Ayodhya's Sacred Site: The History and Conflict Over Ram Mandir and Babri Masjid

The Ayodhya dispute centers around a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh, India believed by Hindus to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Rama. On this land stood the 16th century Babri Masjid (mosque), built in 1528-29 by the Mughal emperor Babur’s general Mir Baqi. Hindus believe that an ancient Ram temple existed on the site before the mosque was built. The Ayodhya dispute is thus regarded as one of the longest running property disputes in India.

The origins of the dispute date back to the 1850s, when the first recorded incidents of religious violence occurred between Hindus and Muslims over the site. The British colonial administration built a fence to separate the places of worship, allowing the inner court to be used by Muslims and the outer court by Hindus. After India’s independence in 1947, the first lawsuit was filed in 1950 seeking permission to worship for Hindus inside the mosque, which was rejected. The idols of Rama were surreptitiously placed inside the mosque in 1949, and the gates were locked to allow only Hindu worship.

In the 1980s, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) began a campaign for building a Rama temple at the disputed site, as part of the larger Ram Janmabhoomi movement. They claimed Ram was born at the site of the Babri Masjid, and the mosque had been built after demolishing the pre-existing Ram temple. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) embraced the Ram Mandir cause in its Palampur Resolution in 1989. In 1990, L K Advani began a Rath Yatra to mobilize volunteers for building the temple.

This led to the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute acquiring a national political dimension. The VHP and BJP organized a rally involving over 1 lakh volunteers, or kar sevaks, to begin construction of the Mandir in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992. This led to riots breaking out between Hindus and Muslims, leaving over 2000 dead across India. The kar sevaks partially demolished the Babri Masjid, leading to nationwide communal riots.

The Government acquired 67 acres of land around the disputed site, and the Supreme Court ordered a stay on further construction. The Archaeological Survey of India was tasked to determine if a Ram temple existed underneath the mosque. In 2003, a court ruled that there was evidence of a temple under the mosque. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the site be split – 2 acres to the Sunni Waqf Board and 1 acre each to the Nirmohi Akhara and the Ram Lalla. However, all parties filed appeals and the Supreme Court took control of the dispute.

In 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered a unanimous verdict in favor of the construction of a Ram Mandir. It granted the entire disputed 2.77 acre land for the construction of the Ram temple, and ordered that an alternate 5 acre plot be provided to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a new mosque.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi performed the Bhoomi Pujan ceremony and laid the foundation stone for the new Ram Mandir on 5 August 2020. The construction is estimated to be completed by 2025. The dispute has spanned over a century, shaped religious politics in India, and led to communal polarization. The final resolution of the case and building of the temple is seen as a fulfillment of Hindu nationalist demands. However, many contend that the verdict denies justice to the Muslim community and violates the secular fabric of India.

Why Indian Hindus and Hindus in general are in support of the Ayodhya verdict and Ram Mandir construction?

The Ram Janmabhoomi movement and the long-drawn out legal battle for construction of a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya has been an emotive issue for many Hindus in India and worldwide. There are several religious, historical, cultural and political reasons that explain widespread Hindu support for the temple:

Significance of Lord Ram in Hinduism : For Hindus, Lord Rama is an avatar of Vishnu and embodies the ideal virtues, values and conduct as Maryada Purushottam. He holds an exalted position as a paragon of virtue, ideal son, ideal husband and ideal king in Hindu religious texts and traditions. Reclaiming Ram’s birthplace and establishing a temple in Ayodhya is thus seen as righting a historical wrong by many Hindus.

Belief in a Pre-Existing Temple : Several Hindu groups have claimed that a Ram temple existed at the Babri mosque site before it was destroyed and the mosque built in the 16th century. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) discovery of temple ruins beneath the mosque in 2003 further reinforced this belief. Hindus feel that rebuilding the Ram Mandir restores the sacred site to its original and rightful purpose.

Dispute Over Mosque Construction : Many Hindus contest that the Babri mosque was built on the temple site after demolishing an existing Ram Mandir. Hindu nationalist groups argue that Muslim invaders had destroyed thousands of temples during their rule. Rebuilding a temple at Ayodhya is seen as addressing a historical grievance.

Association with the Ramayan Epic : Ayodhya is celebrated as the capital of Rama in the Hindu epic Ramayana, further adding to its religious importance for Hindus globally. The faith regards it as Ram Janmabhoomi, the holy birthplace of their revered deity. Constructing a temple in Ayodhya is thus seen as conforming to the sacred geography of Hindu texts.

