Advani is back in news with IPS officer anju gupta appearing before cbi court and testifying. In her statement Gupta said, “I did not see these leaders making any attempt to prevent the kar sevaks from demolishing the disputed structure. On the fall of the domes, all the said eight accused and Acharya Dharmendra etc were congratulating one another. All were expressing happiness.”
This brings advani back from cold storage to headlines in all news websites in India. Ironically it was babri which made him travel India on his rath and get BJP into power and its same babri whose demolition ,advani considers to be saddest day of his life.
BJP which tried to use its development agenda lost power and couldnot achieve it for consecutive two terms.
Babri masjhid is very sensitive issue dividing two communities of India. While hindus believe ayodhaya to be brith place of Ram and masjhid to be located at the birth place , muslim groups deny it.
Ram is for Hindus what Muhammad is for muslims. As muslims considered muhammad as ideal man and his life to be role model , Ram is ideal for hindus and his life is role model for Hindus. Ram is considered to be god incarnation by hindus and his brith place is emotional as well as religious signifigance for most of hindus.
Muslims on other hand see fall of babri as definate attack on their religion by right wing groups which is understandable.
While hindu right wing groups claims that since babar had purposefully broken the temple and built masjhid there , it is more of honour issue and right thing to get masjhid down and make grand temple there.
Two wrongs cannot make one right. Can it?. Court is still to decide on the matter but lets for sake of argument concede that there was Ram Temple prior to masjhid .
Judgment on 18 March 1886 which dismissed petition of a mahant , the judge said and we quote
“I found that Masjid built by Emperor Babur stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya…. It is most unfortunate that Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 358 years ago it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo. In such a case as the present one any innovation would cause more harm and derangement of order than benefit.”
Conforntation cannot lead to bulidling of temple or mosque because it would be clash of egos and protection of one’s religion by both communities.
Even court would be helpless in this sensitive issue. Suppose court decides there was no temple in the disputed site. Would hindu groups agree to the decision or suppose court decides that temple was destroyed to make masjhid. Would muslims group agree to the decision?
Only viable solution possible is peaceful negotiation .