Jesus Christ was born in
Bethlehem, south of present day Jerusalem. This is the Church of Nativity,
which stands in Palestine, a country with a population of 4.5 million, out of
which 93% are Muslims.
This is Mecca, in Saudi
Arabia. It is the birth place of Prophet Muhammad. Saudi Arabia is inhabited by
28 million people, of which everyone is virtually a Muslim.
Then comes the Ram Janmabhoomi
in Ayodhya. It is the birthplace of Lord Shri Ram, an incarnation of one of the
trinities of Hinduism. The country inhabited by 1.3 billion people, out of
which 79% are Hindus.
In a country like India with
temples like these-
and grand monuments like these-
look at the grandeur of the highly revered and worshipped Lord Rama.
Lord Rama rests in a tent in a
country where he was born and is worshipped by 1.04 billion Hindus. A battle ensues in court
for dividing the land peacefully between the Hindus and Muslims.
The controversy arises because
of the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992. While the demolition of the mosque
was surely an unfortunate event, there are three major points to be considered-
1.
The Babri Masjid
was built on orders of the Mughal emperor Babur by destroying an already
existing temple at the place where Shri Ram was born. It was a structure built
on the foundations of hate to insult their helplessness in their own country.
And the presence of a temple in place of the mosque has been confirmed by the Archaeological
Survey of India in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2.
The Babri Masjid
had its gates locked for several years. Lawsuits had been pending in the court.
The mosque did not function as a mosque. In fact, the mosque functioned as a
Hindu temple after 1984 when all Hindus gained permission to worship there.
3.
The mosque is no
longer in place, and Hindu devotees visit the Ram Janmabhoomi in large numbers.
The mosque was definitely large, but did not have a religious significance as
big, as to deny the Hindus the right to build a temple for their highly revered
and worshipped deity, especially when it is no longer in place. Moreover, there
is a provision for relocation of mosques, which has been followed by Arab
countries when re-planning their cities.
Even after constant support
from Shia groups to allot possession of the ‘disputed’ land to Hindus, the
rigid attitude of the waqf board is definitely unsuitable for a matter of a
nature this fragile. While it is difficult to determine whether the temple, or
rather, the tent lies in ruins due to the nature of the waqf board, the current
political scenario, or the pendency of the matter in court, one thing which
troubles me is the presence of the word should, instead of shouldn’t, in questions like these.
Why shouldn’t we build the Ram
Mandir in Ayodhya?
In the name of appeasement and
secularism, has the level of politics stooped to such a low that the majority
group would not be allowed to worship the most revered of all deities, in their
own country?
I am against communal
bloodshed, but I am also against the denial of rights to one community, in
order to wrongfully appease the other. Our country is going through a peculiar
phase of hypocrisy, where the definition of secularism is altered for
appeasement politics every now and then.
We all remember the Babri
Masjid demolition. But how many of us even know about the death of 28
kar-sewaks after the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav,
ordered firing over them?
Leave out a small minority
extorting for their personal gains, all Indians wish to have a peaceful outcome
to this dispute stretching over centuries.
The Hindus have been suffering
in this country for a long time, at the hands of invaders, the British colonial
rulers, and then at the hands of the pseudo-secularists after independence. It
is time we take our rights back.
We have suffered. Our Gods should
not.
- by Vanaj Vidyan
a hindu