Unified Hindu Identity : The Ram Mandir movement has helped consolidate a strong and unified Hindu identity and religious pride. Political parties championing the temple are seen as advocates of the Hindu community. [6] Historic grievances over mosque construction are mitigated by righting the perceived wrong.

Representational Use in Politics : For many Hindus, the Ayodhya Ram Mandir has become a representational symbol against perceived pseudo-secular politics, minority appeasement and denial of their religious rights. Political parties like BJP who take up the temple cause are able to draw on Hindu frustrations.

Mobilization by Hindu Nationalists : Well-organized campaigns by Hindu nationalist groups like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad made the Ram Janmabhoomi movement a pan-India phenomenon cutting across castes and languages. The emotive issue allowed major political gains for parties like the BJP in uniting Hindus.

Sentiment Against Muslin Perceived Excess : Hardline groups use the Babri Masjid dispute to highlight instances of Muslim conquerors destroying Hindu temples and building mosques atop them. Reclaiming sacred Hindu sites like Ayodhya is presented as righting these past wrongs and excesses.

Faith in Supreme Court Verdict : A large majority of Hindus consider the 2019 Supreme Court verdict fair and just, given it is the outcome of the legal due process. [10] The court order to provide alternate land to Muslims for a mosque is also seen as balancing different interests.

Psychological Civilizational Victory : Hindutva groups project the temple as part of a civilizational conflict in which Hinduism has emerged victorious over Islam after centuries of subjugation. Rebuilding the Ayodhya Ram Mandir represents psychological recuperation of honor and pride.

In summary, major drivers behind the widespread support for the Ram Mandir among Hindus in India and globally include: religious significance of Lord Ram, faith in a pre-existing temple before the Babri mosque, disputed origins of the mosque, association with the Ramayana epic, consolidated Hindu identity, representational value in politics, campaigns by Hindu nationalists, grievances over Muslim excesses, acceptance of Supreme Court verdict, and symbolic value as civilizational victory of Hinduism over Islam.

Why Indian Muslims and Muslims in general are against the Ayodhya verdict and Ram Mandir construction.

The Ayodhya verdict of 2019 has been perceived as unjust and controversial by many Indian Muslims, who form the largest minority community in India. There are several historical, legal, and socio-political reasons behind the opposition to the Ram Mandir by Muslims in India and globally:

Religious Significance of Babri Masjid Site : Muslims believe Babri Masjid was built in 1528 by Mir Baqi, Babur’s commander, in Ayodhya and has been used for prayers since. Islamic religious scholars contend that according to the Sharia law, a mosque is a place of worship forever once built. Hence, the Babri Masjid site remains sacred Islamic space for Muslims. Demolishing an existing mosque to reclaim the land is prohibited in Islam.

Dispute Over ‘Pre-Existing’ Temple : Muslims contest the Hindu claim that a Ram temple pre-dated the Babri mosque on the same site. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had discovered ruins of an ancient building under the mosque in 2003. However, Muslims argue there is no concrete evidence that it was a Ram temple. The Allahabad High Court accepted ASI findings, but the dissenting judge called it a mere speculation.

Perceived Injustice of the Court Verdict : While the 2019 Supreme Court called the 1992 demolition of Babri Masjid illegal, it still handed over the disputed land for temple construction. The Muslim side believes the verdict failed to uphold the rule of law and rewarded the party that destroyed the 450-year old mosque. They argue that the court should have declared the land as public property rather than a temple site.

Violation of Secularism : Secularism is a fundamental principle in the Indian Constitution, which declares all citizens equal irrespective of religion. Muslims argue that the Ayodhya verdict privileges the faith of one community over another, violating the secular ethos of the country. The verdict is seen as a legitimization of majoritarian hegemonic ideas in politics over minority rights.

Threat to Muslim Identity and Rights : The political mobilization for building the Ram Mandir is viewed by many Muslims as a threat to their identity within a Hindu majoritarian nation. Demolishing a mosque and constructing a temple in its place carries symbolic significance, marking Muslim spaces as secondary. [9] It generates fears that other existing mosques could face renewed disputed claims by Hindu groups. There are concerns that it could further marginalize Muslims in social and political spheres.

