Why you won’t become a bad citizen (and a bad Hindu) if you feel proud about Ram Mandir.
Exposing the unreliable divisive narrative of the Left that is undermining democracy in the name of “Hindu-guilt”.
I’m a (proud) spiritual being who is yet to read the entire Ramayana. I am hardly a devotee of Lord Rama. So, the temple coming up in Ayodhya makes me proud and happy more as a dispassionate well-wisher than a devout Bhakt.
But then, the popular Left opinion is that an Indian, especially a Hindu, must not be happy and proud about the prospective third largest temple in the world!
I’m sure it’s reasonable in the historic backdrop of the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992 and the ensuing riots all over South Asia.
But does it imply that Hindus must forever be guilty of what happened then? Also, is it possible that any political organization standing for Ram Mandir is fascist and oppressive? Most importantly, are the rights of the temple acquired in a violent undemocratic way?
Let’s explore this.
I’m not going to delve into the history of the Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir issue. I’ll dedicate another article just for that.
The legal battle and socio-political influences
The legal battle for the custodianship of the disputed land began from 1959 when the Nirmohi Akhara filed a suit for the possession of the land. In 1961, Sunni Waqf Board also filed a suit seeking the same in Allahabad High Court and also the removal of the Hindu idols from the Masjid.
Along with this, a lot of dirty games were played in the socio-political arena before and after Independence. Most of them are on communal lines, the temple was the star attraction of all parties involved. Knowing the sensitive nature of the issue, the BJP, Congress, and the Communists have used it to their advantage.
For instance, in 1949 members of Akhil Bharatiya Ramayana Mahasabha placed idols inside the mosque which was then propagated as an act of miracle. In 1986, the District Judge allowed the opening of Babri Masjid for Hindus on the behest of Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister; a decision that deepened the communal sentiments around Ayodhya. The gates remained open for Hindus till 1992 when the demolition of the mosque happened.
The Left historians and academicians always denied the Archeological Survey of India’s claims about the remains of a temple beneath the mosque. Three ASI studies were done on the site, all of which concluded the presence of pre-existing Hindu, Jaina, and Buddhist artifacts and structures. These are all rejected or buried under flimsy arguments.
Though the courts remain unbiased in their judgments, the narratives created by different parties have influenced how the case was handled. In one of the most significant hearings on the dispute in Allahabad High Court, the popular narrative corroborated by “scientific analyses” had favored the 2010 judgment to divide the land into three equal parts.
On the other side, we have a system in which people tend to take matters into their own hands, without waiting for the cumbersome judicial process. This is evident in the Ayodhya case, which was marred by long communal conflict and riots.
Supreme Court verdict, 2019
After staying the Allahabad High Court verdict in 2010 that divided the land into three parts, the Supreme Court began hearing the appeal in the next year. As the socio-political scenarios in India changed, Ayodhya became less and less of a political tool. The BJP still maintained their promise to the Hindus, but they also resorted to the judicial system to bring about a democratic decision in the case. And they became triumphant in 2019 when the 5-judge Constitution Bench passed a unanimous judgment directing the construction of the temple on the site and rebuilding the mosque in an alternate 5-acre land.
So, the building of Ram Mandir is the consequence of a democratic constitutional process that followed a rather violent past. The Muslims, the Left, or any party opposing its construction had all the right and opportunity to approach the apex court for the same, but why didn’t they fight and win this case in court?
The Left historians’ hypocrisy in court:
Like I said before, Sangh Parivar has resorted to violence in Ayodhya dispute in the past. And that’s not ideal for a democratic nation like India. But the Left narrative uses this to portray that the Parivar and all its affiliates are fascist, oppressive fanatics!
If this was true, why would they approach the courts when they held power in the Centre? Why would BJP promise that they’ll build the temple only through a constitutional victory?
You’d say that the BJP bought the Supreme Court, hijacked the narrative, and this verdict marks the completion of the saffronisation of India.
