Congress, with help of the administration and Judiciary, maintained status quo in order to keep the Muslims trapped as a vote banks for decades – now the BJP has taken over with the diference that they are scaring Muslims to make inroads into Hindu vote bank.

Four conspicuous Issues

  1. Criminal case fled on 23.12.1949, on installations of idols in Babri Masjid, (u/s 147, 448, 295, in Faizabad)
  2. Criminal matter on Babri Masjid demolition 1992, (initiated by Liberhan Commission, currently with CBI since 2017)

III. Supreme Court Judgement 1994, Ismail Faruqi case regarding ‘Masjid not essential to Islam’ (1994, 6 SCC 360)

  1. Supreme Court Judgement 1995, ‘Hinduism not a religion’ (Citation 1996 AIR 1113), (PM Modi speeches in Vancouver 17.4.2015, PTI)

Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India,

Let me state at the outset that I, the undersigned, am not aligned to any political ideology. Kindly see the disclaimer at the end of the letter.

I am writing this as an ordinary senior citizen concerned about this very sensitive and volatile national issue, guided by my fundamental duties enshrined in Article 51 a. of the Constitution of India. I had earlier fled an intervention petition before this Hon’ble Court, in the matter of pending appeals with regards to Ayodhya case which was listed before the bench vide IA No. 1-2/2017 D.5827/ in I.A 33 -34/2016. In your wisdom, you dismissed all intervention applications at that stage.

In a recent speech at Gauhati High Court, your lordship has reiterated a very vital aspect of Justice

“Today I feel compelled to assert that judges and judicial officers must remember that public faith and confidence, on which our institution lives and survives, is largely built on the basis of orders and judgments passed by us”.

Justice should not just be done but seen to be done. It is crucial to point out that as far as the history of Ayodhya matter is concerned, the public perception is that so far, the Judicial process, hand in glove with the administration of the day, has played a biased role. The entire nation is now watching very closely, as the political hype over the issue has never been shriller.

The far reaching inherent powers of the Supreme Court arising through Article 142 of Constitution, combined with the withdrawal of appeal by Sunni Wakf board, has placed what may well be called a double Brahmastra in the hands of this Hon’ble court.

I have reason to believe that passing any judgment (either in favor of Muslim, Hindu, government, or any other way), without addressing certain core issues, would not only be a grave miscarriage of justice and a blot on the independence of judiciary in post independence India, but will open space for multiple disputes across the country.

The ruling party is creating an impression among public that a Judgment in favor of the Mandir is a foregone conclusion – and talking aggressively about the construction of Mandir. They are advising Hindus to use restraint in their celebrations after the Judgment and maintain peace, even while they whip up passions – ensuring there would be law and order problems should there be even the slightest obstacle to the Mandir.

Even the Prime Minister, in a recent episode of Man Ki Baat , has spoken on need to remember the restraint and balance shown after the Allahabad High Court Verdict. But an important difference at that time was, the atmosphere had not been nationally vitiated as today, and litigants also had the option of Appealing to Supreme Court.

There is a lot at stake as far as the Ayodhya Judgment this time around is concerned – and the Judiciary needs to apply its highest wisdom, in considering all legal, social and political aspects of the matter. Past, present and future.

Some of the core issued that need to be dealt with – so that Justice may be seen to be done, are:

  1. There are two, related, pending criminal cases in the said matter, non–addressal of which will raise serious questions on competence and integrity of the Judiciary.

A). One is the FIR fled on the morning of December 23, 1949, reporting the offence of trespass of illegally and forcibly planting Ram Lala idols in the Masjid premises by Hindu miscreants, which reinforced the fraud of “miraculous appearance” of Ram Lala idols, placed in the central dome of the Babri Masjid the previous night, with full collusion of local administration – which set into motion the chain of contentious events that have led us to this nationally volatile juncture. Not only was the criminal matter not followed up – the crime was legitimized by: a) Hindus were granted the right to perform Puja before the illegally placed idols; b) the Judiciary accepted Ram Lala as a party to the dispute in 1989; c) In 2010 the High Court declared Ram Lala as one of the beneficiaries of the disputed property.

