|
Tens of thousands of people sacrificed their lives in defending the temple at Shri Rama Janmabhoomi. Further, right from the time of the destruction of the temple at the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi in 1528 AD, the efforts to recover the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi site has been a continuous one. In spite of a relatively strong Islamic rule in the area, Hindu society used every opportunity to liberate the site. Prior to 1947, there have been a total of 77 recorded attempts to wrest the control of the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi from the clutches of Islam.
During the time of Islamic rule, a peaceful return of the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi site to the Hindus would have defeated the very purpose of constructing the Babri structure, namely to provide a visual reminder to the Hindus that Islam ruled even over their holy sites, and that Hindus were now slaves. However, Hindus insisted on having at least a symbolic presence at the site. The permission to construct the Ram Chabootra and Sita-ki-Rasoi next to the Babri structure was a recognition of the Hindu sentiment of attachment to the site. For the Hindus, it was only a second best option. It was accepted only to establish their rightful claim for a future return of the site. Ram Navami was always celebrated at the site, even during the time of Islamic rule.
During the time of the British colonial rule, even though the Hindus were still not their own masters, at least an option of seeking the return through the judiciary process was available to them. This was taken up and a case was filed in 1885. The essential section of the judgement that was delivered in 1886 reads as follows: “It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as the event occurred 356 years ago it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the status quo. In such a case as the present one any innovation could cause more harm and derangement of order than benefit.”
The judgement clearly indicates that the Hindus have proved their right over the site. The second part of the judgement indicates that the British did not feel it necessary to be overly concerned about the Hindu sentiments since they were not their own masters. The return of the site would be caused harm to the interests of the colonial masters. |