These are merely three samples of the scores and scores of similar Government actions to show what utter nonsense has been made of the word ‘Secular’ by Governments after Governments. Secularism has never been practiced in India. Yes! This word did succeed in reducing Hindus to second-class citizens in their own land. Where two aggressive major world religions, having access to billions of dollars, are avowedly bent upon converting all the Hindus of India into their respective religious folds, what chance indeed to the non-aggressive Hindu religionists have even for their survival? No! ‘Secularism" in action in this country means appeasement of the minority and adoption of anti-Hindu policies no matter which government is in power. The world secularism was thus already a dead even before it was introduced in the Constitution.

24. Is it necessary to correct a wrong done in medieval times, when vandalizing holy site of the conquered people was a norm?

There was no such NORM in the history of India any number of Hindu Kings expanded their kingdom but no such desecration of worship places was done by the order of the conquering King. Yes! It became a norm for Islamic invaders and Christian crusaders, because their religious edicts not only ordained them to do so but also promised tremendous dividends in the lives hereafter.

In fact, by that reckoning, the entire independence movement from 1857 till 1947 would have to also get classified as a wrong act to correct a medieval wrong. After all, a lot of blood letting was done in the entire Freedom Movement also. Even the wholesale removal of huge statues of British monarchs after independence would get classified as a morally wrong act.

When the Moors occupied Spain in the twelfth century, they not only demolished all the Churches, but also converted the entire population into Muslims. However, when the Spaniards won back freedom in the sixteenth century, they not only demolished all the Mosques and erected Churches, but also de-converted the entire population back to Christianity. No historian has ever commented adversely on this, still less called it wrong. When the Polish people won freedom in 1915 after about a hundred years of Russian slavery, they, (even though they themselves were Christians), promptly demolished the massive Gothic Cathedral that was built by the Russians in the Square of Warsaw. The Poles looked upon it as a monument of Russian victory and not as a worship place.

On the other hand, no Mosques were destroyed nor any Muslim de-converted back to Hinduism when Shivaji wrested his Kingdom from the Mogul rulers. No, Destruction of the structure on 6th December, 1992 when it was not even a mosque for the past 58 years cannot be equated with vandalizing of religious sites. When this country was dismembered under British Supervision, a whole Nation of Pakistan was created on a two-Nation theory purely on religious basis. It is ironical that some Muslim leaders (and not the entire Muslim community as such) should grudge the Hindus the Construction of a grand temple at Ayodhya or the temples of Kashi or Mathura. Is this the way to express their gratitude for having been saved from the trauma of being uprooted and sent to Pakistan where their similar brethren are living as second-class citizens? They seem to have ignored their own Quran, which declares "Ingratitude" as the greatest of all sins.

Let it be not forgotten that in the case of Ayodhya temple, the Hindus have made serious attempts to get back the sacred site by peaceful means - through negotiations and the judiciary. These attempts were frustrated for no fault of the Hindus. Not pressing the claim for the thousands of recorded temples that were demolished and on which Mosques are standing today is a generous enough concession to the Indian Muslims, who chose to stay on in India. Expecting the Hindus to give up their claims on the Rama temple at Ayodhya or the half-demolished temples of Kashi and Mathura is tantamount to conceding to barbarism when it was at its very worst.

25. Does the destruction of the Babri structure not mean that the concept that ‘two wrongs make a right’ is accepted?

Vandalizing the Shri Rama temple was doubtlessly the first wrong. But what was the second wrong?

Undoing any wrong is an act of justice and is essentially a noble act. Just as tearing down the British yoke of slavery was the undoing of the wrong done by the British masters, so was the tearing down of the Babri structure (a symbol of Mogul supremacy) the undoing of a continuing wrong that was started in 1528. it is preposterous to equate barbaric vandalisation of the sacred-most Shri Rama temple with an act that restored the honour of a humiliated Hindu nation.

Yes, if the Jama Masjid of Delhi, the Dargah of Ajmer or the Mosque at Hazratbal had been demolished, then doubtlessly it could be counted as an equitable second wrong. Not even the most knowledgeable ulemas (clerics) can call building a mosque wherein worship of Rama has been going on for over four decades. What got destroyed on 6th December 1992 at Ayodhya was no mosque and no second wrong was ever committed.

