What structure should disputed site have - Some views

MUMBAI - What structure should the disputed site in Ayodhya have, a temple, a mosque or just left bare? With the ruling on the Ayodhya verdict deferred by the Supreme Court till Sep 28, a cross-section of Mumbaikars gave different reactions on the issue.

Bharatkumar Raut, a Member of Parliament from Shiv Sena, said: “Ram is a matter of faith and one cannot totally adjudge faith. Babar is a matter of truth. I would here like to reflect the party ideology to use the area to build a monument of national unity instead of a religious monument, which might flare up communal differences.”

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Madhav Bhandari strongly registered the ideology of his party saying the place should have a temple and nothing else.

“It is a matter faith, and faith is not a play thing. Our commitment is to build a Ram temple at the disputed place and we will not compromise on that. Various leaders have proposed to construct a hospital or a neutral structure there. But it is all done with an intention to shift focus from the Ram mandir and we will not let that happen,” Bhandari said.

Hyder Azam, president of the Maharashtra Minority Morcha, said: “The court order should be respected and accepted without any controversy in the favour of national peace and harmony. Neither of the religions should challenge it.”

Abdul Rahman Anjaria, national spokesperson for All India Muslim Personal Law Board (J) said: “There is no question of another structure coming up there. Once a place has a mosque, it has to to be there forever. We are not in favour of Babar, but we surely are in favour of constructing a mosque. We will fight the legal battle till the last breath.”

Stavan Mehta, a software professional said: “Records show that the place first had a Ram mandir, which was broken down to build a mosque. It is best a Ram mandir is re-built in the disputed place.”

Atiq Khan, a young radio professional begs to differ from the rest. “Why do we need a verdict? Aren’t there enough mosques and temples in the country that we are fighting for one more,” he questions.

“The disputed place, in fact, should not have any structure at all. Be it a temple or a mosque or a monument of national unity, it will trigger some controversy in the future. Let it be ground zero, like the place in USA where the twin towers stood before they came crashing down on 9/11.”

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court was scheduled to pronounce its verdict Friday on five title suits - four by Hindus and one by the Muslims, the Wakf Board - relating to the site in Ayodhya where the Babri mosque once stood.

The Supreme Court, on a petition, has postponed the Allahabad High Court judgment on the Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute till Sep 28.

The mosque was demolished on 6 Dec, 1992, by Hindu radicals who claimed that the site is the birthplace of the Hindu god Lord Ram. The demolition triggered widespread riots in the country, leaving many dead.

Hindu plaintiffs in the title suits have argued that the mosque was built in 1528 by a Mughal general after razing a temple at the site.