Upcoming days going to be challenging for Ayodhya

first_imgI just don’t want to be biased on Ayodhya land dispute. Supreme court verdict is likely on or before November 17. What if the verdict goes in favour of the temple or in favour of the mosque, or it simply replicates Allahabad High Court’s verdict, would it be acceptable to both parties? No.Whichever side may the verdict fall it would create disappointment on the other side, and so the matter is not escalated, there will be a request to put a stay on the verdict leading to a second crucial round of mediation to take place. Let’s try to see what might happen in that crucial mediation.“If the verdict goes in favour of the temple, temple supporters will try to damage control and offer mosques supporters enough land and financial support so they can build a grand mosque across Saryu river. And if the verdict goes in favour of the mosque, mosques supporters will sacrifice this land for the temple, presenting a noble example of love and brotherhood.” Well, this happens only in civil society, but here what will happen is inconceivable.Some intellectuals are suggesting that instead of temple or mosque let there a grand hospital be built, but is this acceptable to any party? Is hospital considered to be greater than the mosque by mosques supporter, or vice versa? When it comes to faith, both parties are willing to die for it, how can a hospital really satisfy them. So the idea of building a hospital has no value.Let’s see what the mosques mean for mosques supporters. Mosques are supposed to be a place which should be pure, undisputed and peaceful and where prayer could be done without any obstacles. Surprisingly, the same definition goes for the temple also. And if the worshipping place doesn’t satisfy above-mentioned conditions then neither mosque nor temple should be built.Now, let’s rely on archaeological evidence to see who meets the above criteria to build their respective prayer place. Evidence presented by archaeologists suggests that Babri Mosque was built on the fifteenth century but it was built by demolishing an existing architecture, widely believed as a temple. So clearly, it is a disputed land for the mosque. But is it also a disputed land for the temple? To know this it requires further excavation…who knows like Haddapa and Mohenjo Daro we find something beyond imagination.last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *