14 Years later..
The Babri Masjid was said to be constructed by order of the first Mughal Emperor of India, Babar, in Ayodhya in the 16th century. Before the 1940s, the mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan .The mosque stood on the Ramkot hill (also called Janamsthan ("birthplace"). It was destroyed by Hindu activists in a riot on December 6, 1992.
It was alleged that Babar's commander-in-chief Mir Baki destroyed an existing temple at the site, which Hindus believe was the temple built to commemorate the birthplace of Ram. Interestingly the mosque shared a wall with a Ram temple. Although there were several older mosques in the city of Ayodhya, an area with a substantial Muslim population, the Babri Masjid became the largest, due to the importance of the disputed site.Although we have a detailed account of the life of Babar in the form of his diary, the pages of the relevant period are missing in the diary. But it is possible that the mosque already existed before Babur, who may only have renovated the building. However, the construction of the mosque must have been between 1194 and 1528.
Hindu partisan historians say that in the year 1527 the Muslim invader Babar came down from Ferghana in Central Asia and attacked the Hindu King of Chittodgad, Rana Sangrama Singh at Sikri and with the help of cannons and artillery (used in India for the first time) overcame Rana Sangrama Singh and his allies.
According to the Hindus, after this victory, Babar decided to spread terror among the subjugated Hindu population. Apparently, Mir Baqi built a mosque at the site of the destroyed temple. This was called the Babri Masjid named after King Babar.
The only remaining question about the site was its status in the period 1192-1528. In 1192 and the subsequent years, practically all the Hindu temples and Buddhist monasteries in North India were demolished by Mohammed Ghori and his Turkish invaders. It is impossible that the medieval temple at the site could have survived until 1528.
Muslims and Muslim partisan sources claim that neither history nor fact can come to prove the Hindu case as claimed above.
They claim that it is clear that the allegations, on which, the demands of RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad & Hindu Munnani are based, for laying claim to Babri Masjid are biased against Islam.The attack on Babri Masjid on December 6th 1992, was not the only attack. It has been repeatedly attacked by Hindu fanatics in 1934, and again in 1949. Finally on December 6th, 1992 they finally managed to demolish the entire mosque.
It all seems to me like little children fighting over the truth in a fairy tale, or over pieces of Lego. Except a lot of people have gotten hurt, gotten killed, and terrorised in the unfolding of this trivial immature game of "It's mine!"
Why? Why was there such a huge fight over it? First of all, it's a matter of interpretation whether it was the birthplace of Ram or not. Besides, there's an Ayodhya in Indonesia as well, as well as in other parts of South East Asia who follow the Ramayana. Who is to say that Ram wasn't born there? And what about the Kamban Ramayana from South India...that has its own differences. It's a STORY. We're fighting over a myth.
I suppose people could argue that it's easy for me to say that's it's a story because I don't believe in God. I'm not religious and for me, the whole Ramayana is just a beautiful story with colourful and magical characters, that I sometimes depict on stage while doing Bharatanatyam. But I have something to say for people claiming this as well. I've read enough about Ram, played his character enough times on stage, to know what kind of a character he was. Even if Ayodhya, and in particular the exact spot of his birth, lay where the Babri Masjid once stood - he would be so ashamed that a beautiful historical structure built years ago was destroyed in his name. He would feel used, and ashamed of his own people.
And for God's sake...the temple that existed there was destroyed centuries ago. Nothing that anyone does can bring it back. And no one is justifying the destruction of that temple. It's just that it was done by invaders in the 16th century! And for years after that, hindus and muslims co-existed. But suddenly in the 20th century, people started getting fanatical. We now live in the 21st century...has modernity, better education, more resources done nothing for the mentality of people over 4 centuries? So the invaders were petty and stupid, insulting and violent in destroying the temples of India (wasn't everyone in that era who were invading places like that?). But is retaliating by stooping to that level, a sign of maturity or of stupidity?
Can you believe that a building can cause people to become so violent and brutal? People are still only just recovering from the Mumbai riots that followed in 1993. People are still seeking justice, they are still waiting for lost loved ones to return.
All this for what? The birthplace of a God that may or may not exist? A god that would be ashamed of what was happening anyway?
It makes no sense to me.