Vidyarthi Ram

Indian Author and Social Activist

Ram Mandir verdict: is it really hurting the secular face of India?

Ram Mandir
Ram Mandir

 The supreme court of India gave a historical decision on Ram temple on 9 November 2019 in favor of Hindus. No doubt Ayodhya is the birth place of Lord Ram as per Hindus and has great importance among Hindus community. The Muslim community blamed that the decision of Supreme Court was wrong and was in the favor of Hindus.

Some Muslim leaders blamed that it is not a secular decision as there was already a masque on that place. If it was the Masque, how can Supreme Court give decision in the favor of Temple? No doubt it is really a matter of concern for every responsible Indian who does see India as a secular country. For a moment I was also confused. Before that I took it a biased decision, I wanted to find the answer of following questions, which were arising in my mind at that time.

What does the mean of the secular country?

A secular country is a country that does not have any official religion, unlike Pakistan and Muslims country where Islam is the state religion.

In other terms secular country becomes neutral about religion and gives the religious freedom to its citizens. It does not expend public fund on religion and it’s legal system becomes free from religion. It does allow political leader to come in power irrespective of their religious beliefs, unlike Pakistan where only Muslims can become PM and President of Pakistan.    

The next question is

Can Supreme Court give decision on religious matter in secular country?

The answer is Yes, Supreme Court can give decision on religion because secular countries do not bar its citizen to practice a religion means there is a religious freedom. Therefore the communities from various religions exist in the country it is sure that there might be some dispute among them and we know finally the disputes go in the Court.

Now let us understand the Ayodhya case – Till 1992, Hindus used to pray Lord Ram there despite being a Masque. In 1992 Karsevak, a group of Hindu activist demolished the Masque. The case of Masque and Temple was already pending in the Court. The Hindus communities were claiming that the Masque was made after demolishing a Temple.

The main facts, on which basis, Supreme Court gave decision in the favor of Hindus.  

1 – The Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) When Hindus began to claim that there was a Temple before the Masque then the Court decided to give it to ASI of India. In his investigation, ASI found that there was a “huge Temple structure” beneath the earth on which Masque was made. And it proved that of Hindus were right.

2 – Islamic Law about Masque – The Islamic law tells that a Masque cannot be made on any old structure. It means the construction of Babri Masque was against Islamic Law as there were already the remains of Temple.

So finally Supreme Court took the decision on the basis of ASI report, which proved that the claims of Hindus were right. And on the basis of Islamic Law which proved that Masque on that place was against Islam as it was made after demolishing Temple. So it does not hurt the secular sentiment of India in any manner rather than it gives full freedom along with religious security.   

Leave a Reply

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