December 6 is around; intellectuals and leftists will be sharpening their arguments how not to let the construction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya take place. A few known anglicised Hindu opponents of Ram Temple will be at their best in newspapers and on TV debates. Political leaders like Lallu and Maulana Mulayam, who rose to prominence during Ayodhya movement, could be seen on TV channels surrounded with Muslims busy advocating their cause.
Babri Litigant Advocates
|
Just three days before the 22nd anniversary of the disputed structure’s demolition, the oldest plaintiff in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, Hashim Ansari declared that he would withdraw from the case and advocated construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site. “The issue has been politicised and is no longer a religious matter. I wish to withdraw from this case and will communicate to the Supreme Court regarding this in writing. I will not attend any protest function on December 6. I will stay at home on December 6,” he said.The trilogy of columnists, intellectuals and Leftists, every year on December 6, seek an opportunity to earn a few more bucks with their weird arguments against the re-construction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya. The trilogy, against Ram Temple, have advocated every possible argument—constructing a school or a college, a library, a temple and a mosque standing side by side, a hospital or a park. But none of their suggestions have been accepted by the courts including Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High court.
The judgement given by the Lucknow Bench only complicated the matter. It gave a cautious verdict. It gave three different opinions, thus strengthening the doubts of the pro-Temple supporters that courts in India can’t give verdict in the matter of faith. The Lucknow Bench made an attempt to satisfy all the three parties without giving a clear verdict for the construction of Ram Temple. Perhaps, it knew the fate of the Shah Bano case where the SC ruling was turned down by the then Rajiv Gandhi’s government in the Parliament by enacting a law that nullified the Supreme Court’s favourable judgement for the Muslim women.
In the recent past, courts in India have given historical judgements in cases pertaining to live-in relations and LGBTs. And one can safely say, petitioners for such cases and Indian courts in their rulings have been heavily influenced by the West. Ironically, when it comes to the construction of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya, Indian judiciary has not referred to Cordoba Church in Spain. Cordoba is a Catholic Christian Cathedral of the Diocese of Cordoba, dedicated to the assumption of the Virgin Mary and located in the Spanish region of Andalusia. It originally was a Catholic Church built by the Visgoths, a German tribe. The Church was converted to an Islamic Mosque in the middle ages by the Arab invaders who ruled Spain for many centuries. After the reconquista, it was again made a Catholic Christian Church.
Since 2000, Spanish Muslims have lobbied with the Roman Catholic Church to allow them to pray in the Cathedral which has been rejected on multiple occasions, both by the Church authorities in Spain and by the Vatican. In 2010, two Muslim tourists were arrested at the cathedral. The incident took place when half a dozen Austrian Muslims, who were part of a group of 118 people, organised tour for young European Muslims knelt to pray inside the Church and security guards asked them to continue with their tour or leave the building. This resulted in a fight between the Muslims and security guards and two Muslims were detained. These battles over the cathedral reflect the contested view of what constitutes Spanish history and Spanish identity. Unfortunately, the Indian media packed with Leftists, Liberals, Intellectuals and Secularists have systematically and intentionally never ever mentioned the Cordoba case in their debates as a reference point for the construction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya.
The Bishop of Cordoba, Demetrio Fernandez, had said it was impossible to share a house of worship with Muslims, which would be akin to “sharing a wife between two husbands.” As a result, he says, the ban on Muslim prayers must remain in place.
Swami Chinmayananda, founder of Chinmaya Mission, had condoned the demolition of disputed structure at Ayodhya when he was asked. The Swami had said what had been destroyed in Ayodhya was a Mosque -shaped structure. Can there be a Mosque without the minarets? VP Bhatia wrote in his Column in Organiser, Cabbages and the King. “Building a Mandir is a symbolic act that signals nationalism. It’s resurging a sign of our nationhood. Hindu wants to feel proud of his religion and of his heritage, but he gets no support from the anglicised, educated so-called elite which is almost ashamed of Hinduism!
The article VP Bhatia wrote was way back on January 24, 1993. Since then Indian politics has undergone drastic changes. The Guardian, soon after 2014 election results were declared, conceded the British influence has come to an end. Congress has suffered its worst defeat in the 2014 elections, Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is on the decline. Yadav chieftains have yet to come to terms with the election results. In Delhi, BJP on its own has come to power; the caste- ridden society of India to a large extent has become Hindus.
The anglicised generations have been outnumbered. The Leftists are in disarray after their humiliating defeats in West Bengal. Many political commentators have toned down the criticism of Namo and referred to him a rock star.
Now the time is ripe to make all efforts for the reconstruction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya. The judiciary system in India can take a leaf from Cordoba Church while giving a fair and impartial judgement for the reconstruction of Ram Temple.
Manoj Sharma ?(The writer is a senior columnist)?
Comments