In Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India, there is a Hindu shrine called the Ram Mandir. Said to have been the birthplace of Lord Rama, the Hindu hero of the Ramayana and an incarnation of God Vishnu, it is situated there.

Built in the sixteenth century CE, the site was once home to the Babri Masjid. Before the mosque was assaulted and destroyed in 1992, the idols of Rama and Sita were installed there in 1949. Joseph Tiefenthaler, a Jesuit missionary, wrote the Latin book Descriptio Indiae in 1767, which contains the oldest known mention of the mosque. He claims that the Ramkot temple, which is said to be the location of Rama's citadel in Ayodhya, and the Bedi, which is home to Rama's birthplace, were demolished in order to build the mosque. In 1853, the first recorded case of religious violence was made. The British government forbade Hindus from performing pujas (rituals) at the disputed site in December 1858. A stage was built so that ceremonies could be performed outside of the mosque.

Following the installation of the murtis, or sacred pictures, of Rama and Sita within the Babri Masjid on the evening of December 22–23, 1949, the devotees started to congregate the following day. By 1950, the mosque was under state authority under section 145 CrPC, and Hindus, not Muslims, were permitted to pray there. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a branch of the Hindu nationalist Sangh Parivar family, started a new campaign in the 1980s to retake the location for Hindus and build a temple there honouring the young Rama (Ram Lalla). The VHP started gathering money and bricks with the words "Jai Shri Ram" inscribed on them. Subsequently, the VHP received approval from the government led by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi for Shilanyas, or the ceremony to lay the foundation stone. This approval was formally sent to Ashok Singhal, the leader of the VHP, by Buta Singh, the Home Minister at the time. The governments of Uttar Pradesh and India had first decided that the shilanyas would take place outside of the contested location. But on November 9, 1989, a group of Sadhus and VHP leaders dug a 200-liter (7-cubic-foot) trench next to the contested area and set the foundation stone. There was the construction of the sanctum sanctorum's singhdwar, or main entrance. Next, on the plot of land next to the controversial mosque, the VHP set the foundations for a temple. 150,000 volunteers, or "karsevaks," participated in a gathering that the VHP and the Bharatiya Janata Party staged at the location on December 6, 1992. The protest descended into violence as the demonstrators overpowered the police and destroyed the mosque. An estimated 2,000 people died as a direct result of the demolition of the mosque, which set off riots across the Indian subcontinent and several months of intercommunal violence between the Hindu and Muslim communities in India. On December 7, 1992, a day after the mosque was demolished, The New York Times revealed that more than thirty Hindu temples in Pakistan had been attacked, with some of them being set on fire and others being completely destroyed. In Bangladesh, attacks were also made on Hindu temples. Five terrorists assaulted the temporary Ram temple at the location of the demolished Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on July 5, 2005. One civilian perished in the terrorists' grenade attack that broke through the roped wall, while the other five were shot and killed in the ensuing clash with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Three people were lost for the CRPF, two of them had numerous bullet wounds that left them critically injured. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) discovered evidence during two archaeological investigations in 1978 and 2003 that the site was home to the Hindu temple's remnants. A number of left-leaning historians were accused by archaeologist K. K. Muhammad of discrediting the results. Many title and legal challenges occurred throughout the years, leading to the 1993 enactment of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act. The 2.77 acres (1.12 ha) of disputed land were ordered by the Allahabad High Court in 2010 to be divided into three portions: 1/3 would go to the Muslim Sunni Waqf Board, 1/3 would go to the Hindu Nirmohi Akhara religious denomination, and 1/3 would go to the Ram Lalla or Infant Lord Rama, who is represented by the Hindu Mahasabha for the construction of the Ram temple. The Supreme Court received appeals from all three of the parties on the allocation of contested land. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled on the Ayodhya issue, deciding that the land in question would be given to a government-established trust so that a Ram temple may be built there. Eventually, the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra was the name given to the trust. The Indian Parliament was informed on February 5, 2020, that the government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi had approved a plan to build the temple. Two days later, on February 7, five acres of land were set aside for the construction of a new mosque in Dhannipur village, which is located 22 kilometres (14 km) from Ayodhya.

The Bharatiya Janata Party's politicisation of the temple, the alleged misuse of donations, and the exclusion of some of its most prominent workers have all contributed to the temple's controversy.

Scam involving purported donations

One of the main groups involved in the Ram Mandir controversy, Hindu Mahasabha, accused BJP affiliate Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) of orchestrating a donation scam involving around ₹1,400 crore (US$180 million) for the temple's construction in 2015. VHP has refuted this claim. Nirmohi Akhara charged the VHP in 2019 of running a ₹1,400 crore (US$180 million) scheme involving the temple. Both H. D. Kumaraswamy, the former chief minister of Karnataka, and Siddaramaiah, the current chief minister, voiced serious concerns about the fund-raising techniques. The headmistress of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh school was bullied after not raising the required amount, and she was then suspended.

The prominent activists' marginalisation

The Hindu Mahasabha chastised the BJP, Bajrang Dal, and other Sangh Parivar organisations in 2017 for seizing control of the Ram Mandir without taking part in the protracted conflict. Pandit Ashok Sharma, national vice-president of the Hindu Mahasabha, said that although his group continued the struggle, it was "later hijacked by BJP and its other saffron affiliates." The national spokesperson for the Hindu Mahasabha, Pramod Joshi, stated in 2020 that while Hindu Mahasabha should be given the credit for the Ram Mandir, "Hindu Mahasabha has been kept away from the bhoomi pujan of the Ram temple and in reality, we should have performed the bhoomi pujan of the temple." He went on to say that Hindu Mahasabha was ignored when the committee for the temple was established at the BJP headquarters.

Politicization of the temple

The national spokesperson for Nirmohi Akhara, Mahant Sitaram Das, attacked the BJP in 2020 for choosing Narendra Modi to lay the temple's foundation and asserted that only religious priests should be responsible for maintaining the structure. Pandit Ashok Sharma, the vice-president of the Hindu Mahasabha National, claimed that the BJP "got the entire thing politicised. The BJP has been under fire from a number of opposition parties and BJP members for politicising the temple and exploiting it to further its political agenda. After announcing the temple's inauguration date, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge questioned the legitimacy of Home Minister Amit Shah. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy questioned Modi's attendance at the inauguration of the Ram Mandir. Shashi Tharoor, a Congress MP, has blasted the Indian media for obsessively focusing on the temple, drawing attention away from important matters of administration.

In conclusion, Ayodhya Vs Babri Masjid represents more than just a legal battle; it symbolizes deep-rooted divisions based on religion and history. Resolving this issue requires not only legal measures but also fostering an environment of tolerance and mutual respect among different communities. Only then can we hope for lasting peace and unity in our diversity.

.    .    .