The ground-breaking (laying the first brick for construction) ceremony for the Ayodhya Rama Temple (one of the deities in Hindu culture) took place on the 5th of August 2020 after 500 years of the social and legal claims and dispute on the land. The city of Ayodhya in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India has had numerous riots and protests regarding the contested land on the basis of whether a temple or mosque rightfully belongs there. This dispute dates back to the 16th century and has seen many peaceful and violent demonstrations along with court cases after which this year, the side representing the Hindus (Ram Lalla) won the case to construct a temple on the land. This now brings into question whether it was truly a “wrong” that was done “right”, or a ploy by Prime Minister Modi to forcibly change India into a Hindu state.
The History
In the Hindu religion, the city of Ayodhya is considered to be extremely sacred and holy as it is regarded to be the Ram Janmabhoomi or birthplace of one of the Hindu deities Rama. During the reign of the Mughal Emperor Babur in India, a mosque was constructed on the land namely the Babri Masjid. Due to the paramount religious sanctity that the place holds for many Hindus and the presence of a mosque for prayer for Muslims, disputes arose regarding the land.
The first recorded instance of dispute was in 1858 when a group of Sikhs (a religious community) conducted non-muslim rituals inside the mosque which led the British (since India was under British occupation then) to build a 7 foot high wall to seperate the places of worship for Hindus and Muslims. The first account of religious violence was in 1855 when Suni muslims stated that a Hindu group was destroying the mosque. In 1949, Hindu activists broke into the mosque and placed idols of the deities Rama and Sita in the mosque essentially converting the mosque into a de facto temple.
In 1992, a massive riot took place where Hindu extremists demolished the mosque during the course of which 2,000 people died. The case was then brought to court in 2003 where the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) excavated the Ram Janambhoomi/Babri Mosque site and reported evidence of a large structure having pre-existed the Babri Masjid. The senior lawyer referred to images on the pillars showing a Garuda (bird-like creature from Hindu mythology) flanked by lions also adding that “Such imagery was in complete contrast to Islamic practices”. Further excavation also found evidence of Muslim burial sites suggesting that both Hindu and Muslim communities resided there. No court case was able to establish a proper verdict and enforce it until that of 2019 where the Supreme Court of India opened a case on the Ayodhya dispute granting the disputed site of 2.77 acres of land to the Hindus on account that the evidence of archaeology showed that the mosque was constructed on a “structure” that was distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic. The government also gave an alternative 5 acres to the Sunni Waqf Board (the muslim side).
The Opinions
Many muslims in India and around the world believe that the verdict is extremely discriminatory and that it violates the secular nature of India. The date of the ground-breaking coincides with the date of the unionization of Kashmir from 2019 which people believe is another measure by Prime Minister Modi to enforce his Hindu-nationalism and oppress the Muslims of India. While the Supreme Court did condemn the destruction of the mosque, people believe that the verdict which is in favour of Hindus, is still a gross violation of the very foundation on which India as a nation was created; equality and unity in diversity. Kashmir’s Muslim leader Syed Ali Shah Geelai stated that the verdict “is hurting Muslims throughout the world” and that “To convert a mosque into a temple or something else is intolerable to the Muslim community.”
Most Hindus however believe that the decision of the court was finally allowing a ‘wrong’ to be undone into a ‘right’. One of the lawyers for the Hindu site stated how “Muslims can pray in any other mosque in Ayodhya. There are 55-60 mosques in Ayodhya alone. But, for Hindus this is the birth place of Lord Ram, which we cannot change”. It is not just the faith and belief of Hindus in the site being a birthplace for the deity Rama but also the archeological evidence that Hindus use to uphold that the site is in fact of paramount religious sanctity to Hinduism.
While both sides have had their clear opposition and support, many members of the Muslim community have rejoiced with the decision of the court as they believe that it is the right decision. Iqbal Ansari, a Muslim plaintiff in the Ayodhya case, welcomed the decision and stated how “Ayodhya is a city of communal harmony. We will continue to live here in a united way,” he added. However, there are also Hindus who do not believe that the site is or can be proven to be the birthplace of the god Rama hence the disregard for its significance. One of the muslim leaders also made comments as to how “just like how the muslims reclaimed Hagia Sophia in Turkey, we will not allow the construction of the Rama Temple and if it is done, we will convert it into a mosque too”. Many people believe that just like how Turkey’s President Erdoğan converted Hagia Sophia, the once church into a mosque to “appeal to the masses for his election”, Prime Minister Modi has also done the same with the site in Ayodhya through the Rama Temple.
Apart from the dispute itself, one of the main issues regarding this is the media bias and lack of adequate facts when reporting on the issue. Many news articles and publications (such as Reuters and Gulf News) failed to depict an accurate representation of the situations - leaving out essential details such as the results of the excavation.
The Conclusion
It is vital that people completely understand the facts of both sides to an issue before developing an opinion and sharing it with others, something which isn’t happening with this dispute. Most Hindus believe that the anger over this decision is not justified as the site of the mosque holds no religious significance like that of Jerusalem or Mecca for Muslims, whereas for Hindus it is of extremely significant religious value. However, Muslims believe that regardless of the grounds, the actions taken are endorsing Islamophobia in India and converting the secular democracy into a Hindu-national state. In a world where religious and ethnic communities are increasingly persecuted many times on no legal grounds, decisions like these give birth to the question as to where the line is between the protection of one’s community and the attacking of another.
Comments
Post a Comment