But invasions of India by Muslim rulers changed everything. Muslims did not require any caste to promote themselves in the society. And Islam was antithesis of Hinduism in many respects. Therefore, Brahmins started taking the name of Rama; the forgotten God. More so, because of he being depicted as a Kshatriya king in Ramayana. This is no chance that in Krishnajanambhoomi and Kashi Vishwanath there are temples alongside mosques but there was no temple alongside Ramajanambhoomi.
The modern Ayodhya dispute regarding Indian state started soon after the independence. Rama’s idol was installed in the central dome of the disputed structure, allegedly by priest Abhiram Das along with two associated Hindus, Ramchandra Das and Virdavan Das. I consider this allegation wrong.
The simple fact that Hindus can easily lie and they accept this fact more easily than others does not imply that priest Das was lying. He would not take false oath of the Rama. That should be considered as the bottomline. Sure, Rama did not show grace on his followers and some biological being should have put idols inside the complex’s central dome but those whose names are taken did not, neither other Hindus. The alternative argument that the priests followed external auditory instructions is mere over-speculation and even pervertness. No external people would like to reveal themselves in such a clear way. The time has changed. No Muslim would except external hands in religion and when Hindus did not do it should be considered as an act of Ishvara; Rama. I suspect that it was the stochastic drive and hidden hands that led to this dispute. Their aim was to universalize the Anglicization and Westernization in India which normally should be considered as a containment strategy.
The Babri Masjid can not be resurrected either. As long as it is a land dispute between Hindus and Muslims the latter would get the land. But Muslims would not get the whole structure and if law is followed then 51% land belongs to Ramalala in Ayodhya. After that the rest can be equally divided between Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf board. If Muslims insist on possessing the whole land they will not get any. Muslims can not also get the specified area covered by the constructed structure. The Supreme Court can take part of the land except from Ramalala to build peace structures and peace zones.
The dispute was complex and anyone who understands law can understand that demolishing a simple building without authority is a crime. Demolishing a religious structure is obviously a bigger crime. So, why Mr. Advani has not been punished? Because, the then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao was more responsible and he is dead. Mr. Rao knew that matter would be sub judice as the BJP on its own could not get simple majority in Lok Sabha to pass a resolution regarding the construction of Rama temple in Ayodhya. The courts were very unlikely to give the whole land to Hindus and the verdict could imply win of Congressism.
But Mr. Rao allowed the demolition of the disputed structure in order to promote consumerism, contain the rouge aspect of hot nationalism by first letting the BJP ignite the society and later temperature getting cool down, contain the proliferation of political identities and contain the regionalism and Left simultaneously and to promote localized Anglicization and Westernization. India had just started economic reforms in 1991 and no Western nation objected or reacted harshly towards Mr. Rao. This is no chance that on 6 December 1992, Bush, 41 was about to leave office and a Democrat Bill Clinton was about to take over the control of the White House.
This is no justification of the demolition of mosque. Moreover, Muslims in modern India can not be judged by the behavior of their ancestors in medieval time. What should matter to all is the present behavior of Muslims. It needs to be emphasized that Muslims’ discrimination and persecution in post-independence period is equally deplorable and prejudices and biases against Muslims should end. Hindus should embrace them as mainstreamers.