Ayodhya Ram Madir- A political rhetoric?

Sometime in 1990, Chandrakant Sompura first visited Ayodhya with then chief of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Ashok Singhal. Then 47, Sompura, from a family of temple architects in Ahmedabad, recalls how the disputed site resembled a 'military camp'. Many articles published earlier state that he had to go inside without any measuring instruments, and take the dimension of the sanctum sanctorum by counting my footsteps. That was the first time a temple at the birthplace of Lord Ram by then a symbol at the centre of a movement that would go on to redefine Indian politics took shape in Sompura’s head. That place certainly has some vibrations that convey all the Ram Bhakts all over the world.

 

Yes, the Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies have been employing the Ram Mandir issue in say every election. But fools are those who term it as a political agenda or a 'political rhetoric'! Ayodhya matter has always been a talk of town, not only because of it's religious importance, but also because of its political, social borders. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in its verdict on November 9, 2019, awarded the entire disputed area in Ayodhya to the Hindu parties, after a 40-day marathon hearing. On the other hand, the SC ordered that an alternative land of 5 acres in Ayodhya would be given to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque.

 

 

Isn't it all about how people look at the situation and how the partisan media reflects the picture in first place? Recalling the irrefutable fact of the three-judge Supreme Court bench hearing of the Babri Masjid’s case, ten times, what with the recent one in July 2018. Yet, it struggled to decide if the matter should be referred to a constitution bench of five or more judges instead of as an ordinary title dispute.

 

Why the exception by the Supreme Court in the Ram Mandir issue? After all, in recent times, the Supreme Court constitution benches have adjudicated highly emotive and sensitive cases like instant triple talaq, passive euthanasia, Delhi statehood case, Sabarimala temple entry ban case and Parsi ex-communication case. So its dilly-dallying or hesitation in referring the issue to the constitution bench (Article 145(3) of the constitution mandates any case involving a substantial question of law relating to constitutional interpretation) is quite inexplicable.

 

The partisan media has equally been a part of the problem complexity. Some of them are culpable of not sharing ‘facts’ of the dispute accurately to people. To compound the issue, media indulged in speculation over 'issue of Ordinance' or 'Tabling of Law' in the Lok Sabha as a political imperative or compulsion of Modi led BJP/NDA. Facts of Babri Masjid are available in public domain. Neither Babur nor his General Mir Baqi constructed the Masjid as per the Archeological evidence. Babur Nama, an authentic record of events of Babur, does not mention the name of Ayodhya or a visit to such a name place.

 

The BJP government and especially PM Modi has always stood behind the truth. Truth that Ram Mandir existed, truth that it was acquired and truth that it had to be built again with same call of honors. Ram Mandir in no way is a double edged sword to the BJP government. PM Modi has however said that the construction of temple would begin by 12:30 pm on August 5. After the completion of temple by 2024, PM Modi may use the Ram Mandir card saying that they stood by what they had promised and what the Hindu community had largely voted for. Don't you see a valid logic here?

 

BJP will be doing what the Hindus have voted for. The party will be setting a huge benckmark for fulfilling promises they made to people. They will be reiterating what they have done for the nation, may it be the Surgical strikes, article 370, demonetisation and also Ram Mandir. Again, how more far will this go on is left on for time to reveal!

 

Counterpoint-