About Me

My photo
Dy.Commissiner VII UP SJAB Lucknow (India)


Thursday, September 30, 2010

Issues for brieifing - Justice Dharam Veer Sharma
Ayodhya: Issues for brieifing - Justice Dharam Veer Sharma This is the full text of the Gist of Ayodhya Title suit Judgement made by Honorable Dharam Veer Sharma, member of three-member Lucknow bench, in Ram Janmbhumi-Babri masjid title dispute. -

Ayodhya: Findings by Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan
This is the views and findings by Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan, member of three-member Lucknow bench, in Ram Janmbhumi-Babri Masjid title dispute..

Sunni Waqf Board to challenge Ayodhya verdict in Supreme Court
Lucknow, Sep.30 (ANI): Expressing its dissatisfaction with Ayodhya verdict, as pronounced today by the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench, the Sunni Waqf Board has decided to appeal in the Supreme Court against the Ayodhya verdict delivered today in Lucknow..

Ayodhya verdict: Allahabad High Court gives ownership of disputed land to all three factions (Update: Ayodhya)
Lucknow, Sep.30 (ANI): The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday delivered a verdict that has favoured the Hindu contention that Lord Ram's birthplace existed at the same place where his statue was discovered more than 60 years ago..

Ayodhya Verdict widely approved
Lucknow, Sep.30 (ANI): The Allahabad Court's verdict on Ramajanambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute suit, has been welcomed by political parties and religious organisations in various parts of the country..

Law Minister Moily appeals for peace after Ayodhya Verdict
New Delhi, Sep 30 (ANI): Union Law and Justice Minister M Veerappa Moily on Thursday stressed on the need to maintain peace and calm in the country after the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court pronounced its verdict in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit..

Ayodhya: Summary by Justice Dharam Veer Sharma 1
This is the full text of the Gist of Ayodhya Title suit Judgement made by Honorable Dharam Veer Sharma, member of three-member Lucknow bench, in Ram Janmbhumi-Babri masjid title dispute..

Ayodhya: Findings by Justice Sudhir Agarwal
This is the views and findings by Justice Sudhir Agarwal, member of three-member Lucknow bench, in Ram Janmbhumi-Babri Masjid title dispute (Relevant paragraphs containing result/directions issued) 4566..

Two-day health strategy retreat concludes in Manesar
Manesar, Sep. 30 (ANI): Union Health and Family Welfare Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, ministry officials and experts have made several recommendations aimed at improving health care and family welfare services..

Ayodhya: Disputed land to be divided into three
Allahabad, Sep 30: The title suit filed by Sunni Waqf Board Law has been rejected by three-member Lucknow bench, comprised of Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan, Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, of Allahabad High Court..

Ayodhya Verdict: CCS to meet at PM's residence, BJP leaders at Advani's place
New Delhi/Lucknow, Sep 30 (ANI): The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) will meet at Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh's residence at 5 p..

Jammu business establishments remain closed after bandh called by BJP (Re-issue with dateline change)
Jammu, Sep.30 (ANI): Following the Bandh called by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) against the Union Home Minister P..

HC verdict will be secret for more than 30 minutes
Lucknow, Sep, 30: The verdict which is going to be announced by the three-member bench of Allahabad High Court at 3..

Srinagar business establishments remain closed after bandh called by BJP
Srinagar, Sep.30 (ANI): Following the Bandh called by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) against the Union Home Minister P..

Jammu and Kashmir Government to release 52 stone-pelters
Srinagar, Sep 30 (ANI): The Jammu and Kashmir Government has decided to release 52 youths, including 31 students, who were arrested on charges of stone pelting during an unrest in the Kashmir Valley..
Chronology of Babri Masjid legal suits

The 60 years of disputes between the Hindus and the Muslims on the Ayodhya Ram mandir and Babri mosque has come for the verdict on Sep 24 2010.

Buzz up!
The following illustrates the development of the title suit which had been undertaken by the court in the past years:

1885 - The first suit was filed by Mahant Raghubir, seeking permission to build a temple on Ram Chabootra. But petitioners were not accepted by the Faizabad district court in 1886.

