|
|
The rationale keeps varying as per the
needs of the situation. It seems that the ultimate objective is to create
and maintain a level of confusion.
First, the historicity of Shri Rama is
denied. When that is accepted, the concept of maryada purushottam as applicable
to Shri Rama is denied. In effect, it is said that he was an ordinary
person, without attributing any special importance to him. When that is
accepted, it is denied that he was born in Ayodhya. When that is accepted,
it is denied that the Ayodhya where he was born is not where the present
day Ayodhya is. When that is accepted, it is denied he was born at the
spot where the Hindus have a continuous tradition of more than 3000 years.
And so on.
In essence, the strategy is one of negation
of the site of Shri Rama Janmabhoomi. A further element of this strategy
is to negate that a discussion took place at the time of the Prime Ministership
of Chandrashekar, where the VHP gave the totality of evidence to establish
that a temple was destroyed in 1528 and the Babri structure was erected
in its place. The media has kept under wraps the various attempts made
for a negotiated solution, because they would then have to also mention
that these efforts were frustrated by those opposed to the construction
of the temple. |