Fine, but have you ever thought how the Left historians and academicians presented their statements in court?
- Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar, D N Jha, M Athar Ali, and R S Sharma, the biggest Left historians who strongly argued that there was no archeological, literary, or historical evidence of a temple in the disputed site, didn’t appear in court to give their statements.
The academicians who were present gave such absurd statements; you can find them below:
Suvira Jaiswal, a professor at JNU and a historian:
Another historian, S C Mishra:
R.C. Thakran, a historian from Delhi University:
Supriya Varma of Hyderabad University. She did a PhD in Archeology in JNU.
SUSHIL SRIVASTAVA, a professor of department of Medieval and Modern History of University of Allahabad. His/Her research area is Medieval and Modern History. (From Department website)
You can read the article I sourced this from here.
Also, WATCH Dr. Meenakshi Lekshmi’s press conference on the same.
So, the question is: who were they trying to sabotage: the entire judicial system of this country?
Oppression of Muslims in the name of Ram Mandir:
To everyone who believes that Ram Mandir is the sign of fascism and oppression of Muslims in India, I’d like to ask them these questions:
- When multiple ASI findings proved the existence of a temple beneath the mosque, why did the Left lie that there wasn’t any?
“The issue has become political now, Muslim leaders also didn’t lead the community properly on the issue. After the first excavation in Ayodhya, Muslims had decided to let go their claim over the land, but communist historians like Irfan Habib got into it and misled the Muslims and said that there was ‘nothing’ after the first excavation and asked for further digging at the place. Thus to settle the matter, Muslims are finding it difficult to come back to the negotiating table.” -K K Mohammad in an interview to an RSS newsletter.
- When Hindus or Dharmic traditions continuously speak out against the oppression by Islamic rulers in the subcontinent, why do the mainstream academicians demean and deny their narrative?
- Why did they fabricate an entire theory of ‘Aryan Invasion’ to show that Islamic rulers are not the only oppressors in the subcontinent? Instead, they used it to argue that oppression was an ancient practice here, only to be completely debunked!
Lastly, why are they still throwing loaded words around, confusing the people about historical facts, and giving opportunities for the undeserving to play the victim card over and over again?
Destruction of temples:
We must understand the Ayodhya issue in the backdrop of Islamic rule. Contrary to what Left historians say, Hindu or Dharmic traditions were at constant conflict with Islamic invaders before the British rule. The Quwwat al-Islam mosque in Qutub Minar complex, the looting by different Islamic invaders, the burning of Nalanda University, the mosque in Kashi Vishvanant temple, the history of Maratha kings Shivaji and Shambhaji, the invasion of Northern Kerala by Tipu Sultan are all examples of this.
Likewise, the destruction of Ram Lalla Virajman temple was an act of oppression by Islamic rulers, and also of the proclamation of Islam’s superiority over the conquered lands. This has always been the oral tradition and the local belief among the populations in Northern India; something rooted in their history and not forced upon them by any political party.
It is this oppression Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists still stand against in South Asia as a whole; the narrative the Left seeks to smother however they can!
I know our idea of history is Left-leaning, so it must be difficult for us to acknowledge this. But what I’m saying is they have no right to control what our history is! They’ve no right to hijack young people’s minds and feed them lies about the world as they have been doing for decades.
If they don’t respect the democratic processes in our country and choose to make hollow public outrage about everything, they are more propagandists than academicians. So, a pertinent question is: are you falling prey to propaganda in the name of academics?
Follow me here for more updates on these topics
Here’s an article on construction of Somnath Temple and its historical and political significance.
Follow me on Instagram and Facebook
Sources:
https://www.pgurus.com/ayodhya-dispute-and-the-dubious-role-of-the-gang-of-four-left-historians/
https://www.opindia.com/2019/11/left-historian-ram-mandir-argument-knowledge-allahabad-high-court/
