At the historical birthplace of Shri Ram in Ayodhya, whether or not a Ram temple should be built; how it should be built; when; who should build it and why; there are the questions to which I am trying to find the answers. For nearly the last 53 years , this question has been awaiting an answer in the courts of law. The birth place of Lord Ram lies under contention in three different law suits at the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench. The very first question is whether the issue of the birth place of Lord Ram should be left to the Courts of Law. If we talk about Law, the answer is Yes. But many issues of country and society are above or beyond law. When it comes to beliefs, tenets, cultures, ages and times, then law does not come into play. Who is Ram? Who was Ram? He does not exist in History. That Lord Ram was born in the Land of India, is not borne out by any historical documents. Because Ram is a mythical character. We have heard of Ram, believed in him. Not seen him. No one has seen him. We know the character of Ram through 'Goswami Tulsidass Ramcharitra Maanas' and Maharshi Valmiki's Ramayan. Ram is a part of our beliefs. We have faith for him in our hearts. There are no arguments for faith and belief. Ask any Hindu in the world; where was Lord Ram born; and his reply will be 'Ayodhya' not Kashi or Mathura. Because this is a belief which is a part of us. The truth of this matter can not be tested by any court of Law. Just like no courts can decide as to where were Jesus Christ or Prophet Mohommad born.

In the year 1985, Mr. & Mrs. Chandmal Chopra and Seetal Singh filed a petition regarding the 'Aayats' of Quran and their publication. The petition was filed under IPC section 153A and 295A; saying that the Quran published by the West Bengal government could lead to violence, disruption of peace and communal disharmony based on religion. Respected Judge Bimal Chandra Basak did not attach much importance to the petition and said that where religious faith & beliefs are concerned, the court can not have a role to play. The petition was dismissed. If Quran is a subject of the religious faith of Muslims, and the courts can not interfere; even though it is disrupting communal harmony; then what right does the Supreme Court have to give a ruling about the 'Shila Pujan' at Ayodhya? Isn't the issue of the 'Yagna' at Ayodhya and building of the Ram Temple an issue related to the religious faith of 85 crore Hindus in India? But how did the courts come into the picture? The government itself has left the resolution of the Ayodhya issue to the courts. The central government has repeatedly maintained that the issue of constructing the Ram Temple in Ayodhya will be resolved either by the courts or by a dialogue between the two communities.

As the Ayodhys controversy today has every Hindu (excluding the secularists and communists) agitated, so were the Hindus hurt by the demolition of the Somnath Temple prior to independence. There are many similarities between Ayodhya and Somnath. As Ayodhya is a small holy city situated in the Faizabad district of U.P., so is Somnath a large temple in the Jamnagar district of Gujarat. Ayodhya is the birth place of Ram while Somnath a Shiv temple. It is registered in the annals of History, that in January 1026, Mohammad Gazni looted the Somnath Temple and demolished it. Ayodhya's history is that in the year 1528, Mir Baki - a general in Babari's army demolished the magnificent Ram Janmabhoomi temple and built the Babri Masjid. It is better not to enter into an argument as to whether Mir Baki demolished the temple or whether Gazni looted the Somnath Temple; as history stands testimony to the fact that after the Hindu Rajas reign was over, and the Muslim rulers from the Middle East attacked India, their attack was not only political, cultural and communal, but also a religious attack. Thousands of Hindu temples were demolished by them and Masjids were built. All this happened more so during the reign of Aurangzeb. After independence, when Sardar Patel was made Home Minister, he rectified a historical wrong, respecting the sentiments of the Hindus in Gujarat. A totally destroyed Somnath temple was rebuilt. The Central Government took the initiative. A Resolution was brought forward in the Indian Parliament. The Central Government passed it. They allocated funds for the reconstruction of the temple. All this happened under the aegis of a secular Congress government. No court of law gave any restrictions levied. If a decision to build the temple of Somnath can be taken by the Central Government, then why can't the present Central Government decide the issue of the building of a grand temple at the site of the birth of Lord Ram in Ayodhya? When the secularism of India was not hurt by the building of the Somnath temple, then why should the building of the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple at Ayodhya threaten the Secularism of India today? Last year, Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vaypayee had himself said that the building of the proposed temple at Ayodhya would be an expression of national sentiment; then why does the Government not take such an important national sentiment on it's agenda? The NDA has it's agenda? The NDA has it's own agenda which does not include the Ram Temple. Because NDA includes some secular parties who are allergic to the Ram temple issue. They feel that this could cause a negative Muslim vote. But the NDA agenda had not included POTO either. Keeping in mind, the national security and the increasing threat of terrorism, Home Minister L.K. Advani advocated the strict Law of POTO and it was accepted by all the secularist parties of NDA. In exactly the same way, to establish communal harmony and respect the sentiments of the majority community the issue of the Ram Temple can be brought on the NDA agenda. Or should we say, that this should be brought on the NDA agenda. After all, how can any government keep such an important issue outside it's agenda?

Unfortunately, the issue of the Ram temple at Ayodhya has got entangled in political arguments / disputes. The Congress has been most active in this matter. 1st Feb, 1986, when the 'Garbh Griha' was unlocked, the government was that of Rajiv Gandhi and Arun Nehru was Home Minister. In 1989, the VHP was given permission for 'Shilanyaas' laying of the foundation stone by the Rajiv Gandhi government only. 'Kaar Seva' was performed during Congress rule. 6th December, 1992, when the structure of Babri Masjid was demolished, P. V. Narsimha Rao led the government and the Home Minister was Shri Shankar Rao Chavan. 'Ram Lala' appeared in the Gaabh Griha in 1949, and after the unlocking in 1986, now the agitation for building of the Ram temple has begun. For the last 16 years, the Hindus have been asking permission to build the temple in Ayodhya, but it is not being granted. The whole issue has been left to the courts. If the courts have to resolve the issue, why don't they quickly do so? No one has the right to break the law. Nobody should be permitted to do so. But the law and the courts should also fulfil their responsibility by reposing their faith in the Judiciary, but did the judiciary respect this faith? Last 15th March, when there was an issue of Puja at a non disputed land, the supreme Court interfered without any reason. Shiv Sena Chief Shri Balasaheb Thackeray has iterated that Puja' is our birth right. About 14th Acre (0.31 Acres) land is under litigation at Lucknow Bench. Ram Lala's Garch Griha is on that same land. The representatives of the Muslim Community are laying claim to that same land. The remaining 71 acres is undisputed & free of any litigation. After the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the Central Government passed a law, based on which the Current Government of Uttar Pradesh acquired the Land of the Garbh Griha and the area surrounding it. This acquisition was challenged in the Supreme Court. In 1994, a Supreme Court bench ruled that the disputed Court bench ruled that the disputed land petition be continued, and the non-disputed land be given to the concerned party. Of the 71 acres of land near the Garbh Griha, 41 acres belongs to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyaas. Nyaasi Ramchandra Paramhans, the head of Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas, had asked for this same land for the Puja on 15th March, so that the construction of the temple can be started. The Supreme Court stopped the Puja there, thereby negating it's own ruling of 1994. The Puja was not performed. Ramchandra Paramhans did not give up his life either. VHP took back it's own programme. But how long can this go on? The sentiments of crores of Hindus world wide are involved with the proposed temple. For how long can communal harmony be maintained while suppressing or hurting the feelings of the Hindus? This is an issue. In reply to this very question, Shri Balasaheb Thackeray has said that the temple should be built in Ayodhya, as this is in national interest.