Anniversary of Babri Mosque Demolition Today

[hindesi]

Thats why we didnt see large scale destruction of Mosques like that happened in Spain after the end of muslim rule.

Ram janmabhoomi is always been a emotive issue just like Somnath mandir which was bulit in 1940s again after suffering many centureis of destruction .

The Babri Mosque built over the exising temple at Ayodhya became the centre of collective hindu aspiration to finally destroy the sysmbol of muslim atrocites on the hindu religion over the many centuries of muslim rule and its good that the dilapidated structure that was in shambles for decades gone and now we could move in to the future instead of debating the past .

Well said dude.. hindus are flexible and tolerant.. thats why we see a muslim president and muslims in all spheres of life doing well and living like brothers alongside hindus, sikhs and christians.. but there has to be a line drawn for an avg hindu's tolerance... and that line was crossed by mughals many a times during their rule.. and when we got independence and India was divided on religious lines!! Hindus had every right to claim what was lost in mughals times.

 

[Iggy]

No one hear is saying that Babri demolition was good, if anything is was abominable act with disastrous consequences.

But in all this hoopla of demolition why is everyone forgetting one straight forward fact that there was a temple once which was highly regarded by hindus and babar destroyed it to pave way for babri to hoist the flag of Islam in hindu heartland. No one is saying go destroy Taj Mahal these are figments of your imagination and your conclusions and correlations of various historical monuments with babri.. babri is a totally different issue.. no one is against any other mughal monument. It's about a temple and Hindus have a valid point when they as for the temple of ram lala to be built at that place. Period

I didnt say that Hindus wanted to destroy taj mahal or some thing.I am answering the post of Pagan.. read his post and then read mine you will get an idea..

 

[Iggy]

Well said dude.. hindus are flexible and tolerant.. thats why we see a muslim president and muslims in all spheres of life doing well and living like brothers alongside hindus, sikhs and christians.. but there has to be a line drawn for an avg hindu's tolerance... and that line was crossed by mughals many a times during their rule.. and when we got independence and India was divided on religious lines!! Hindus had every right to claim what was lost in mughals times.

Completely agreed with the bolded parts but you should know that the muslims stay here have much faith in this land than the land created for them based on their religion..Should hindus have to hurt their sentiments by building a temple??are Hindus considered as the tolerent religion among all??are Hindus belief said that god is not only in temple but in every place..In purana we can see saints pray in jungles.himalayas and open places not in any temples..

 

[modi]

I didnt say that Hindus wanted to destroy taj mahal or some thing.I am answering the post of Pagan.. read his post and then read mine you will get an idea..

seiko, just leave these guys wont understand. they dont understand that there is a huge hindu population that was against bari demolition. in pakistan , also temples were burned down as retaliation to babri demolition. so they really cant complain about what heppens in india.
i hope the taliban gets them

 

[pagans]

Completely agreed with the bolded parts but you should know that the muslims stay here have much faith in this land than the land created for them based on their religion..Should hindus have to hurt their sentiments by building a temple??are Hindus considered as the tolerent religion among all??are Hindus belief said that god is not only in temple but in every place..In purana we can see saints pray in jungles.himalayas and open places not in any temples..

On a counter note why should nationalistic Indian Muslims take offense when an evil invader structure built in Indian is destroyed ?

 

[pagans]

seiko, just leave these guys wont understand. they dont understand that there is a huge hindu population that was against bari demolition. in pakistan , also temples were burned down as retaliation to babri demolition. so they really cant complain about what heppens in india.
i hope the taliban gets them

Taliban will come for us after that.

 

[Spring Onion]

600 protestors arrested on Babri anniversary

Press Trust Of India
Ayodhya, December 06, 2009
First Published: 20:19 IST(6/12/2009)
Last Updated: 20:20 IST(6/12/2009)

Print



The 17th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition on Sunday passed off peacefully barring sporadic protests by Hindu and Muslim activists and arrest of over 600 people in Chennai and Ayodhya to maintain law and order.

Demonstrations were held in various parts of the country amid tight security with some groups demanding that recommendations of the Liberhan Commission report be implemented while others raised questions over the findings.

Under directions from the Union Home Ministry, Uttar Pradesh and other state governments beefed up security and Ayodhya-Faizabad area was converted into a virtual fortress.

Police arrested about a dozen activists of Shiv Sena who burnt an effigy of Justice M S Liberhan on a main road in Ayodhya. Faizabad Senior Superintendent of Police R K S Rathore said they were arrested for violating prohibitory orders.

In Chennai, around 500 members of 'Thouheed Jamad', including 150 women, were arrested when they tried to picket in front of Union Home Minister P Chidambaram's residence demanding arrest of those behind the demolition.

About 100 members of Hindu Munnani were arrested when they tried to stage a railway blockade at the Central station in Ayodhya demanding construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya.

While the VHP observed the day as "Shourya Diwas (valour day)", Samajwadi Party marked it as "Kala Diwas (black day)". All India Babri Masjid Action Committee held special prayers for peace and harmony.