Political Use by Hindu Nationalists : The Ayodhya Ram Mandir has been an emotive symbol of Hindutva politics, used to consolidate the Hindu vote bank. Muslim groups argue the demand for Ram Mandir is more political than religious, to make electoral gains by marginalizing minorities. The BJP’s landslide victory after the 2019 verdict is cited as proof that constructing the temple carries political dividends.

Global Solidarity Among Muslims : The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi issue has global significance for Muslims across the world. Islamic organizations internationally condemned the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992. Transnational Muslim solidarity groups see the Ram Mandir as a broader threat to Islamic heritage and rights. Destruction of the Babri Masjid draws parallels with the current global threat to mosques and Muslim religious sites.

To conclude, the key concerns that lead many Indian Muslims and Muslims worldwide to continue opposing the Ayodhya verdict and Ram Mandir construction include the religious significance of the Babri site, disputes over historical evidence, perceived injustice in court’s ruling, violation of secularism and minority rights, fears of marginalization, use of the issue for political gains by Hindu nationalists, and transnational Islamic solidarity on protection of religious sites. The long-drawn out legal case and the final court ruling have left many questions unanswered for the Muslim community.

Why some Indian Muslims support the Ayodhya verdict and Ram Mandir construction while some Indian Hindus oppose it ?

Indian Muslims Supporting the Temple

While a large section of Muslims in India and worldwide oppose the Ram Mandir, there are certain groups and leaders within the community who have expressed support for the temple construction:

Acceptance of Supreme Court Verdict : Some Muslim leaders advocated that the Supreme Court verdict should be accepted even if it goes against the Babri Masjid side. They contended that respecting the judiciary would strengthen Indian democracy and rule of law.

Desire for Closure and Reconciliation : Prominent Muslim politicians like Najma Heptulla stated that the protracted dispute should be resolved for closure. The temple construction could lead to reconciliation between communities.

Goodwill Gesture to Majority Community : Certain Muslim organizations like the Indian Muslim Intellectual Forum viewed handing over the disputed site as a goodwill gesture to the Hindu majority community and improving communal harmony.

Political Expediency : The All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board decided not to file a review petition against the verdict, possibly to avoid disaffecting the political dispensation.

Alignment with Ideology : Muslim leaders supporting Hindu nationalist ideology like Dr. J K Jain see the temple fulfilment of a long-standing cultural cause. They contend demolished mosques can be relocated but not Lord Ram’s birthplace.

Desire for Development Over Dispute : Some Muslims want the focus to move beyond the temple dispute to issues of development, education and justice. They feel prolonged legal battles stall progress on ground.

Hindu Voices Against the Temple

While most Hindus have welcomed the Ram Mandir, some groups and leaders have expressed dissent against the verdict and construction:

Violation of Secularism : Secular Hindu groups posit that India’s constitutional secular values require separating religion from politics and law. They argue the faith-based verdict weakens state secularism.

Undermining of Judicial Independence : Critics like Justice AP Shah contend politicians pressured the court to deliver a unanimous pro-temple verdict, compromising its independence and integrity.

Disregard of Muslim Sentiments : Liberal voices criticize the ruling government for disregarding minority concerns. They argue the verdict failed to deliver justice to Muslims over an unjust demolition.

Enabling Majoritarianism : Some secular Hindus believe majoritarian religious nationalism has been emboldened, spreading a climate of fear among minorities. The verdict privileges Hindu rights over Muslim rights.

Against Exclusivist Ideology : Groups like the Swaraj Abhiyan critique the ideology that views India as primarily a land of Hindus. They oppose Hindutva politics of excluding minorities and reimagining secular India as a Hindu rashtra.

Affront to Rule of Law : Critics argue the verdict rewarded Hindu groups who illegally demolished the Babri Masjid in 1992. This incentivizes taking the law into one’s own hands for political ends.

In summary, factors like accepting the judicial process, reconciliation, communal harmony, political expediency and ideological alignment explain Muslim support for the temple in some quarters. Among Hindus, commitment to secularism, undermining of judiciary, violation of minority rights, enabling majoritarianism, opposition to exclusivist ideology, and affront to rule of law are major bases for dissent against the Ayodhya verdict within liberal and secular groups.

How different political parties across India are using the Ayodhya issue and Ram Mandir for political gains?

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)

The BJP has derived maximum political mileage from the Ram Janmabhoomi movement and the push for Ram Mandir construction in Ayodhya.

