Ayodhya Verdict: Curing Centuries-Old Wound on Indian Civilisation

We should now move on and work in harmony to build a grand Ram Temple and help Muslims build their mosque.

Image used for representation. 

(Photo: Reuters)

The Ayodhya verdict pronounced today is a closure of centuries old wound on Indian civilisation that was ravaged by invaders. It is notable that Hindus’ right to worship has been finally recognised after 828 years by Indian legal system. Or, as Sankrant Sanu has noted in his tweet, the judgment has for the first time recognised the rights of enslaved natives to regain their rights over invaders. This is a beacon of light for other oppressed natives across the world too.

Let us be clear that the verdict is not based on faith.

There is documented history based on Islamic evidence of invaders destroying Hindu temples to make mosques from their rubbles or simply dress them up as mosques. This was done by them to rub the nose of natives in the dust and show them how weak their faith was. But, Hindus are the only race possibly that did not let the ancient heritage die, inspite of huge atrocities perpetrated on it.

People wave a flag that reads ‘Glory to lord Rama’ as they celebrate the verdict outside the Supreme Court in New Delhi, on Saturday, 9 November.(Photo: AP)

Judgment is Clear and Lucid

Ayodhya was, and still is, a test case for the Muslim community to earn goodwill of the Hindu society by gifting this land to Ram Mandir. By avoiding judicial route, it would’ve served long term interstate of national unity. Muslims of today have no relation with Babur. Those who believed in this fiction went to Pakistan .Others who stayed back believed that we had common ancestors and we have common DNA. Thus, there was no need for any hate. Efforts of some Muslim leaders to make Indian Muslims identify with the invaders was only to run their divisive shops and play the victimhood card.

The home of Islam, Saudi Arabia, has shifted and removed many mosques for different reasons.

Most gratifying part is that the judgment is unanimous, showing the inherent unity of rooted Indians. Though the issue was being treated as a title dispute, the judgment shows that honourable judges were aware of issue of faith in this case. Parts of judgment illustrate this world view.

At the same time, let us be clear that the verdict is not based on faith. Judges have strongly asserted that Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) evidence couldn’t be brushed aside. It clearly showed that there was a predated structure that was not Islamic, according to Supreme Court. The ASI had called it Vishnu temple, and stone inscription found there also described this to be a place of an avatar of Vishnu who killed Bali, thus indicating that it was temple of Bhagwan Ram.

The judgment is clear, lucid and leaves no confusion. Though, some people have argued that by offering double the land for mosque, judgment has compensated squatters on Ram Lalla’s land unduly. But, we should not think on these lines. Let us look ahead. Let past be past.

Nothing ‘Majoritarian’ About the Judgment

It is sad that same divisive leaders who showed full faith in judiciary while appealing to the apex court against the Allahabad High Court judgment, now say that judiciary is not infallible. It is clear that for them judiciary is infallible only if it gives judgment in their favour. This attitude has been shown by this lobby time and again. This fear mongering is undesirable and avoidable. They should realise that this divisive politics is now past expiry day.

Their assertion of Babri being shahid is not based on facts. The home of Islam, Saudi Arabia, has shifted and removed many mosques for different reasons. It is accepted by our Supreme Court that a mosque is only a prayer hall, that’s why one can offer namaz anywhere. Thus, this victimhood story must be buried for good.

Bhagwan Ram is called Maryada Purushottam because he lived within parameters of dharma despite facing extreme difficulties in life. It is only fair that the decision has come through courts, since vested interests refused to go for a negotiated settlement. If Ram Temple had been achieved through legislation, as suggested by many impatient people, it would have become highly political with accusation of being a ‘majoritarian’ decision.

‘Left’ Historians Stand Exposed

This judgment also exposes the ‘Left’ historians who had arrogated the right to interpret history to themselves. It is a known fact that in 1990 ––when the Babri side was ready to come to a settlement based on the evidence presented by scholars for Ram Temple side––these historians frustrated this effort by asserting to the Babri advocates that the evidence had no weight and they knew better. However, they had no evidence to support their claims. They ran away from the negotiation meetings when confronted with the evidence.

These ‘historians’ were chided by the Allahabad High Court in no uncertain terms for their fictitious accounts and circular arguments, quoting each other without any primary evidence. This resulted in the unfortunate incident of 6 December 1992. These ‘historians’ owe an apology to the people of this nation for having put India through so much of disturbance and violence by their obtuse opposition due to their ingrained Marxian bias against Hindus.

This judgment is not about victory or defeat of either side. It is just a correction of a historical wrong that didn’t allow us to have a grand temple for one of the most revered God, Ram, whose name appears in the name of nearly every fourth or fifth Indian across this nation.

We should now move beyond this controversy that has dogged us for decades, and work in harmony to build a grand Ram Temple and help Muslims build their mosque. India is at the cusp of a civilisational upsurge. Let us all work for an India that takes pride of place on the global stage and provides its citizens a good healthy life.

(Ratan Sharda is an author and RSS ideologue. He can be reached @RatanSharda55. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)