600 protestors arrested on Babri anniversary- Hindustan Times

 

[Moorkh]

Its nothing but shows ur ignorance when u say ram-janmabhoomi or krishna-janmabhoomi were never holy places of hindus.Its like saying Bethlehem isnt much imortant to christians. Kaski,mathura,Ayodhaya are prominent holy sites beside the char dhams .

The char dham u quoted is wrong .They are Kashi(varanashi),Dwarika in Gujarat , Jaganath Puri in Odisa and Rameswaran at the end tip of south india.

i think u misunderstood. i am aware of the 4 dhams. i aded varanasi and haridwar as other religious places of note.

also please quote a single pre 1947 source talking about a pilgrimage to the janmbhoomis or saying they are religious places of note and value. if you do i will accept your point.

---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

and what part of

"a lighter note" do you people not understand?

 

[Moorkh]

No one hear is saying that Babri demolition was good, if anything is was abominable act with disastrous consequences.

But in all this hoopla of demolition why is everyone forgetting one straight forward fact that there was a temple once which was highly regarded by hindus and babar destroyed it to pave way for babri to hoist the flag of Islam in hindu heartland. No one is saying go destroy Taj Mahal these are figments of your imagination and your conclusions and correlations of various historical monuments with babri.. babri is a totally different issue.. no one is against any other mughal monument. It's about a temple and Hindus have a valid point when they as for the temple of ram lala to be built at that place. Period

Well said dude.. hindus are flexible and tolerant.. thats why we see a muslim president and muslims in all spheres of life doing well and living like brothers alongside hindus, sikhs and christians.. but there has to be a line drawn for an avg hindu's tolerance... and that line was crossed by mughals many a times during their rule.. and when we got independence and India was divided on religious lines!! Hindus had every right to claim what was lost in mughals times.

are you not contradicting yourself.

on one hand you say that demolishing the babri masjid was a heinous crime.

on the other you go on about how there was a temple there and the hindus have a right to redeem their dignity by building a temple to replace the one that was destroyed.

or am i misinterpreting you?

if i am right then please clarify as to how can the demolished temple be constructed at a place where the mosque stood without demolishing the mosque?

 

[Moorkh]

since it is accepted across the board that the demolition of the babri masjid was wrong why dont we correct that wrong and construct a mosque to replace the one which was demolished?

 

[rajeev]

are you not contradicting yourself.

on one hand you say that demolishing the babri masjid was a heinous crime.

on the other you go on about how there was a temple there and the hindus have a right to redeem their dignity by building a temple to replace the one that was destroyed.

or am i misinterpreting you?

if i am right then please clarify as to how can the demolished temple be constructed at a place where the mosque stood without demolishing the mosque?

The crazy few RSS folks are not worth debating. They will hold this Ram-bhoomi to their grave as they feel it is Ram who will support the destruction. They want to destroy a mosque as a revenge and build in the exact same spot, whereas 200 years of having no temple at the same spot did not cause earthquake. Building it just few meters away would totally destroy the value of the temple as they could pin point the space where mythical Ramayana was written by mythical Valmiki. No one has any proof of any existence of Valmiki. It is just like my kid who thinks tooth-fairy would come and get her teeth. If they don't get to build it at the same spot, then what is the fun? Probably having ton of Mayawati statues should promote the cause.

They can be compared to Taliban faction in Pakistan that preach they are more religious as they can destroy more.

Aryans that are living in northern India were a tribe that moved from Central Asia. They moved here 5000 years ago. They should vacate the land as per their own logic because historical score needs to be settled otherwise what else they fight on? Sun God or the Rain God?

 

[hindesi]

are you not contradicting yourself.

on one hand you say that demolishing the babri masjid was a heinous crime.

on the other you go on about how there was a temple there and the hindus have a right to redeem their dignity by building a temple to replace the one that was destroyed.

or am i misinterpreting you?

if i am right then please clarify as to how can the demolished temple be constructed at a place where the mosque stood without demolishing the mosque?

Yes you are indeed misinterpreting me..
What I meant was demolishing mosque was bad as in muslims should have been taken into confidence and the facts should have been tabled to the nation and then the temple should have been built with all the concerned parties agreeing to it.

But whats done is done.. no one can change it. What can be done is to make the findings of ASI diggings and the historical evidences be made public. I'm sure most of the people still believe that there was no temple to start with at that place, have you seen media covering this issue. All they talk about is the Babri demolition and consequences and rioting after that incidence. They never talk about the ASI diggings and what was found by ASI. They never tell you the history of this issue which dates back to a couple of centuries if I'm not wrong.

But to say that it doesn't matter to most of the Hindus is complete hogwash. If the reason for saying that is based on Congress coming to power then the decision of electorate is completely misjudged and the assumption is biased. People vote for congress because BJP is too hardlined for an avg Hindu, but does that mean that he does not want a temple altogether.

We all perceive things the way we see things. Sir you and I can differ but ultimately the bottom line in both cases is we don't want anymore bloodshed on this issue. And the only way it can be achieved is to make the findings and evidences public.

Please suggest any alternative ways if you disagree with any of my points.

 

[Nemesis]

This post is a response to Indian members on the thread.