The party adopted the Ram Mandir cause in its 1989 Palampur resolution as a core Hindutva agenda. This allowed it to consolidate the Hindu vote bank across caste and class divisions.
LK Advani’s 1990 Rath Yatra mobilized cadres and public opinion in favor of the temple. It catapulted BJP’s rise in national politics from 2 Lok Sabha seats in 1984 to 85 seats in 1989.
The frenzied Hindu mobilization contributed to riots across India leading up to the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition. This established BJP as the assertive savior of Hindu interests.
The legal battle and court verdict on the disputed land has allowed the BJP to claim victory in fulfilling one of its foundational promises to build a Ram Mandir.
PM Modi performed the Bhoomi Pujan for the new temple’s construction in August 2020, reaffirming BJP’s image as the torchbearer of Hindu aspirations.
The BJP believes championing causes like the Ram Mandir helped weaken caste politics, unite Hindus across barriers and expand its political base beyond upper castes.

Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)

The VHP spearheaded the Ram Janmabhoomi movement starting 1984 and demanded the construction of the Ram temple.
Its volunteers demolished the Babri Masjid in 1992, forcing the temple issue to the centerstage of Indian politics.
The VHP maintains pressure on ensuring temple construction and advancing other Hindutva objectives like cow protection and population control.
It provides grassroots mobilization support for the BJP on promoting the broader Hindu nationalist agenda.

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

The RSS is the ideological parent organization of the BJP with which it coordinates the Hindu nationalist program.
It voiced early demands for reclaiming the presumed birthplace of Lord Ram and abolishing special concessions to minorities.
The RSS provides the groundwork of disciplined volunteers necessary for mobilization on mandir construction and other ideological issues.
It pressures the BJP to uphold core Hindutva causes like the Ram Mandir when electoral compulsions divert its focus.

Vishva Hindu Mahasangh (VHM)

Formed in 1964, the VHM’s singular aim was rebuilding the Ram temple at Janmasthan in Ayodhya.
The VHM organized the first gathering of Hindu seers and leaders in 1984, initiating the temple construction movement.
It coordinates with transnational Hindu groups to maintain pressure for construction of the temple.

Indian National Congress

The Congress has sought a balancing stance both supporting and opposing BJP’s Ram Mandir agenda at different junctures.
It supported the opening of the Babri Masjid gates for Hindu worship in 1986. But it later pledged to protect the Babri mosque under pressure from Muslim leaders.
Its attempt to revive Hindu identity politics through a 1990 Rath Yatra led by Rajiv Gandhi failed electorally against the BJP.
Congress adopted a muted response to the 2019 court verdict aimed at not disaffecting Hindu voters. But it critiques BJP for exploiting religion for politics.
It seeks to counter the BJP by attempting an inclusive secular politics upholding both Hindu and Muslim rights.

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)

AAP recognizes the emotive appeal of the temple issue among Hindus but formally keeps distance from faith-based issues.
It holds that people have the right to practice whatever religion they believe in. But religion should not be dragged into politics.
AAP focuses on governance and developmental issues prioritizing public welfare over identity politics around mandir construction.
It aims to provide an secular electoral alternative that moves political discourse beyond debates over construction of places of worship.

Janata Dal (United)

JD(U) supported the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict dividing the disputed land for both Hindu and Muslim usage.
It welcomed the 2019 Supreme Court judgement giving entire land for temple construction in national interest.
JD(U) sees its pragmatic acceptance of the court verdict as politically expedient in Bihar where Hindutva sentiments run high.

The stance and approach of the Trinamool Congress party in West Bengal on the Ayodhya issue and Ram Mandir:

Background

The Trinamool Congress (TMC) is a major political party in West Bengal led by current Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. It has positioned itself as a secular regional party and the main opposition to the BJP in the state.

Initial Ambiguous Stance

The TMC maintained an ambiguous stance in the initial phases of the Ram Mandir dispute, avoiding taking any firm position on the sensitive issue.

Mamata Banerjee tacitly supported the BJP’s Rath Yatra in 1990 when she was in the Congress party. She stated the yatra would not lead to communal disharmony.
As a Minister in the central government in 1991, she supported the BJP’s demand for facilities to perform the Shilanyas for Ram Mandir construction.
After forming the TMC in 1998, Mamata flip-flopped between supporting and opposing the VHP’s agitation on the temple issue.