B). Another is the collective bulk of criminal cases arising from the illegal demolition of Babri Masjid on 6th December, 1992. In 2017, this Hon’ble Court invoked Article 142 to transfer the 25 year old criminal matters from Rae Barreli to Lucknow. In other words, a much delayed matter that was nearing completion in the lower Court, would be further delayed.

If the Hon’ble Court proceeds to pass judgment in favor of the Hindu Litigants without frst addressing these criminal cases, it shall be viewed as a move to legitimize the forcible fraud of Ram Lala as well as the illegal demolition of Babri Masjid, both acts done with intent of land grab and illegal possession. Moreover, the said two criminal

cases shall be rendered infructuous in view of legalization of illegal acts, and would only set a dangerous precedent.

  1. Two Supreme Court Judgments in confict with Right to worship:

Any decision based on grounds of Right to worship would be in confict with two earlier judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court itself in 1994 and 1995, which contradict and nullify the claims of both ‘Mandir’ and ‘Masjid’ sides.

A). In a 1994 Judgement, in the Ismail Faruqi case (1994, 6 SCC 360), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a Masjid is not a requirement for Muslims in order to offer namaz or worship.

B). Subsequently, in a 1995 judgment (Citation 1996 AIR 1113), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that Hinduism is not a religion; it’s a way of life.

Interestingly, on April 17, 2015, in a speech in Vancouver, the Prime Minister Mr. Modi reiterated and re-affirmed the message of this Judgment, “The Supreme Court has said that Hindu dharma is not a religion but a way of life.. I believe the SC’s definition shows the way”.

In that case, under what reasoning can the Supreme Court take into consideration arguments of so called ‘Hindu’ litigants based on “Aastha”/ right to worship / religion?

Therefore, in order to decide this case on the basis of requirements of faith and worship, Hon’ble Apex Court must frst distinguish the two judgments hereinabove cited. Such judgments of Supreme Court also raise questions as to the authority of the Judiciary in deciding / interpreting matters of religion and faith.

Such judgments of Supreme Court also raise questions as to the competence of the Judiciary in deciding matters of religion and faith. Islam is a faith practiced worldwide and the writ of the Supreme Court of India only extends to the territorial jurisdiction of India, therefore, is the Supreme Court of India competent to prescribe methods of religious practice for Muslims who owe the origins of their religious practices beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India? Or, is the Supreme Court of India competent to prescribe separate religious practices for Muslims of India while practices in other parts of world remain different?

  1. ‘Title’ dispute or a matter of ‘Faith’:

A clear distinction needs to be made by this Hon’ble Court whether this matter is a title dispute or a matter of faith. During the course of proceedings before subordinate courts, litigants Ram Lala Virajman and Sunni Waqf Board were the only two parties that demanded land for purpose of worship. They were later joined by Nirmohi Akhara demanding land for the same purpose before the Supreme Court.

The motive behind this move appears to be collusion between parties to turn a title dispute into a matter purely of faith and worship, so that the Court is manipulated into circumventing the title dispute, in tune with political beneficiaries of the dispute.

Judiciary cannot afford to be perceived as holding two contrary opinions that on one hand ‘Hinduism not a Religion’, and on the other hand give credence to “Right to Religion” arguments of Hindu litigants (both of which benefit the same ruling party).

  1. Mediation Panel:

The manner of setting up the Mediation Panel also muddies the waters. It is not understood as to what was achieved by appointing predisposed elements such as Sri Sri Ravishankar on the mediation panel, who are well known campaigners for Mandir in Ayodhya. Various parties to the dispute had already expressed reservation to the appointment of this person as a mediator.