You all can say that the ayodhya issue is irrelevant is basically my opinion, but the fact remains that it has never been an issue for all Indians. The BJP could never nor can it now come to power because of the issue. At its height, the movement was only polarizing in North India, what is called the cow belt. During the demolition, the BJP was in power in only two states, so to say that it is an issue for all Hindus is absurd.

Secondly, why should ayodhya be the place of the temple? based on historical evidence? There is no historical evidence that Ram even existed, we are after all speaking of a character of a Sanskrit epic. By this logic, shall we also erect shrines based on Milton's Paradise lost? Closer to home, perhaps we should build temples on Kannaki based on the tamil epic Cillapatikaram?

So based on what? Faith alone? Well there are a lot of places that claim to be the birthplace of Ram on faith alone, so why should we single out Ayodhya in UP?

Lets come to archaeological evidence, i have read reports that say that a temple existed prior to the mosque. Let us assume these reports are accurate, what does it prove? That muslim rulers in the medieval ages destroyed temples? So? As stated before, Buddhist shrines were destroyed during the rule of Hindu kings (Whether you children want to believe it or not, fact is, it did happen)I'm pretty sure Christian kingdoms destroyed Muslim places of worship during the crusades as well. What this tells us that the medieval world was not really a religiously tolerant time. Nothing more.

and some of you are seriously suggesting that 21st century India should be held hostage to these medieval practices and thinking? that we should right so called historical wrongs even though they happened in a time when the British hadn't even thought of the word "Raj"? that we should make decisions on how we live as a community based on something that happened may or may not have happened 600 years ago? And that the temple/mosque issue being irrelevant is only my opinion? Yeah right.

PS - What this rubbish about Hindus need to redeem their dignity? Is our dignity so fragile? Pathetic really.

 

[hindesi]

Completely agreed with the bolded parts but you should know that the muslims stay here have much faith in this land than the land created for them based on their religion..Should hindus have to hurt their sentiments by building a temple??are Hindus considered as the tolerent religion among all??are Hindus belief said that god is not only in temple but in every place..In purana we can see saints pray in jungles.himalayas and open places not in any temples..

Should hindus have hurt their sentiments??? why is everyone nowadays speaking the congress version of secularism man.. doesn't hindu sentiments count for anything.. i mean considering we are a majority shouldn't muslims be more accommodating a bit on this whole issue? They would if they know the truth and many do know it but then the whole idea of mughuls ruling us has stuck to the sub-continents muslims till present day and hence the outlook of many of our Pakistani and BD frnds about hindus and hinduism in general. And this very mentality in a subdued form obviously exists in many muslims in India as well. What can one do to make things right?
I don't have the answers do you??

and puhlease don't give me a lecture in hindu philosophy.. If world worked by it then there would have been no wars and terrorism. Since the world doesn't work that way one has to adopt and one has to stand his ground because if he doesn't there are others who would gladly uproot him and push him into oblivion.

In puranas saints did indeed go to himalayas and meditated and came up with answers both spiritual and scientific. But todays world is different. It is clash of civilisations my friend.

 

[Moorkh]

Yes you are indeed misinterpreting me..
What I meant was demolishing mosque was bad as in muslims should have been taken into confidence and the facts should have been tabled to the nation and then the temple should have been built with all the concerned parties agreeing to it.

But whats done is done.. no one can change it. What can be done is to make the findings of ASI diggings and the historical evidences be made public. I'm sure most of the people still believe that there was no temple to start with at that place, have you seen media covering this issue. All they talk about is the Babri demolition and consequences and rioting after that incidence. They never talk about the ASI diggings and what was found by ASI. They never tell you the history of this issue which dates back to a couple of centuries if I'm not wrong.

But to say that it doesn't matter to most of the Hindus is complete hogwash. If the reason for saying that is based on Congress coming to power then the decision of electorate is completely misjudged and the assumption is biased. People vote for congress because BJP is too hardlined for an avg Hindu, but does that mean that he does not want a temple altogether.

We all perceive things the way we see things. Sir you and I can differ but ultimately the bottom line in both cases is we don't want anymore bloodshed on this issue. And the only way it can be achieved is to make the findings and evidences public.

Please suggest any alternative ways if you disagree with any of my points.

the media keeps talking about the riots and the aftermath because it is what affected the people most directly. the existence/non existence/construction of the temple does not affect people as much as the blot the riots made on our name as a democratic country shaking the trust some indians had on our secular credentials. the riots and the aftermath affect much more directly the several people who lost near and dear ones and their life savings to the riots.

the cumulative affect of a temple in ayodhya wont make up for the affect the riots and the aftermath had on the lives of the people.


if you talk of a solution accptable to all, the minimum requirement is that none of the parties should feel shortchanged. so if a temple is built it will offend the muslims. if a mosque is built it will offend you.

the only viable solution seems to be a secular building or something non religious.


my views that the temple issue is not truly relevant anymore is derived from the fact that i have never heard of it while walking down the street. not for the past 10 years. people are too busy making ends meet and making their lives happier in a more direct manner to actually care whether a temple is built on the ram janmbhoomi.