1950 - Second was by flied Hashim Ansari in the Faizabad court asking for the mosque gates to be opened and namaz allowed. Soon after which Gopal Visharad and Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra Das filed a suit asking for permission to offer prayers to deities at Asthan Janmabhoomi.

1959 - The third suit was filed by the the Nirmohi akhara (headed by Mahant Bhaskar Das) in the Faizabad court asking to remove Priya Dutt Ram from the management of the "temple" and take charge himself.

1961 - A fourth suit was filed by the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board asking for the restoration of the Muslims' right to pray at the mosque.

1964 - All three suits filed by Hindus and the one filed by the Waqf Board are consolidated as suit No. 12/196, becoming the main case in the dispute.

1989 - VHP steps up campaign, laying the foundations of a Rama temple on land adjacent to the disputed mosque. Former VHP vice-president Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwal files a case, seeking the mosque be shifted elsewhere.

1992 - The mosque was razed by a Hindu mob, resulting widespread clashes between the Hindus and the Muslims in which more than 2,000 people lost their lives.

Jan 7, 1993 - After the demolition, the President Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma sends a single-point reference under Article 143 to the Supreme Court to decide whether a Hindu temple existed in the area on which "the structure" stood.

Oct 1994 - The SC declines to answer the Presidential Reference and returns it.

The criminal cases are still on hold against 49 persons, including L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati. They are accused of conspiring to demolish the Babri Masjid on Dec 6, 1992.

Apr 2002 - Arson attack on Ayodhya pilgrims in Godhra leaving 58 dead, spark clashes in Gujarat. This was followed by Allahabad High Court bench who began hearing on title suit.

Sep 2003 - A court rules that seven Hindu leaders should stand trial for creating the destruction of the Babri Mosque, but no charges are brought against Mr Advani, who was also at the site in 1992.

Nov 2004 - A court in Uttar Pradesh rules that Mr Advani 's role in the destruction of the mosque should be reviewed.

Jul 2010 - High Court wraps up title suit hearing, verdict awaited.

Sep 23, 2010- A day ahead of the Allahabad High Court verdict, the Supreme Court stayed the judgment.

Read: SC stays Ayodhya verdict; to hear deferment plea on Sep 28

OneIndia News
[ Read All Comments ] [ Post Comments ]
Comments | Save | Email | Retweet | Share on Facebook | Print | Feedback
More news on:
babri masjid
ram temple
Ayodhya verdict: UP in tight security, high alert
Babri row: Govt bans bulk SMS, MMS till Sep 25
Related news

Ayodhya: Americans cautioned on possible violence

No provocative remarks on Babri verdict: PC

Ram temple will be built at Ayodhya: Advani
Topics: ayodhya, babri masjid, ram temple, ayodhya hc verdict, lk advani

User Comments
[ Post Comments ] [ Read All Comments ]
By: Yashi Rastogi On: 30 Sep 2010 6:44 am
Is it essential to give the verdict.. ??? Whatever be the verdict all people knows that riots will be there......... and its only the innocent people who suffers... Its better to have the case pending for the entire time than to have riots throughout the country.... and this issue must not be raised at the very time of COMMON WEALTH GAMES.. India is alredy being criticized throughout the world for its BRANDED arrangements of CWG... Its time for Indians to be united instead of having Hindu-...
Reply | Report abuse
By: Prachi On: 29 Sep 2010 7:50 pm
Its foolishness to fight on the name of god.A hospital should be build there so that childrens of god get cured there.This will make happy not a temple or mosque.True prayer is to help someone at any place not to pray at mosque or temple.

The struggle over the Babri Masjid since Independence has only ever travelled one way, in the Hindutvavadi direction. The functionaries of this young State, high and low, played their part in helping this happen. First, a district magistrate connived in getting idols of Ram smuggled into the mosque in December 1949, thus inventing the ‘reality’ of Ram worship in a mosque. Then the Congress government headed by Rajiv Gandhi opened the gates to the mosque in 1985 and allowed full-fledged worship. Thus a medieval mosque continuously in use till the mid-1930s was prised open for Hindu worship. This is uncontroversial: whether or not you believe the sangh parivar’s assertion that the Babri Masjid was built atop a razed Ram mandir and irrespective of the authenticity of Ayodhya’s claim to be Ram’s birthplace, the fact that the mosque was encroached upon with the connivance of the State is indisputable.

