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”