Revisiting Ram Janmabhoomi – Part I

For the past several months, I have been thinking of digging up some old articles from this blog on the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi issue.

Then, this not-so-widely-reported news from last week finally forced me into action (Hat Tip: Sanjay)

From The Telepgraph story titled, Azad brother for Ram temple (the bit that caught my attention is in bold):

Srinagar, April 12: Top Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad’s younger brother today announced his entry into the BJP with support to the Ram temple. Ghulam Ali had joined the BJP some days ago allegedly after he was denied a Congress ticket, but the move went largely unnoticed.

Today, he stirred controversy at a news conference in Jammu with his comments on the Ayodhya dispute: “It was actually a Ram Mandir, which was demolished by Emperor Babar to construct the Muslim religious place.

“There was neither a mosque nor will it ever come up at the disputed site. There existed a Ram temple and it shall always remain there.”  Ali, a businessman dealing in timber, had asked for the Congress ticket for the Bhaderwah Assembly seat his brother gave up when he entered the Rajya Sabha. The bypoll is due with the general election. But the Congress gave the ticket to Mohammad Sharif Niaz, who held the seat in the past and vacated it for Ghulam Nabi when he became chief minister.

“Islam says a disputed site cannot be used for namaaz. I want to ask Muslim scholars to swear on the Quran and tell the people what the Quran says about the disputed site,” Ali said today.

The BJP recruit described Babar as an invader who demolished the Ram temple by force.

“He (Babar) was neither a leader nor a scholar of Islam. He was an invader who demolished the temple to construct the mosque,” he said, before attacking another Mughal ruler, Aurangzeb.

Not surprisingly, the bit in bold was ignored in most other reports/newspapers that carried the story (e.g. The Statesman, New Indian Express and ToI all had an edited version on their sites). The DNA did mention the quote in its report though.

The Hindu had a slightly different quote (which ignored the bit about Muslim scholars):

“Islam does not permit to offer prayers at a disputed site and as such Muslims should allow construction of Ram Temple on the disputed site by mutual consent,” he (Ghulam Ali Azad) added.

As most of you would know, the Justice Liberhans Commission – that is investigating events leading up to the demolition of the disputed structure has just got its 48th extension (until June 2009) and is now the long running enquiry commission in the history of independent India, sucking up Rs 9crores in the process. Note that the commssion has already finished examining its last witness in 2005.

In Part – II, I will share some background notes on the issue and some ideas to dwell upon…Until then, look forward to your thoughts and comments, as always.

Related Posts:

“Who is this Ram?” – Will Thiru Karunanidhi look at this evidence?

The search for a historical “Rama”

B Shantanu

Political Activist, Blogger, Advisor to start-ups, Seed investor. One time VC and ex-Diplomat. Failed mushroom farmer; ex Radio Jockey. Currently involved in Reclaiming India - One Step at a Time.

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Indian says:

    Bravo! Ghulam Ali, not because its the issue of Ram Mandir but speaking only truth and what is right.

    What if he would have joined congress? Same old tales..of peace.

    Jai Hind!

  2. Kaffir says:

    I wonder at what point did Ghulam Ali have this epiphany about Ram Mandir/Babri Masjid issue – after Congress denied him a ticket, or before BJP gave him a ticket?

    If Congress had given him a ticket instead of denying him, would he still have made the statements he made about the Ayodhya issue, or sung a different tune?

    While I put little stock in politicians who make statements on issues depending on how it affects their political career, instead of in-depth analysis and deep convictions, if his statements help solve the issue in a peaceful manner, so be it.

  3. Indian says:

    @Kaffir

    I also raised the same point comment#1

    What if he would have joined the congress? He would not have been allowed to speak truth and what is right.

    Why same truth becomes communal when someone in UPA or Congress would have said that.

  4. Sarkozy says:

    See the images of Ramjanmabhoomi in 1949.
    http://www.ramjanmabhoomi.com/Ramjanmabhumi-Photo.html

  5. B Shantanu says:

    News Alert: Seventeen years after it was set up, the Liberhan Commission probing the 1992 demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on Tuesday (30th June) submitted its report to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

  6. Anon says:

    here is some weekend reading :

    Chronology of events from 1528 to 1993.

    http://hvk.org/files/FAQ_-_Shri_Rama_Janmabhoomi_Movement_English.pdf

  7. Hariprasad R says:

    It is a fact that many Muslim Invaders demolished Hindu Temples and some of them constructed Mosques there. What would the people of Saudi Arabia do if the Mosque of Mecca was demolished by an invader and another temple/church/any other building was constructed? Surely they would have demolished the new one if they are free from ‘invader’. That only happened in case of Ayodhya.

  8. indrani deb says:

    Hindus have atlast got the Ram Mandir rights.jai ho