Shift to Opposition

The TMC leadership opposed the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992, staying away from the nationwide Hindu mobilization by BJP and VHP.

Mamata called the demolition of the mosque a “black blot on democracy”.
However, the party remained largely silent on the temple issue through the 2000s to avoid controversy.

Clear Secular Position

The TMC adopted a firm secular position on Ayodhya under Mamata’s leadership over the last decade. This was in line with its electoral strategy of consolidating Muslim votes.

It strongly protested against the 2010 Allahabad HC verdict directing the land to be divided among Hindu and Muslim groups.
The TMC opposed the laying of foundation stone for Ram Mandir construction by VHP in 1989 calling it “illegitimate”.
It demanded that the disputed land be used to build a hospital or educational institution instead of a temple.

Strategic Silence on Final Verdict

The TMC regime adopted a politically expedient stance of remaining silent on the 2019 Supreme Court verdict in favor of the temple.

Mamata refused to comment on the judgement, calling it a subject of the court not politics.
TMC avoided celebrating the verdict to not alienate minorities or criticizing it to prevent affecting Hindu sentiments.
The neutral stance was aimed at hoodwinking both communities and stemming BJP’s rise in Bengal.

Focus on Governance

Mamata has steered clear of the temple issue and distanced the TMC from faith-based politics in general.

She insisted matters of faith should be restricted to the level of individuals, not mix it with politics and governance.
The TMC regime has focused on welfare schemes, infrastructure and industrialization in the state.
It has critiqued the BJP for divisive politics and relied on Bengali sub-nationalism.

Managing Hindu Sentiments

The TMC has strategically balanced its pro-Muslim image by reaching out to Hindus.

Mamata has amped up Hindu festivals like Durga Puja with higher budgets and public celebrations.
She has doled out monthly stipends and honored priests to curry favor with Hindu groups.
TMC leaders have also indulged in soft Hindutva such as public pujas and support to rituals.

In summary, the TMC demonstrated ambiguity on Ayodhya as a national issue but embraced secularism on assuming power in Bengal. It strategically avoided controversy around the final verdict but focused on secular governance and development. The party indulges in soft Hindutva to counter BJP’s accusations and supplements its Muslim vote bank with Hindu support.

The stance and approach of political parties in South India, particularly Tamil Nadu, on the Ayodhya issue and Ram Mandir:

Background

The Ayodhya Ram Mandir issue has traditionally held less religious and political significance in South India compared to the Hindi belt.
Parties in states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have treated the mandir dispute as a North Indian issue.

Dravidian Parties in Tamil Nadu

Regional Dravidian parties like DMK and AIADMK have avoided taking any firm stance on the Ayodhya dispute.
They adhere to the rationalist, anti-Brahminical Dravidian ideology that opposes Sanskritic Hinduism and Hindutva politics.
The Babri Masjid demolition in 1992 by Hindutva groups was criticized by Dravidian leaders as fundamentalist Hindutva.

DMK Position

DMK founder CN Annadurai critiqued Hindu mythology and opposed imposition of Aryan North Indian culture on Dravidian identity.
DMK treated the Ram Mandir issue as an North Indian Aryan concern meant to Sanskritize Tamil identity and undermine Dravidian heritage.
During the height of the Ramajanmabhoomi movement in 1990s, DMK leader M Karunanidhi questioned whether Lord Rama was a historic figure. This was a controversial statement in Hindu-majority Tamil Nadu.
He called the Ram Sethu bridge a fabrication by Hindu groups to communalize public discourse.

AIADMK Approach

AIADMK under MGR and Jayalalithaa shunned the strident anti-Hindu rhetoric of the DMK. But they too avoided taking a stand on the Ayodhya dispute.
Jayalalithaa condemned the Babri Masjid demolition as an attempt to spread communalism in India.
She refused to be drawn into the debate over historicity of Rama out of fear of alienating Hindu voters.
On the final Supreme Court verdict, the AIADMK government maintained a neutral position aimed at not antagonizing any community.

BJP’s Limited Appeal

BJP has struggled to expand its footprint in Tamil Nadu as the Ram Mandir cause does not resonate with the Dravidian ideology.
Local Hindu groups and Brahmin associations have organized pro-temple rallies. But mainstream parties have distanced themselves from them.
BJP is attempting to soften its Hindutva ideology and develop a more inclusive pro-Tamil Nadu political plank instead.