When the mosque was razed in 1992 by politically mobilized vandals in an act of brazen illegality, a makeshift mandir was established overnight on the site. In a twist worthy of Kundera, the mosque disappeared, leaving a mandir behind. Unlike most magic tricks, though, this needed no sleight of hand, just the shameless complicity of the State.

When the Central government decided to acquire the site in the interest of public order, its decision was appealed before the Supreme Court. Gary Jeffrey Jacobsohn, a constitutional scholar, has a sharp account of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in this matter. In his judgment, the judge, J.S. Verma, writing for the three-judge majority, ruled that acquiring the property of a mosque did not constitute an abridgment of a Muslim’s right to freedom of religious belief and practice. Verma argued that while religious practice was protected, it was only essential religious practice that could claim protection. And while worship was clearly essential to faith, worshipping in a mosque was not since Muslims could offer namaz anywhere. Ergo, mosques were not a part of the basic or essential practice of Islam.

Consider the surreal implication of this verdict in the context of the demolition; not only is an existing mosque first encroached upon, then razed, not only does Hindu worship continue on the site, but one of the consequences of this vandalism is also an apex court judgment that suggests that mosques, all mosques, are no longer protected by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution because they aren’t part of the basic furniture of Islam. It’s worth noting that this was a majority judgment from a five-judge bench; in the words of Jacobsohn: “[T]he two dissenting judges, both of whom were Muslims, had an understanding of the obligations of Islamic practice that differed sharply from their three Hindu colleagues in the majority.”

So, instead of a majoritarian campaign of violence and destruction (which led to the mosque being razed and thousands of Muslims being attacked and killed in the wake of the demolition) being punished, Muslims found themselves a) minus one mosque, b) the victims of vicious, orchestrated violence and c) at the receiving end of a judgment that made their places of worship an optional extra, not sacred places protected by their constitutional right to religious practice.

More was to follow. In 1996, the chief justice, Verma, reviewed a set of high court verdicts that had quashed the election victories of Shiv Sainiks on the ground that they had solicited votes in the name of religion, something strictly forbidden by the Representation of the People Act. It wasn’t Verma’s decision to uphold their elections that was problematic; it was the reasoning he offered for the verdict. Verma’s desire not to find against the Shiv Sainiks was reasonable: elections underwrite legitimacy in a democracy and striking down an election is not something a court wants to do. Instead of confining himself to arguing that the strictest standards of proof were required to strike down the elections and that those grounds weren’t met, Verma chose to define Hindutva in a way that invoking its rhetoric wouldn’t attract the provisions of the RPA.

Verma argued that “the term Hindutva is related more to the way of life of the people in the subcontinent. It is difficult to appreciate how in the face of prior rulings the term Hindutva or Hinduism per se, in the abstract can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry or be construed to fall within the prohibition in... the RP Act”.

In the majority judgment on another case in 1996, Verma went to unusual lengths to establish that Hindutva was normally understood as a synonym for Indianization, not a faith community of Hindus, even quoting a Muslim theologian out of context to achieve this object. It’s worth listening to the argument at length.

The Wahiduddin Khan quotation went like this: “The strategy worked out to solve the minorities problem was, although differently worded, that of Hindutva or Indianzation. This strategy, briefly stated, aims at developing a uniform culture by obliterating differences between all the cultures coexisting in the country. This was felt to be the way to communal harmony and national unity. It was thought that this would put an end once and for all to the minorities problem.”

What Verma didn’t quote was the rest of the essay where the maulana makes his opposition to the imposition of a uniform culture clear: “If we insist on uniculture, the results will be disastrous.” A few pages later, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan argues for the “general acceptance of pluralism. But upholders of this principle have first to contend with the problem — nay, threat — of ‘cultural nationalism’... serious minded people regard this movement as a genuine threat to the integrity of the country”.

Yet the court came to the conclusion that Hindutva has nothing to do with Hindu fundamentalism or sectarianism. It quoted a Muslim theologian and took his description of a political strategy as an endorsement of it. It ignored the fact that in the same essay the theologian saw this strategy as a threat to India’s composite culture. It ignored the even more important fact that the “obliteration of cultural differences” was directly contrary to Article 29 of the Constitution that gives minorities the right to conserve their cultures.