26. In destroying the Babri structure, does it not mean that the present-day Muslims are being asked to pay a price for the mistakes of those who indulged in vandalism and destruction?

Pray, what price have the Muslims paid? What have they lost at all? The structure that was destroyed in 1992 housed a temple functioning under Court orders upheld by the High Court continuously for the past over 42 years. The Privy Council has already ruled in the case of the Lahore Masjid when it had been in disuse for just 14 years that its status as mosque could not be restored. (See Case Law reports AIR 1940p. 116; ALJ p.552; 1940 OWR 1280; ILR 1940, p.493). in this structure, no namaz (Muslim prayers) had been conducted for the past 57 years. Of course, for the past 42 years it had been a functioning temple.

An impression has been created that Kar Sevaks destroyed a Masjid purely because of the canard spread by Narasimha Rao on the TV in the evening of 6th December that "Babri Masjid has been destroyed." If indeed it was Babri Masjid, how is it that the White Paper prepared by Narasimha Rao’s own Government never even once called it "Babri Masjid" throughout its 122-page text?

Nawab Wajid Ali Shah (1847-1856) attempted to end the dispute. He appointed a 3-member commission. One Hindu, one Muslim and the third one a representative of ‘Company Sahib’ (the British). The commission arrived art the conclusions that Mir Baqi had erected this structure after demolishing an existing building because, on the plaque it is clearly written that this is a place where angels descend. It contains the debris of the earlier structure. This commission did not call it any "Mosque".

The Muslims never lost anything. It is only their self-seeking leaders who lost face when the myth of continuing to call that structure Babri Masjid got exposed.
Even so, the heirs of Mir Baqi, the hereditary Shia Muttawalli Shri Javed Hussain, s/o Sahanwa, of the once upon a time Babri Masjid has already gone on record demanding the transfer of the Mosque to Sahanwa so that the site could peacefully revert to the Hindus. Incidentally, the Office Note dated 21st November, 1948, sent to Javed Hussain by the Sunni Waqf Board, U.P. the Waqf Board also acknowledges the Muttawalliship of Javed Hussain as the one valid Muttawali.

Besides, Babar was an invader and no Muslim living in India today has ever been heard to say that what Babar did in 1528 was right. So to say that Muslims paid price on 6th December 1992 is a highly erroneous perception.

27. Has the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi Movement disturbed the communal atmosphere in the country?

After 1857, Hindu-Muslim unity was anathema to the British rulers. The communal strife reached its nadir during partition days. Riots - sometimes very vicious riots, - have constantly dogged this country, especially UP, year after year. Rama Lala had appeared in the sanctum sanctorum of the Babri structure in 1949; yet no communal disturbance took place. Not one single riot had occurred throughout the route taken by Advani’s Rath Yatra. There are videotapes of swarms of Muslims greeting Advani’s Rath Yatra. There were NO riots anywhere in the entire route.

Yet, continuous propaganda is still being made Advani’s Rath Yatra left a trail of Hindu-Muslim riots. It is canards such as these that vitiate the communal atmosphere. The Hindus have all the right to reconstruct their old temple. If this causes communal tension the fault lies with those who resist the exercising of this wholly legitimate right.

The communal atmosphere however, did get vitiated when some self-seeking Muslim leaders saw this Movement offering a great opportunity to get recognized as National level leaders of the Muslim community and some Hindu leaders saw in it as an opportunity to garner the Muslim vote-bank. In other words, communal atmosphere was vitiated only when this Movement was sought to be politicized. In this, Rajiv Gandhi stands out as the first in starting its politicization. This politicization reached its climax when Narasimha Rao spoke the greatest lie on 6th December 1992, by calling a functioning temple as the ‘Babri Masjid’ and then reaping the political harvest of dismissing all four BJP ruled States. The mischief was caused by the Prime Minister’s lie and not by the Hindus.

Had this movement remained what it genuinely was - a religious movement, it had the potential of becoming an instrument of abiding communal amity (see answer to Q. No. 23).

28. Why are those who oppose the construction of the Mandir at the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi site called "Babar ki aulad" (descendents of Babar)?

