somebody is talking facts

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article818314.ece

i was surprised how The Hindu allowed it to be published. That is Subramanium Swami. so typical of him.

there are some points which are often pointed out but there are few less known. later ones are quoted here.
1) the Supreme Court judgment [reported in (1994) 6SCC376] in which the court.... held that “Hindus must bear the Cross for it.” This was an extraordinary judicial observation and has profound implications for all communities whenever religious premises are destroyed.

very nicely put without hurting anybody in particular. but everyone need not be hiding behind the words. it simply means that for every temple brought down all Muslims have to bear the cross.

2) A fundamental question arises: Can a temple and a masjid be considered on a par as far as sacredness is concerned? Relying on two important apex judgments that hold the field today, the answer is: No. A masjid is not an essential part of Islam religion, according to a majority judgment of a Constitution Bench of India's Supreme Court (op.cit. 1994), whereas according to the House of Lords, U.K. (1991), the temple is always a temple even if in disuse or ruins.

the first one being Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India case [reported in (1994) 6 SCC 376],
The Constitution Bench then rejected this contention, stating: “The correct position may be summarised thus. Under Mohammedan law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession. A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India”(para 82).

and the second is regarding sale of a Nataraja temple by a farmer to a dealer in UK

"On February 13, 1991, when I (Subramaniam Swami) was Union Law Minister, the landmark judgment dismissing the buyer's final appeal [see (1991) 4 All ER 638] was delivered. The Bench consisting of Justices Purchas, Nourse, and Leggatt concluded: “We therefore hold that the temple is acceptable as party to these proceedings and that it is as such entitled to sue for the recovery of the Nataraja” [page 648 para g].