This, combined with directions of observing “total confidentiality” during mediation, was bound to allow unlawful intimidation therein to go unreported.

To add to the situation of unfairness in the mediation process, the court appointed mediation Committee invited Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Member of Parliament from the ruling Party, to reportedly suggest a solution to the dispute.

This was done despite the fact that all litigants had vehemently opposed Dr. Swamy’s eforts at unwarranted interventions in this matter (to either hijack the issue or subvert the same with extra-constitutional tactics in order). The same has been brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Apex Court on earlier occasions by the undersigned.

Hence any discerning person can see that the mediation panel was set up to fail, even while parties were being pressured to mediate. What makes it more disturbing is that about 10 days before the setting up of the said mediation panel, there was a serious efort being initiated by concerned voluntary citizens, to help bring an end to the Ayodhya dispute. The sudden announcement of the ‘mediation’ panel only served to pre-empt and disrupt any genuine effort by citizens.

The entire process reeks of infuence of external forces in the Judiciary. That perception itself needs to be redressed to repair an eroding public confidence in Judiciary.

  1. Ayodhya crisis is a product of British design:

This Hon’ble Court is well versed with the facts of the case (having gone through 38,000 pages of debates). What goes unstated is the fact that the Ayodhya crisis is a product of British design aimed at creating a perpetual communal confict.

With the objective of creating communal divide between Hindus and Muslims, the British frst foated the Indian Muslim league in 1906 through proxies and later to position the Hindus against Muslims, the outft called Hindu Mahasabha was foated in 1916 as part of their divide and rule policy on the vehicle of Hindu Nationalism and an Anti-Muslim campaign.

As part of the same Hindu nationalist plank, the British further encapsulated and aided the formation of Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) in 1925. However, the Hindu Mahasabha collapsed due to internal confict in 1947 and the RSS had to go almost underground in 1948 as it faced allegations of connection with assassination of Mahatama Gandhi. Thereby, the British agenda of fueling Hindu Nationalism got temporarily derailed.

However, some Hindu leaders led by Shyama Prasad Mookherjee formed the Bharitya Jana Sangh in 1951 as a Hindu centric political outft which also got phased out without much impact by late 1970s. In the meantime, as RSS faced a nationwide Government imposed ban, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) was formed in 1964 which is a major player till date in the Ram temple issue. In 1980, after regaining some mileage during the JP movement and the Emergency crisis, RSS formed the Bhartiya Janta Party as a replacement for Jana


Therefore, it is well known that the (British created) Hindu Nationalist forces have always been the ideology suppliers of the present ruling party, that gained prominence by enlisting the Ram Janma Bhoomi issue in their Election Manifesto right from its first National Convention held at Palampur in 1980 itself, and emerged as a major political player in the country when its leaders called for and participated in the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992. Every major functionary in the present central government owes their allegiance to and come from the background of RSS, including the Prime Minister and the President of the country.

Although the Muslim League disbanded after Partition, the Hindu counterpart, under the banner of self proclaimed “Hindutva” forces, continue the communal policy of ‘divide and rule’, and are deeply entrenched in the Ayodhya matter.

  1. ‘Hindu’ litigants:

Hindu litigants can be classifed under 2 categories:

A). The Politically motivated parties: Hindu Maha Sabha, RSS, VHP, BJP, etc.

As is clear from the background of the Hindu organizations illustrated above in para 5, the primary purpose of these parent as well as front organizations was to perpetuate an communal agenda and strife in the country to gain political power, which they have largely succeeded in.

They constitute the main ‘pro-mandir’ litigants in the Ayodhya matter, despite having no Locus Standi or any grounds for claims to the disputed site, except for “Aastha”.

