news details |
|
|
| End Ramjanmabhoomi Dispute | | | RK Sinha | 11/17/2018 8:57:56 PM |
| December 6, 2018 will mark the 27th year of the Babri Masjid demolition in Ayodhya. By the time the Sun was setting on the western horizon on December 6, 1992 the last dome of the Babri Masjit had collapsed bringing an end to the disputed structure.
The raging debate in the country whether Ram Temple should be built there is a futile exercise. Puja and Aarti of Lord Ram has been going on since December 22, 1949, How it can be stopped by anyone. To me it appears impossible.
Now the question is how to settle the dispute between the Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara over 2.77 acre of land which in dispute. The matter is with the Supreme Court of India which has decided to hear the case from January 2019. Hindus and Muslims, the two communities and their leaders say that they would abide by the verdict of the Supreme Court. But a section of the Hindus rooting for construction of a new Ram Mandir in Ayodhya would not give up easily their claim on the site even if the verdict goes in favour of the Sunni Waqf Board. Likewise a section of the Muslim community and their leaders would not readily accept the verdict in case it goes in favour of the Nirmohi Akhara. It is likely that the Sunni Waqf Board may go in for a review petition when the judgment comes in favour of Nirmohi Akhara.
Some historical facts need to be recalled to buttress the demand for construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. According to Modern Indian History, the demand for building a Ram Temple in Ayodhya at the disputed site where Babri Masjid stood then was first made in the middle of the 19th Century, sometime in 1850s when Babri Masjid was attacked by Hindus during the British rule.
I would like to remind those who target and attack organisations like the RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the BJP for raising the pitch for Ram Mandir that none of these outfits existed in 1850s. Since 19th Century local Hindus of Ayodhya have been raising the demand to build temple at the site. Today, it is continuation of the century old demand of building of the temple. What is objectionable when the RSS, the BJP and the VHP are demanding construction of temple in Ayodhya? I don't see anything wrong in it. On the contrary, the RSS, the BJP and the VHP are fighting to protect the faith of crores of Hindus in India and abroad.
The Sunni Waqf Board and All India Muslim Personal Law Board the two leading outfits of Indian Muslims have rejected the suggestion of the Supreme Court earlier that the Ayodhya dispute be settled out of court. In fact All India Muslim Personal Law Board rejected a proposal by one of its members Maulana Salman Nadvi who supports construction of Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya, ruling out any compromise on Babri Masjid.
It announced that there is no change in the Board's stand that Babri Masjid is a mosque and when a mosque is constructed at a place, it remains a mosque till the final judgement that is ''qayamat".
It argued that the land dedicated for masjid can't be sold, gifted or in any way alienated. But the Muslim Personal Board is not ready to accept the fact that offering namaz at any place which disputed goes against the tenets of Islam.
The Muslim Personal Board for that matter other Muslims leaders refuse to see dozens of cases in Islamic nations where Mosques were razed to ground.
According to one report, "The destruction of sites associated with early Islam took place mainly in the Hejaz region of western Saudi Arabia, particularly around the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The demolition has focused on mosques, burial sites, homes and historical locations associated with the Islamic prophet Muhammad and many of the founding personalities of early Islamic history. Although Saudi Arabia says that it is to accommodate the ever increasing numbers of Haj pilgrims from across the world. The area of the Masjid in Mecca is being expanded.
One way to end the dispute in Ayodhya is to wait for the final verdict of the Supreme Court on the title suit of the disputed land. In case it goes in favour of the Sunni Waqf Board, the Muslims should give the land for the temple and in lieu of 2.77 acre they should be given land in Ayodhya by the local Hindus without involving the state or the central government. The chunk of land could be more than 2.77 acre.
The idea of allotting land to the Muslims to build a new Mosque by the side of the temple at the disputed site is fraught with fresh dispute and confrontation between the Hindus and the Muslims in future. It will be prudent to give land away from the present Ram Temple. Muslims should be told that in case they win the title suit and yet give the land to the Hindus, the majority community should donate handsome money for building a new mosque in Ayodhya as a good gesture.
"Archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India in 1970, 1992 and in 2003 in and around the disputed site have clearly found the evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site associated with... temples of north India". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
