Let me first quote a few facts, or so called myths. I do not possess any reliability or responsibility for the same.
The first Mughal Emperor Babar came to India in 1527AD, attacked the Hindu emperor of Chittodgadh. After winning the land of Ayodhya, Babar sent his general Mir Baqi to Ayodhya and made him the incharge of the region. Mir observed that Ayodhya had a big ancient Hindu temple of a great emperor and a kind human being, considered as God in Hinduism, Shri Ramchandra. To spread terror in the Hindu population, the temple was demolished and a mosque was built at the same location in the honour of the emperor Babar. The mosque was popularly known as Babri Masjid (Mosque), which was previously known as Masjid-e-Janmasthan (Mosque at the birthplace (of Shri Ram)).
The place was used by the Hindus as well as Muslims till 1885 for worshipping together. Where is that communal harmony now? It was a religious matter then, and it is a political matter now.
Till 1990, there was not much of a fuss about the issue.
6th December, 1992, Hindu leaders and volunteers, allegedly led by L.K. Advani, demolished the mosque and demanded the construction of temple arguing that if Muslims have sacred place in Mecca, why should Hindus not have a similar place in Ayodhya.
The argument seems justifiable, but actions don't. When the case was handled by the judiciary system, this action was certainly wrong.
Believing to what the historians say is right, even Babar's actions were not just, but taking revenge of something, happened more than 3 centuries before in an equally barbarian way seems to be the outcome of shortsighted thinking or selfish political motives.
Now, Ayodhya issue has grown much beyond Hinduism or Islam, it's been more about NDA and UPA, about BJP and INC, about minority and majority.
Politicians and bureaucrates have toiled to work out a feasible solution, but have failed. Probably because of the conservative, volatile and brainwashable mindset of Indians, rather Hindus and Muslims (Unfortunately today also people consider them Hindu or Muslim first and Indian later, if at all they do), and sluggish and pale judiciary.
I'll dare to propose a solution, which may seem outrageous, but it is the best if a neutral government really wants to do something.
How about building a government hospital on the disputed land? A hospital that treates poor Indians, and not Hindus or Muslims. If a Temple is made, some psycho Muslim leader may demolish it tomorrow, and if a Mosque is built, his/her Hindu counterpart may do the same.
It is not always about what is right and what is wrong, sometimes it is also about what is good and what is bad.
Wounds caused in 16th and 20th century are not reversible, then why should we try to deepen them instead of letting them heal?
Why don't we understand that no religion teaches to demolish some worship place and make a new one there, and if it teaches, it's not a religion.
If I can convince people of superiority of Humanity and compassion over Hinduism or Islam or any other religion, I'll consider myself the most successful person on earth.
