Ram Mandir vs Babri Masjid: Probable Solutions

The Ayodhya dispute is a political, historical and socio-religious debate in India, centred on a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya, located in Faizabad district, Uttar Pradesh. The main issues revolve around access to a site traditionally regarded among Hindus to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Rama, the history and location of the Babri Mosque at the site, and whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to create the mosque.

Image result for Ram Mandir and Babri Masjid

The Babri Mosque was destroyed during a political rally which turned into a riot on 6 December 1992. A subsequent land title case was lodged in the Allahabad High Court, the verdict of which was pronounced on 30 September 2010. In the landmark hearing, the three judges of The Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres (1.12 ha) of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with 1/3 going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, 1/3 going to the Islamic Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining 1/3 going to a Hindu religious denomination Nirmohi Akhara. While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site. The excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India were heavily used as evidence by the court that the predating structure was a massive Hindu religious building.

Image result for ram janmabhoomi

So, the debate is on what could be the probable solution to the issue. Should Ram Mandir be built? Can Babri Masjid be relocated? Will Ram Mandir be made? Will the Supreme Court allow construction of Ram Mandir? What should be the decision of Supreme Court?

Join us in the debate from 31st March 8.00 am to 1st April 8.00 am on this topic. Comment your views in the comment box.

 

litson.stephen

7 Comments

  • Surendra kumar March 31, 2017 at 2:59 am

    Ram mandir should be built. I was not satisfied with the judgement of Allahabad High Court which was later challange in SC. Allahabad HC basically divided the peace of land in 3 parts 2 belongs to hindus and one to muslim. Such a may create caos and instead of peace and harmony it may give an open call to riots. Archaeologically survey of India in its survey has found enough evidence that there was a lord rama hindu temple before babri masjid. And finally masjid was demolished on 6th dec. 1992 in a political rally. What allahabad hc did is like just to put butter in the fire. It was just like allowing all people to carry on their business. It is not the matter like all should be kept happy by courts , something which is right is right and something which is wrong is wrong. India is a country where hindus are in majority and the land known as ayodhya belongs to lord rama and so there should be rama temple and land should not be divided between 2 hindu groups instead govt. Should form a trust or committee to manage affairs regarding the temple and ask muslims to create their mosque at any other place. When rajiv gandhi govt. Can null and void the effects of the shah bano case by enacting a overriding legislature on the judgement of shah bano case. Why parliament can’t do so in this case if sc says that mosque and temple both will be created side by side. I think in ayodhya ram mandir should be built and masjid should be built on the other bank of saryu. It will create peace and harmony. Caos can be avoided. And sentiments of hindu community will also be respected and even muslims also should not have any problem with this. Because originally their was no mosque it was babar who built this mosque by destroying rama temple or modifying it so babri masjid should be removed from here and ram mandir should be made as soon as possible.

    Reply
  • Litson K Stephen March 31, 2017 at 3:09 am

    So you believe that we should ignore the minority groups?? You say that they should relocate the masjid.. Aren’t their religious sentiments hurt when a group of political leaders demolished the mandir?? Are the sentiments only applicable to the so called majority Hindu groups??

    Reply
  • Shivam mishra March 31, 2017 at 4:07 am

    Under the practices prevalent in Islamic countries, a mosque could be shifted to any other place for public purposes like constructing road, so they relocate masjid where as a temple once constructed cannot be touched. It also claimed by BJP MP Subramanian Swamy in his petition

    Reply
  • prasanna shukla March 31, 2017 at 12:20 pm

    Various ASI surveys done on that spot,they clearly says that there was a big temple of avtar of vishnu,several sculpture found in digging of 1970 and 1992.
    Mandir is place where pran pratistha of any god is done after that we start worshiping,but in case of masjid it’s a safe place reading kuran.
    In UAE main mosque of prophet muhammed was demolished for development work.

    It’s case of religious sentiment,we have same DNA ,we are son of same father,our ancestor is ram not Babar, masjid in ayodhya signifies the destruction of culture of india done by babar so there must be mandir.

    Reply
  • Surendra kumar March 31, 2017 at 4:32 pm

    First of all hindus are not so called majority. They are in majority . When the ancient ram mandir was demolishes by babar at that time also sentiments of hindu’s were hurt. When a mosque can be shifted to some other places in islamic countrie then why not in India. And moreover we are providing them another place to construct mosque, we are respecting their sentiments. But do not you think that they demolished hindu temple and it has been proved in various research word conducted by ASI and constructed their mosque and now their sentiments will hurt. One day they will enter in my house and stay their for sometime and when I will ask them to go out they will say since they stayed here for sometime so this land now belongs to them. Isn’t it unjust and unfair. ? The land was of ram temple and will be used only for construction of ram temple. In my personal opinion hindu should go upto any extent to construct ram mandir in ayodhya and no mosque construction should be allowed. But they can construct mosque on the other side of the river. It is not all about peace of land, it is about our identity and our faith and worship. And moreover if we talk about hurting of religious sentiments then what is huz houses and subsidy on huz yatra, my religious sentiments are being hurt because govt. Is not providing any subsidy on char dham yatra or dvadash jyotirling yatra or neither any char dham yatra house is being constructed, why so ? Things will be more complicated as you will go deep. Better let india be secular , protect the secular intact of the country , construct ram temple where it was. And ask muslims either to construct mosque on the other side of river or just sit peacefully. Because there were nothing like mosque before the demolisation of ram mandir. Ram is our ancestors not babar. Mostly muslims in india are the one who converted. And if supreme court rulings says that mosque should be constructed then the present govt. Should do the same what rajiv gandhi govt. Did to nullify the effect of the ruling of honourable sc in the shah bano case. Because this thing has become a precedent now if congress can do so just for muslim vote bank why bjp can’t do so for hindu vote bank. What congress did was more dangerous than what bjp should do. If bjp do so nothing wrong will happen. And due to the congress’s act muslims womens are still in bad conditions through out the country. And that is why now congres is very less in number and trying to save itself and even this time muslim women also voted for bjp means they want that their personal law which is not right for overall development and. Does not give any right to women should he changed. Congress has caused much grater harm to the country but involving people in divisive politics. Now all I want is ram temple should be constructed and no mosque should be constructed near ram temple so in near future no riots will take place. Constructing mandir is not enough but maintaining peace is also very important.

    Reply
  • Nikita April 1, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    See this issue is very sensitive since our country is secular with the amgamation of multiple religious beliefs. The SC rightly stayed out of it since its a religious matter….but since we line in a civilzed society its high time to resolve this issue. Both the respective religions have their sentiments attached to this sacred piece of land. But if we truly follow the principles of God we need to co-exsist harmoniously and therefore these piece of lands should be divided harmoniously instead of fighting like savages for decades and not even let the place remain holly.
    P.S. – the God exist in us not in a piece of land!

    Reply
  • Surendra kumar April 1, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    I agree that god exists in us but that does not mean that the place go to others. They are also very well aware about the fact that there was an ancient rama temple so they should leave this place for the construction of rama temple. We are law abiding people and don’t believe in savage or fighting, the solution can be sought by way of talking. SC gave time and it should be utilised. But both the things should not be constructed simultaneously , if it will happen I can assure u communal violence in ayodhya and tension in nearby area will never be calmed.

    Reply

Leave a Reply