Thus by the end of the century, the majoritarian mobilization that led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid had its principal ideological claim — that Hindutva was a form of nationalism, not religious sectarianism — seemingly endorsed by the republic’s apex court.

Now, on the eve of the Allahabad High Court’s judgment on the case, the Supreme Court has intervened to postpone the verdict till it decides on a petition to defer the judgment in favour of an “amicable settlement”. This has happened after the high court itself dismissed a petition for postponement as frivolous, even going to the extent of fining the petitioner. Should the high court judgment be deferred beyond October 1, one of the judges will retire and the case will have to be heard afresh.

The Supreme Court’s decision to defer the high court judgment on the eve of the high court judgment was a split decision, with the judge, H.L. Gokhale, arguing that even a one per cent chance of reconciliation needed to be taken because the issue was of such moment that if there was unrest after the high court judgment, the people of India would blame the Supreme Court for not exploring every option for settlement. Given that traffic has only flowed one way in the Babri Masjid dispute for the last 60 years, it’s hard to see what is left for the Muslim parties to this dispute to concede, short of accepting the status quo where an extemporized temple has replaced the mosque. To accept that arrangement would be to concede that majoritarian grievance backed by massive, illegal violence is above the laws of the republic.

There’s another possibility. The Allahabad High Court might rule in favour of the Muslim parties to that dispute, redressing decades of injustice, and should the matter be appealed, the Supreme Court might uphold that verdict. Such a resolution would make the point that no one, not even self-styled proxies for Ram, can violently change facts on the ground and then expect to have their goonery legitimized by the courts.
Delhi Temple >> ISKON Temple
Lord Krishna preached spirituality and way to Godhood 3000 years ago. Today, the International Society For Krishna Consciousness is propagating the blessings to every weary heart, irrespective of caste, creed and sect. The temple is dedicated to Lord Krishna and was built by the Hare-Rama Hare-Krishna cult followers in 1998. Nestling in the serene fringes of the Hare Krishna Hill in East of Kailash, the magnificent temple, in simple words, promulgates Krishna consciousness through myriad sankirtan movements, congregational chantings of the holy name of God as revealed in the teachings of Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Beside the exquisite architecture of this sacred shrine attracts many tourists from all parts of India. One can see the elegant 'shikharas', soaring as high as 90 ft from the womb of spirituality, that dominates the crimson skyline of this sector. Drifting an evening sitting on the stairs of this halloweed place, and pulsating to the euphonic chants amidst a tranquil ambience is a unique experience and should be felt by every holidayer in Delhi.

An entry to the revered shrine is a quiet escape from the bustles of Delhi. You can find here solace, serenity, satisfaction and can meet yourself on a higher dimension. Sitting amongst Lord Krishna and his devotees with Hare Krishna Hare Rama chants going around, is indeed an experience of a lifetime. But for those who are seeking more, there is so much to learn and see, than what meets the eye and soul. Spend a few minutes in the sanctum sanctorum, beholding the divine marble effigies of Krishna, playing the idiosyncratic flute, beside Radha. Try to visit the temple on Sunday afternoons, and you will be overwhelmed to be a part of the kirtan, aarti, pravachan and prasadam, that continue till evening.

If interesting legends of mythology and their scientific relevance fascinates you, then remember to visit the ISKCON museum, ensconced on two floors of the temple building. Pinned to a common goal to present Indian history in an interactive manner, the temple authority has taken initiatives to organise a light and sight show garnished with life-like figures of Hindu mythology, that makes a huge impact on the audience. Portraying the the best of science and religion, the exhibition is a must see for every visitor. Stroll in the ground floor and you can see beautiful motifs that brings the forlorn preachings of Bhagwat Gita, back to life. As you will climb higher, the whole backdrop changes to that of Ramayana and Mahabharata stories.
Rajasthan Temples >> Eklingji Temple
Eklingji is located about twelve miles to the North of Udaipur in Rajasthan. Eklingji (Shiva) whose temple is located here, is said to be the guardian deity of Mewar.

This deity was regarded as the virtual ruler, by the Maharajas of Mewar - who considered themselves to be regents (Dewans) under Eklingji. Ekligji (Kailashpuri) is a town situated in a beautiful valley and it attracts multitudes of visitors throughout the year.

