There should be a Ram Mandir (Temple) in Ayodhya

DEMOCRACY IS MAJORITY RULE Democracy can be defined as: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members Source: Oxford Dictionary Demographic Table of Religions in India: Office of The Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, New Delhi-110011 2011, In a democracy the mandate of the majority should be respected at all times. The construction of the Ram Mandir would see the majority satiated which has been seeking to re-establish the temple since centuries. The first of the many legal petitions dates back to 1885 even before the birth of the Indian nation when Mahant Raghubar Ram moved the courts for permission to erect a temple just outside the Babri Mosque premises. Despite validating the claim of the petitioner, the Faizabad (Ayodhya) District Judge dismissed the case, citing the passage of time. [a] On 18 March 1886, the judge passed an order in which he wrote: I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the Masjid built by Emperor Babur stands on the border of Ayodhya, that is to say, to the west and south it is clear of habitations. It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to agree with the grievances. [b] Giving this churlish justification when India was under colonial rule the judiciary under the ambit of colonial oppressors could get away with it, but today when a Hindu Nationalist Party, BJP is in power and is not crippled by coalition it not only has the strength but the right to do build a Ram Temple in Ayodhya as it would be doing nothing but heeding to the wishes of the majority. Activists of RSS and VHP, whose political wing BJP holds the majority in the house of the people, have constantly been trying and fighting for a temple at the Babri Masjid site but have failed owing to the Muslim appeasement vote-bank policies of Congress. The BJP listed Ram Mandir in its manifesto and have come into power riding on Hindu votes (as per data provided by election commission). Therefore, it is fair to say that it is the wish of the majority that the Ram Mandir should be constructed. Sources: [a] Gumaste, Vivek (17 September 2010). "Can court verdict resolve Ayodhya dispute?".Rediff News. Archived from the original on 20 September 2010. Retrieved 28 September 2010. [b] Anatomy of a confrontation: the rise .... Google Books. Retrieved 26 September 2010 Why is it fair that a Ram Mandir should be constructed? Because of the fact that it was demolished by Babur in the 16th century, the first of the Mughal foreign emperors and he replaced it by a mosque. Evidence to support there was a Ram Mandir before the construction of Babri Masjid The earliest suggestion that the Babri Mosque is in proximity to the birthplace of Ram was made by the Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, whose work in French was published in Berlin in 1788. It says: Emperor Aurangzeb got demolished the fortress called Ramkot, and erected on the same place a Mahomeddan (Muslim) temple with three cupolas. Others believe that it was constructed by Babur. The reason is that here there was a house in which Vishnu took the form of Rama, and his 3 brothers are also said to have been born. Subsequently, Aurangzeb, or Babur razed the place down, in order not to give the (Hindus) occasion to practice their worship. However, they continued to follow their practices in both places, believing it to be the birthplace of Rama." This record reveals that Aurengzeb demolished the Ramkot fortress; that either he, or Babur constructed a Mosque there; the 12 columns of black stone pillars were brought from Lanka; and when veneration of Rama became prevalent after the 17th century, a small rectangular mud platform was built to mark the birthplace of Rama. He writes that Hindus celebrated Ram Navami (Rama's birth festival) in front of the mosque, and that the mosque was built on a temple.[1] Subsequently Aurangzeb and some say Babur destroyed the place in order to prevent the heathens from practising their ceremonies. However, they have continued to practice their religious ceremonies in both the places knowing this to have been the birth place of Rama by going around it three times and prostrating on the ground."[2] SOURCES: [1] (A.K. Chatterjee: “Ram Janmabhoomi: some more evidence”, Indian Express, 27 March 1990 and History and Geography of India, by Joseph Tieffenthaler, (published in French by Bernoulli in 1785) (RETRIEVED 2ND JULY 2014) [2] Joseph Tieffenthaler, History and Geography of India, 1785, publisher: Bernoulli, France, cited by Harsh Narain The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, 1993, New Delhi, Penman Publications. ISBN 81-85504-16-4 p.8-9, and by Peter Van der Veer Religious Nationalism, p.15 (RETRIEVED 2ND JULY 2014) Shykh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorawi Nami (1811–1893) wrote: ‘According to old records, it has been a rule with the Muslim rulers from the first to build mosques, monasteries, and inns, spread Islam, and put (a stop to) non-Islamic practices, wherever they found prominence. Accordingly, even as they cleared up Mathura, Bindraban, etc., from the rubbish of non-Islamic practices, the Babari mosque was built up in 923 under the patronage of Sayyid Musa Ashiqan in the Janmasthan temple in Faizabad-Avadh, which was a great place of (worship) and capital of Rama’s father’ (p. 9). ‘Among the Hindus it was known as Sita ki Rasoi’ (p. 10).[3] [3] Shykh Azamat Ali Kakorawi Nami, Muraqqah-i Khusrawi or Tarikh-i Avadh cited by Harsh Narain The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, 1993, New Delhi, Penman Publications. ISBN 81-85504-16-4 (RETRIEVED 2ND JULY 2014) OTHER WRITINGS A. Führer wrote that: 'Mir Khan built a masjid in 930 during the reign of Babur, which still bears his name. This old temple must have been a fine one, for many of its columns have been utilised by the Musalmans in the construction of Babur's Masjid.'[4] H.R. Neville wrote that the Janmasthan temple "was destroyed by Babur and replaced by a mosque."[5] He also wrote "The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babur came to Ayodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babur's mosque. The materials of the old structure [i.e., the temple] were largely employed, and many of the columns were in good preservation." [4] (A. Führer: The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Archaeological Survey of India Report, 1891, pp 296–297) cited by Harsh Narain The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, 1993, New Delhi, Penman Publications. ISBN 81-85504-16-4 (RETRIEVED 2ND JULY 2014) [5] (H.R. Neville in the Barabanki District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 168–169) (RETRIEVED 2ND JULY 2014) ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULING The Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with 1/3 going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Lord Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple. While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site. The excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India were heavily used as evidence by the court that the predating structure was a massive Hindu religious building. [7] SOURCE: [7]"Issues For Briefing" (PDF). (RETRIEVED 2ND JULY 2014) CONCLUSION A Ram Mandir should be constructed because the status quo is only harming communal fabric of the country, with the BJP in power, a known communalist party, (read more about Gujrat 2002, 1992 Ayodhya) they will not stop until one is constructed. The construction will not harm anyone, it will just see the majority’s mandate realized. At best, the Allahabad Court Ruling of 2010 should be upheld.