One has to first determine how one views the Babri structure. Some of those opposed to the construction of the Mandir at the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi say that the Babri structure was a place of worship for the Muslims. Some others argue that it was a monument of our secular tradition. Any interpretation of the Babri structure, other than that it was a monument of our slavery, would clearly indicate that the Hindus are being asked to persist with the feeling of humiliation that Babar had inflicted on them, as the conquered people.

The Babri structure was built after destroying the Shri Rama temple. Thus, those who oppose the restoration of the temple evidently wish to hold on to the memory of Babar. As Hindus feel proud to be the descendents of Rama and the inheritors of the culture and human values symbolized by Rama, it was only logical to presume that the protectors of the Babri structure ought to be feeling equally proud in considering themselves the descendents of Babar and inheritors of the culture and values that Babar represented. It was therefore; perhaps, that the opponents of the Rama Temple began to be called "Descendants of Babar, i.e., Babar ki Aulad".

If for any reason, the opponents consider this epithet as abusive or derogatory, they should come forward and condemn Babar and his barbarous acts and begin reveling in the destruction of the structure he had created to humiliate the Hindus. But for this, they have to believe firmly in the absolute truth that the structure that got destroyed was no mosque at all since 42 years prior to its destruction. The Muslims anger would have been fully understandable had that building really been a mosque when it got destroyed.

29. Would the construction of a temple in honour of Shri Rama create a confrontation with the Government in power?

The conclusive legitimacy of the demand for the construction of a temple in honour of Shri Rama is the one that has to be decided first. The justification for the construction has been made on the basis of historical, literary, legal, revenue and archaeological records. This has been presented to all sections of society, including the Government of India and even to those opposed to the construction of the temple. Time and again, the Hindus have made sincere efforts to find a negotiated solution by proving the facts to the hilt. There were frustrated for no fault of the Hindus. All the relevant information is in public domain.

Therefore, under the circumstances, and given the just merit of the demand for the construction, we do not see any reason for any kind of confrontation with any party in power. The people who are seeking a confrontation are those who do not wish to recognize the validity of the strong sentiments of the Hindus for their holy sites. Hence, the fault will not lie with the Hindus in this case even if a confrontation situation is forced on them. Hindu humiliation during the Mogul and British times was unbearable enough. But, continued humiliation in a free India is simply too much to expect from Hindu tolerance.

30. What will be the reaction of the Islamic oil producing countries if the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi temple is rebuilt?

Islamic countries do not have leaders with their own vested interests or leaders who need to garner any vote-bank. Hence, it is ridiculous to talk about reaction of Islamic oil producing countries. Serious efforts are being made to put across unadulterated truth regarding the whole affair and, once any foreign country, including Islamic countries, sees the Hindu stance objectively, absolutely no adverse reaction in Islamic countries shall be possible. Babri structure was no mosque, but in the History of Islam even a regular functioning mosque was ordered to be demolished when the site’s ownership was disputed. Demolition of a regular functioning Mosque for ensuring justice is nothing new in Islam.

In Tariq-e-Islam (History of Islam), there is a recorded case of Damishk wherein the order of the two brothers had given a jointly owned land as Waqf for the construction of a Mosque. The Mosque had been functioning for several years when the elder brother died. Soon thereafter, the younger brother approached Khafila Omar-bin-Abdul Aziz claiming his land back on the ground that his brother had not taken his consent while making the Waqf. After verifying the truth of his claim, the Khafila ordered the demolition of the Mosque and restored the land to the surviving brother. This case occurred in the year 100 Hijri.

In the case of the Rama temple, however, the place had not been used as a Mosque since 1934 and actually it was a functioning temple since 22/23rd December 1949, a truth which is crucial in judging the validity of the Hindu programme. All the four Schools of Muslim Jurisprudence have unanimously and unequivocally stated that no Mosque can be built on any land, which is not totally free from any doubt or dispute irrespective of the fact, whether the dispute occurred before or after the construction of the Mosque. In fact, as per Islamic theology, namaz performed in any disputer site is not acceptable to Allah. In the light of this, not only these sites, but also even Kashi and Mathura have zero religious value for Muslims, even if ignorant Namazis keep thronging there.
The only important action to be taken is to project all the truth and Truth alone and any adverse reaction will be totally ruled out.