The existing structure, is one built out of the ruins of a previously destroyed structure and it dates back to the 15th century CE. The architecture resembles that of the Jain temples of Gujarat Shiva is worshipped here as a four faced black marble image, the four faces representing Bhrama facing west, Vishnu facing North, Maheshwar facing South and Surya (Sun) facing the east. The flat top of the composite idol is covered with a Yantra, a mystic symbolic drawing, standing for the ultimate reality. Shiva here is worshipped as the Ultimate Reality, the supreme power, and the wholesome one - Parabhrama.

This temple is said to have been founded by Acharya Viswaroopa a contemporary of Adi Sankaracharya and is linked with the Sharada Math at Dwaraka founded again by Adi Sankaracharya.

The temple occupies an area of about 2500 sq. feet and is about 65 feet in height. The temple area is fortified and a strong wall runs around it. The main entrance to the temple on the Western side welcomes visitors into a big hall resting on profusely carved pillars. In this hall, is a silver image of Nandi. There are two more Nandis in the temple, one made of black stone and the other of brass.

Other deities housed in the temple complex include Parvati, Ganesh, Ganga, Kartikeya , Yamuna and Saraswathi. There are also small temples dedicated to Ambamata, Kalka Mata and Ganesh in the temple complex. There is another temple called Nathon Ka Mandir in the temple complex with inscriptions dating back to the 10th century CE. No worship is offered here.

There are two tanks situated on the Northern side of the temple - Karz Kund and Tulsi Kund. Water from these tanks is utilized for temple services. Temple services are performed in a very elaborate manner in the Vedic and Tantric styles - everyday beginninG at 4 in the morning. Shivratri is an important religious event, when the image of the deity is decked with jewellery.

The town of Eklingji is full of temples. There are about 70 temples in all.Mention must be made of the Sas-Bahu marble temple, dating back to the 11th century. It is a fine specimen of ancient art with sculptural details. The Adbhudji Jain temple is of black marble and it dates back to the 15th century CE. Other temples in Kailashpuri include those of Pataleshwar Mahadeo, Arbada Mata, Rathasan Devi, Vindhyavasini Devi.

क्यों जरूरी है राम मंदिर ?

