Author: Soubhik Chakrabarti
Note: The views expressed are those of the author himself and might not necessarily reflect the views of Icy Tales.
First off, let me clarify that I am no fan of the BJP. Nor am I of Subramaniam Swamy, the God BJP supporters love to look up to. However, while I find some of his views prejudiced against Muslims, the Ram Mandir issue particularly irked me. Much because I found this party unnecessarily raking up communal tension by promising to build the Ayodhya Ram Temple and demolishing the mosque.
So, I looked up the facts. My opinion is formed mostly on the basis of these facts. I would love to know of more additional facts that I might have skipped which led to a faulty conclusion.
Did a Ram Temple really exist in Ayodhya, in the place the mosque stands now?
It’s proven now that the place where the mosque stands now, there really was a temple before. This was proved after thorough investigation in which the Allahabad High Court accepted the proofs. The 3 bench judge of the Allahabad High Court which made the decision included the Muslim.
Did Ram really live there?
All evidence points to the fact that it is indeed so. Even if he did not, it is no secret that millions of Hindus regard that place as his birthplace.
Did the Muslim Organizations Make Any Statement?
Here is where things went wrong. Before 2000, in the court case, the party representing the Muslim community stated that if it was proved that a temple really existed in Ayodhya, where the Mosque is established now, they would relinquish the rights to have the Mosque. Unfortunately, it has been established so now.
So, what about the Mosque?
Our Muslim brothers have the same rights as us. And to take away a Mosque from them would be unjust. And that’s exactly the point that was raised in the Allahabad High Court, where it was alleged that since the Mosque was present for so many years, it should not be demolished.
And I believe it shouldn’t, if it was a normal temple like others. However, it isn’t a question of a temple replacing a Mosque. I have never believed in Majoritarianism and I did ask myself why the BJP was bent on this development. However, there seems to be a difference in weight between the Hindus Case and Muslim Case there.
It is just another mosque for the Muslims, but all evidence at least points to the fact that there definitely was a temple in the place where the Mosque stands now. And it is no fact that Muslim rulers of yesteryear converted many temples into Mosques. And since it is supposedly Lord Ram’s Birthplace, those Hindus who believe in Lord Ram do deserve it back.
This isn’t about Hindus destroying a Mosque for a temple. It is about Hindus who believe that Lord Ram existed there. And it is the representatives of the Muslim community who had stated that if it was proved that there was a temple earlier on the same place as the Ayodhya temple, they would relent.
Let’s put it this way. If Muslims found something important related to the Prophet on one site where a Temple was constructed and where there was initially a Mosque, wouldn’t they want that place to be a Mosque again?
Unless we can prove that Lord Ram didn’t exist there, or that no such statement was made, we really should not give steam to communal tensions. And it is a request to read the facts than to just start off thinking that one religion is presenting its authority over the other religion. It is not about having a temple over a mosque. It is about respecting the people of other religion when the believe that their God exists there. And this I say being an Atheist.
Do you differ in your opinion? Why? Do not engage in hate comments. Rather, let us know what you think and why!
