Yesterday, many news channels and media conducted various debates on Ram Temple issue and a possible out of court settlement in the case. This method is said to have proposed by Sri Sri Ravishankar who is been negotiating about Ram Temple with Muslim bodies who had earlier objected the construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
Since past 6 months, various efforts are being made by many people who in their own way are trying to find a permanent solution to the Ayodhya issue. Dr Subramanian Swamy also moved to Supreme Court requesting day to day hearing of the case and an early verdict to the long pending issue, for which the court agreed and the hearing is said to begin in the month of March. However Sri Sri Ravishankar, lately has been suggesting out of court settlement in the case.
First of all we need to look what was the proposal put forth by Sri Sri Ravishankar in the case. He proposed that a Ram Temple built in the site of Ayodhya in the same place where it existed 600 years back before it was demolished by the Mughals. But he has also given the option of building the Mosque close to the site of Ayodhya claiming it will balance the situation and it will be a win-win situation for both the parties.
But what Dr Subramanian Swamy proposed is entirely different. Dr Swamy has been firm on court verdict and has been saying that the Ram temple should be built in Ayodhya, and the Mosque can be shifted to other place out of Ayodhya as it would clear all tensions in the place and also prevent any communal clashes in the future.
Dr Swamy claims that since a mosque is just a place of worship and not the residing place of God, it can be shifted to another place and Islam does allow shifting of mosques when required. The Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain have also shifted Mosques various times when they need to construct roads or bridges and it is not a new thing. However, a temple cannot be shifted as it is considered the living place of God. In Hindu tradition, once the idol is installed in the sanctum sanctorum, the saints perform Prana Prathishtpam to the idol by performing pooja and fasting for 40 days which activates the energy in the idol. Henceforth, once an idol is installed in a temple, it cannot be shifted or removed.
Now, it is important to analyse which method is better for the country. Sri Sri Ravishankar claims that both parties should get justice and therefore we should listen to the plight of Muslims as well. He goes on to say that if the court verdict goes against Muslims, then they will lose faith in the judicial system and will chose the path of extremism. He also says that the country may witness civil war if Muslims are upset. So, he proposes to build a Temple and a Mosque in the place of Ayodhya.
But Sri Sri Ravishankar’s words seems to be an exaggeration of the situation. First of all, the out of court settlement can never be a permanent solution to the long pending issue. At no point of time all the people in the Muslim body will agree for the construction of Ram Mandhir. This can be seen with Asaduddin Owaisi who is opposing Ram Mandhir and instead wants the entire land of Ayodhya for Babri Masjid. There are also other people in the AIMPLB (All India Muslim Personal Law Board) who are opposed to the construction of Ram Mandir. Although these people are not opposing Ram Mandhir openly, they have been creating various problems through back doors.
And even if they agree for a Ram Mandhir presently, what is the guarantee that in future, after 20-30 years, other members of the AIMPLB would not create a problem again?!
Sri Sri Ravishankar wants both Temple and mosque built in Ayodhya. This is one of the most risky options to be proposed. Imagine the number of people visiting Ayodhya, it can surely cross crores in coming years. A Mosque near to the Ram Temple will only create a tense situation in the entire environment and any single provocation by any group, can lead to catastrophic effect for the entire place. Moreover Ayodhya is a completely Hindu dominated city which has around 6.19% Muslim population. So why is there need to build a Mosque where there are no Muslims?
On the other hand, Ayodhya is the place of Ram and is not just a mythological story, but has been proved by various Archaeological excavations. So, people need to accept that the place belong to the Hindus.
But if we chose the path of court, it will be a permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court verdict will have to be accepted and must be respected. So, the Muslims cannot go on a rampage against the country and the court verdict.
Even in the future, there won’t be any controversy in the Ayodhya dispute once the verdict is pronounced. Nobody even after 20-30 years can claim that the land belongs to X,Y, Z person and create another episode of violence. Shifting the mosque to other place is the safest thing to do, as it will not invite trouble for both communities. Dr Swamy has repeatedly said that a Mosque can be shifted to any place and is not against the Islamic laws. Many members of the Muslim community have also agreed to this solution which will solve all problems for ever.
This is exactly why the court verdict will have to be the right way forward and not just an out of court settlement as it will complicate the problem further. The courts will now have to show full commitment to put a closure to the case and give relief to thousands of people who have left their homes years back and waiting for a Ram Temple in Ayodhya.