The first litigant – Gopal Singh Visharadh: He was General Secretary of the Faizabad unit of All India Hindu Mahasabha in 1949, and was instrumental in organizing the operation of take- over of Babri Masjid, by planting of the Ram Lalla idols in the Masjid on the night of December 22, 1949. Thereafter he was the First person to fle a petition in the civil court of Faizabad, to obtain

an injunction restraining the government from removing the idols, and became the frst litigant in the matter seeking permission to conduct Puja to Ram Lalla.

Bhagwan Shri Ram Lalla Virajman: In 1989, the former VHP vice-president Deoki Nandan Agarwala fled a suit on behalf of Bhagwan Shri Ram the deity, claiming ownership of the site as the ‘Next Friend’.

B). Akharas (see brief background in box below):

Nirmohi Akhara, Nirvani Akhara, Digambari Akhara, etc.

Nirmohi Akhara: the Nirmohi Akhara claims to be age-old caretakers in occupation of the disputed site, and was one of the original and early litigants in the present matter since 1959.

However, the various Akharas have all played a pivotal role in escalating the Ayodhya Dispute (including planting of the idols in the Masjid), hand-in-glove with the ‘Hindutva’ forces, and acting as their grass root workforce.


As per the known history, these Akharas (presently so called “Sadhu Sants”) were in fact several militant groups raised by Adi Shankrayacharya all over the country, to protect Hinduism from a fast spreading dominion of Buddhism in this country. After Hinduism was restored, these Akharas were left mission-less. They then became militias for hire for various kings who intended to expand their empires, for a price (mercenaries). When the Muslims started coming to India, they offered a higher price than the kings of the day to these militant groups, as are highlighted in the Battles of Panipat. The Maratha defeat at the hands of Mughals in the third battle of Panipat was also made possible on the might of Akhara militants.

As time passed on, after the Mughal rule, came the British who were even better paymasters. The British employed them to take control, but kept them at a distance. Thereupon these Akharas turned their focus on temples. They mauled the weak or lesser protected temples and constantly thrived on rich offerings received in temples. Now today, they are masquerading as “Sadhus and Sants” who are dictating terms to the community.

At one time, Ayodhya was controlled by the ‘Shivaite’ Akharas. Gradually the ‘Vaishnav’ Akharas took over and violently drove the Shaivite Akharas away. Basically, muscle power and violence was used by the present day litigant Akharas to capture Ayodhya and its temples, even though no legitimate right or claim accrued to them. These Akaharas preside over various temples in Ayodhya and thrive on their riches, as can clearly be seen if one visits Ayodhya from the opulence and lifestyle of these ‘Sadhu-Sants’, most of them facing allegations of criminal offences including sexual assaults.

Even if we assume for a while, as claimed by Hindu parties, that the exact birthplace of Lord Ram is the point claimed by Hindu litigants, and the Babri Masjid is indeed built upon the remains of a Hindu temple after destruction of the same by Muslim invaders, why is there no sign or mention of an Akhara resistance to such invasion and demolition by the Muslims. Had the Akhara militias been present in Ayodhya and protecting the Hindu Temples there, as claimed by them now, they would have promptly mounted a ferce resistance and fought a pitched battle against the invaders. Just like other famous wars and battles fought by Hindu kings / tribesmen against numerous invasions on their lands / kingdoms, the battle of Ayodhya would have been a monumental milestone in the history of India post Mughal invasion. However, no such battle or even a skirmish is ever recorded either in history or sung in the local folklore or legend like that of ‘Aalha-Udal’ or ‘Beni Madho’. As per recorded legend, a well organised Muslim contingent once tried to take over the Hanumangarhi temple in Ayodhya which was fercely defended by local Hindus and the entire Muslim party perished in that skirmish.

  1. Government that is behaving like ‘invaders’:

As has been established in para 5 above, the present ruling party in centre being a direct product of the British design of divide and rule, is inevitably implementing the same methodology of the British invaders, to handle post independence India in order to dominate and control the people, and is thus behaving like invaders in our country just like the British.