क्यों जरूरी है राम मंदिर ?
रामजन्मभूमि पर फैसला आने को है, पर यह अंतिम फैसला नहीं है। बाबरी मस्जिद एक्शन कमेटी के जफरयाब जिलानी ने पिछले दिनों एक बयान में कहा भी है कि अंतिम अदालत का अंतिम फैसला ही मान्य होगा। यानि जो भी पक्ष माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के फैसले से सहमत नहीं हो, वह अगली अदालत का द्वार खटखटा सकता है। अंतिम अदालत का फैसला भी मनमाफिक नहीं आया तो संसद के पास यह अधिकार सुरक्षित है कि वह कानून द्वारा अंतिम अदालत के अंतिम फैसले को पलट सके। ऐसा शाहबानो केस में हमने देखा ही है।
विश्व हिन्दू परिषद की मांग है कि रामजन्मभूमि – बाबरी मस्जिद विवाद का निर्णय अदालतें नहीं कर सकती, इसका समाधान लोकतंत्र के सबसे बड़े मंदिर संसद में ही संभव है, जहां पर जनता द्वारा जनता के लिए चुने हुए प्रतिनिधि ही बैठते हैं। परन्तु क्या वे प्रतिनिधि जो आलू – प्याज के भाव, गरीबी, बेरोजगारी, झौंपड़ पटटी के वोट बैंक और विकास के नाम पर वोट मांगकर संसद तक पहुंचते हैं, वे आजाद भारत के इस सर्वाधिक संवेदनशील मुद्दे पर गंभीर हैं ?
6 दिसम्बर 1992 को क्रुद्ध कारसेवकों ने बाबरी ढ़ांचे को ध्वस्त कर दिया। उसके बाद से 17 साल बीत गये, लेकिन इन ‘प्रतिनिधियों’ ने इस विवाद का समाधान करने की दिशा में एक कदम की भी प्रगति नहीं की। सरकार ने मामला अदालत को सौंप दिया और निश्चिन्त हो गई । आजाद भारत में न्यायपालिका का जितना क्षरण कार्यपालिका और विधायिका ने किया है, उसके कारण न्यायपालिका पर जनता का विश्वास ही समाप्त हो चला है। ना तो न्यायपालिका और ना ही जनता, को यह विश्वास है कि न्यायपालिका जिस भी नतीजे पर पहुंचेगी ‘सत्ता’ उस निर्णय को मान ही लेगी और भारत में कानून के शासन को स्थापित किया जा सकेगा। दरअसल, आज तक सरकारों ने किसी भी मामले को अदालत में सौंपकर ‘विवाद को टालो और राज करो’ की नीति को ही विवादों से बचने का नुस्खा अपना रखा है, यही स्वतंत्र भारत के राजनेताओं का आजमाया हुआ पुराना पैंतरा है।
सत्ता, चाहे किसी भी दल की ही क्यों ना हो, वह सिर्फ ‘सरकार’ होती है और पांच साल में बदल जाने वाली सत्ता को स्थिर बनाये रखने के लिए हर ‘सरकार’ किसी भी नये नारे और नीति पर आश्रित होती है। चाहे वह 25 जून 1975 को लागू किया गया आपातकाल हो या ‘इंडिया शाइनिंग’। दोनों का ही हश्र एक सा ही है, जनता ने दोनों को ही बाहर का रास्ता दिखा दिया। दुर्भाग्य से वर्तमान केन्द्र सरकार भी अपने पूर्ववर्ती सरकारों का ही अनुसरण कर रही है। जो हश्र उनका हुआ, उससे अलग इस सरकार का भी परिणाम नहीं रहने वाला है। लेकिन जब तक सत्ता हाथ में है, ये ‘सरकार’ कोई भी निर्णय लेने के लिए स्वतंत्र है क्योंकि संसद में सहमति के लिए खड़े होने वाले आधे से ज्यादा हाथ इसी सरकार के साथ हैं, और जब हाथ से ही काम चलता है तो विवेक की आवश्यकता ही नहीं रह जाती।
अयोध्या में राम जन्म स्थान पर मंदिर बनाये जाने के विरोधियों के कुछ महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न हैं कि आजादी मिलने के 62 बरस बाद भी देश की बहुसंख्य जनता को विकास की बजाय मंदिर – मस्जिद के मसले में क्यों उलझना चाहिये ? जिस देश में एक तिहाई से अधिक आबादी गरीबी, भुखमरी, और बेरोजगारी से त्रस्त हो क्या वहां के जनसंगठनों और नागरिकों को यह शोभा देता है कि वे भारत के विकास के मार्ग को अवरूद्ध कर मंदिर – मस्जिद के लिए आपसी सौहार्द को बिगाडें और विश्व में तेजी से उभरती हुई आर्थिक ताकत को अपने ही हाथों से कमजोर करें ? निश्चित ही यह प्रश्न छोटे नहीं है, परन्तु जो लोग इस तरह के जुमले कसकर अयोध्या में राम जन्मस्थान पर मंदिर बनाये जाने का विरोध कर रहे हैं, उन्हैं भी एक छोटे से प्रश्न का जवाब देना ही चाहिये कि बिना स्वाभिमान और आत्मगौरव जागृति के यह आर्थिक तरक्की कितने दिन टिक पायेगी ? क्या हम ऐसा भारत चाहते हैं जो आक्रांताओं के स्मारकों को संरक्षण प्रदान करे और भारत को स्वतंत्र देखने की चाह में हंसते हंसते फांसी पर झूल जाने वाले भगतसिंह को आतंकवादी कहे।