Time and again, with impunity, the present Government, the ruling Bharatiya Janta Party and their functionaries have been inciting an atmosphere of hatred, fear psychosis, communal strife for both the majority and minority communities. While minority community is subjected to oppression, the fear psychosis of the majority community is played up to capitalise on. The present ruling Party is in power for last 5 years and as per admission by Prime Minister himself, no efforts have been made to ease the prevailing atmosphere of fear and hatred. Rather, such an atmosphere has been encouraged and inflamed by functionaries of the Government and ruling Party on innumerable occasions.

Whether it is the question of abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution or the matter of dealing with the insurgents in North Eastern states, the conduct of the government has been that of invaders who are bent upon creating more confict zones in the country in order to provide a bigger market to arms lobby.

  1. “Maryada Purushottam Ram” vs “Haraami Ram” In conclusion, I strongly believe that a fair and just judgment in this case cannot be given until the two aforementioned criminal cases are brought to their logical conclusions and the two earlier judgments of Supreme Court from 1994 and 1995 are clarifed.

Also, if the Court may decide to rule in favour of neither Hindus nor Muslims and exercise its vast powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and hand over the disputed land to government, it will be ruling in favour of the same vested interests amongst the ineligible Hindu parties as the government of the day is made up of the same vested interests. Those Hindu parties have been raising slogans such as ‘Tel lagao Dabur ka… Naam mitao Babur ka’. In such a scenario, the Apex Court of India shall become the crematorium of Maryada Purushottam Ram and birthplace of Haraami Ram.

At present, vested interests are vying for the disputed site at Ayodhya with separate agendas each, failing which such forces are capable of creating an unprecedented armed confict of ideologies in the country at a massive scale akin to a civil war. One force desires Vaticanisation of Ayodhya on the lines of The Papal system in The Vatican, which system of hierarchy is fundamentally against the spirit of the Sanatan Dharma while another force looks towards creating a situation of perpetual confict akin to Jerusalem. Both forces arise from the same community. Today, The Hon’ble Supreme Court stands in a position to defeat such divisive forces and unite the people of the Country. With respects and hope,

Yours sincerely,

Purushothoman Mulloli

C-38 Anand Niketan

New Delhi – 110021

Ph: 9312634952


  1. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde
  2. Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana
  3. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra
  4. Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman
  5. Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
  6. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
  7. Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
  8. Hon’ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
  9. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
  10. Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
  11. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
  12. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
  13. Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
  14. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
  15. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
  16. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
  17. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
  18. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran
  19. Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph
  20. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
  21. Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.Subhash Reddy
  22. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
  23. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
  24. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
  25. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna
  26. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai
  27. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
  28. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose
  29. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajjikuttira Somaiah Bopanna
  30. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari
  31. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shripathi Ravindra Bhat
  32. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian
  33. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy



Continue Reading

Sharad Joshi clarifying a misunderstanding with Ashok Desai in 2004

From: “Sharad Joshi” <>
To: “Sanjeev Sabhlok” <>
Subject: RE: From Sanjeev Sabhlok
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004

Dear Mr. Sanjeev Sabhlok ji,
I have replied Ashok Desai on the 8th August when I returned to Head
Quarters after a busy schedule of about two months. He has acknowledged my
reply. After that I have communicated with him about my present contact in
Yours sincerely,
– Sharad Joshi

—–Original Message—–
From: Sanjeev Sabhlok []
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 4:29 AM
Subject: From Sanjeev Sabhlok

Dear Sh. Joshi,
Would you please take the time off to reply?

Date: 5 Aug 2004 16:53:46 -0000
Subject: [SBP-Exec-support] Re: Executive Digest, Vol 8, Issue 3

For Sharad Joshi

Dear Sharad

You have not replied to my repeated requests
that you should explain your alliance with Shiv Sena to those of us who are
interested. It is 4 August today. I hope you will do so in the next 11

Yours ever


Continue Reading
Continue Reading