जो लोग अयोध्या में राम मंदिर के निर्माण का विरोध कर रहे हैं, उन्हैं इस बात को तो समझना ही होगा कि भारत में राम के लिए मंदिर बनाने वाले लोगों और जगहों की कोई कमी नहीं है, लेकिन यह बात देश की रीति नीति और अंतरात्मा की है। प्रश्न यह भी है कि हम हमारी संस्कृति, सभ्यता और विरासत को नष्ट करने वाले हमलावरों को नकारने की हिम्मत रखते हैं या नहीं ? क्यों नहीं सारे राजनेता मिलकर इस सच्चाई को सामने रखते कि मात्र 300 मुगलों ने तोप और गाय को आगे रखकर भारत की साँस्कृतिक चेतना को कुचलने का अपराध किया था, आज जो पाकिस्तान और बंगलादेश सहित भारत में मुस्लिम दिखाई पड़ते हैं वे इन हमलावरों के आने से पहले इसी आर्यावर्त की महान संतानों के वंशज हैं। क्यों नहीं पूरे देश को यह बताया जाता कि जब जिन्ना के सामने घुटने टेकते हुए हमने भारत के विभाजन को स्वीकार किया था और मुस्लिमों के लिए पाकिस्तान का गठन किया था, तो भारत में रहने वाले मुस्लिमों ने पंडों, भाटों, रावों और अन्य वंशलेखकों के पास जाकर अपनी जडें खोजने और अपने गौत्र निकालने के प्रयास शुरू कर दिये थे। आखिर पूरे देश को यह क्यों नहीं बताया जाता कि भारत में उस समय रहने वाला एक एक मुसलमान चीख चीख कर कह रहा था कि हम हिन्दुओं की संतान हैं और हमारी उपासना पद्धति इस्लामिक है।
पूरे विश्व में भारत ही तो है जो सभी उपासना पद्धतियों को फलने फूलने का अवसर प्रदान करता है। जहां शैव, शाक्त, जैन, बुद्ध, सिख, पारसी समुदाय के लोग अपनी विभिन्न उपासना पद्धतियों के साथ इस देश में स्वाभिमान के साथ रह सकते हैं तो फिर वे कौन लोग थे जिन्होंने इस उपासना पद्धति को मजहब में बदलने का अपराध किया ? आखिर देश को यह जानने का अधिकार तो है कि 1947 में मृत हो चुकी मुस्लिम लीग इस देश में किन राजनेताओं की सत्ता पिपासा के कारण पुन: उठ खड़ी हुई ?
देश को यह भी जानना है कि किन हालातों में लोग ‘मेहतर’ बनाए गए। जिन शासकों ने इस देश के नागरिकों से मैला उठवाया, हजारों हजार नागरिकों का कत्लेआम कर दिया, अपनी हवस को पूरा करने के लिए हरम बनवाए, क्या वे हमलावर नहीं थे। क्या भारत में उन हमलावरों के नाम पर दिल्ली में बड़ी बड़ी सड़के नहीं हैं ? भारत में जिलों के नाम उन पर नहीं हैं ? उन हमलावरों की बर्बरता का सजीव चित्रण करती हुई मस्जिदें भारत की सांझी विरासत कैसे हो सकती हैं ? प्रश्न यह है क्या कोई शासक अपनी ही प्रजा पर इस तरह के जुल्म करता है? इस तरह के जुल्म तो हमलावर शासक करते हैं, जिनकी इच्छा होती है कि आम जनता उनकी बर्बता से घबराकर उनकी शरणागति स्वीकार कर ले और अपनी जान बचाने के लिए उन्हीं के पंथ और मजहब को स्वीकार कर ले।
तो क्या यह माना जाए कि आजाद भारत की सरकारें अपनी संतानों को यह बताना चाहती हैं कि जिन हमलावरों ने हमारी अस्मिता के साथ खिलवाड़ किया, हमारे पूर्वजों को लूटा, उनकी हत्याएं कर दीं, हम उन हमलावरों को हमारी विरासत के नाम पर उदारमना होकर स्वीकार करें। हमारी संताने उन हमलावरों को कैसे संरक्षण दे सकती हैं ? राजनेताओं की जरूरत वोट है, और उसके लिए वे किसी भी हद तक जा सकते हैं, हमलावरों को पूज भी सकते हैं। लेकिन यह तय भारत की जनता को करना है कि वह इन हमलावरों को अपनी ‘विरासत’ माने या नहीं। बात सिर्फ अयोध्या में राम मंदिर बनाने की जिद की नहीं है, बात यह है कि हम आजादी के बाद से लेकर आज तक अपने देश की दशा और दिशा तय नहीं कर पाये। तो जो काम हमारे राजनेता नहीं कर पाये उसे ‘रामजी’ को ही पूरा करना पडेगा।
साभार कथन