Karnataka Politics

The Ram Mandir dispute has greater relevance in neighboring Karnataka given the large presence of North Indian Hindu migrants.
BJP uses the temple issue more actively in the state especially in coastal Karnataka where its core voter base resides.
The Congress too has indulged in soft Hindutva politics in the state by supporting temple causes.

Conclusion

The Ram Mandir has limited religious or political appeal in the Dravidian south. Regional parties treat it as an alien North Indian issue and focus on their own Dravidian ideologies. The BJP has struggled to rally support for the temple cause beyond pockets of Brahmin and migrant voters.

How media in Pakistan and Bangladesh are covering and framing the Ayodhya issue and Ram Mandir construction for their audiences:

Media Coverage in Pakistan

The Ayodhya dispute and Ram Mandir construction are sensitive issues in Pakistan given the country’s history with India and foundations in the Two Nation theory.

Pakistani media has overall portrayed the temple issue as a resurgence of Hindu nationalism and threat to minorities in India:

Leading newspapers say the Ayodhya verdict has emboldened Hindutva groups and marginalized Muslims in India.
Columnists argue the verdict undermines India’s secularism, democratic values and founding principles.
Pakistani media presented the 2019 verdict as a “victory of Hindutva forces” and “surrender of the judiciary” to Hindu nationalist pressures.
The Bhoomi Pujan ceremony was seen as a fulfilment of the BJP’s communal agenda.
Experts on TV news debates say discrimination against Indian Muslims will increase under the Hindutva ideology.
Islamic groups in Pakistan called the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 a dark chapter in history and criticized the Indian Supreme Court for rewarding this illegal act.

However, some moderate voices have also emerged:

A few analysts say Pakistan should not interfere in India’s domestic issue and respect the court verdict.
Some say Pakistan should avoid the Ayodhya controversy and focus on its internal problems instead.
But such moderate perspectives get limited traction compared to nationalistic voices.

Framing for Pakistani Audiences

The Ayodhya dispute is framed in line with Pakistan’s national narrative regarding India and Hindu-Muslim relations:

It is projected as proof of rising anti-Muslim sentiments and Islamophobia in India.
Parallels are drawn with the Babri Masjid demolition and 200 years of Hindu-Muslim tensions.
The verdict and temple construction are seen as negation of Jinnah’s Two Nation theory that Muslims cannot live safely in Hindu majority India.
Pakistan’s creation as a separate nation for Indian Muslims is validated.
Superiority of Pakistan as a country created for Islam is asserted.

In summary, the Ram Mandir issue allows Pakistani media to reinforce national identity constructions and perceived threats from India. It validates Partition along religious lines.

Media Coverage in Bangladesh

Bangladeshi media has given relatively limited coverage to the Ayodhya verdict and temple construction.

Leading Bangla dailies provided factual reports on the Supreme Court verdict, history of the dispute and reactions.
The Bhoomi Pujan ceremony was covered as a news development in India’s domestic politics.
However, excessive editorializing and opinionated analyses have been largely avoided.

Bangladeshi media adopts a measured stance due to several factors:

Close cultural linkages with Bengal make Hindu-Muslim issues sensitive domestically.
Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government wants to project secular credentials and avoid controversy.
Religio-political groups like Jamaat-e-Islami continue to wield influence especially among conservatives.
Being India’s neighbor and largest trading partner necessitates balanced coverage on sensitive matters.

Framing for Bangladeshi Audiences

The controlled narrative in Bangladeshi media regarding Ayodhya is shaped by its unique relationship with India:

The Babri Masjid demolition is framed as a sad instance of communal violence and religious intolerance rather than Hindu aggression.
The court verdict and temple construction are presented factually as India’s domestic matter. Strong editorial positions are avoided.
The secularism of India’s constitution and founding fathers is emphasized more than critique of religious nationalism.
No direct parallels are drawn with Hindu-Muslim relations in Bangladesh for fear of stirring domestic tensions.

In summary, Bangladeshi media adopts a cautious approach on Ayodhya to balance religious sensibilities, importance of ties with India, and journalistic objectivity. The national narrative does not allow religious radicalism or anti-India rhetoric.

The global political dimensions and international reactions to the Ayodhya dispute and Ram Mandir issue:

The Ayodhya dispute has reignited debates around secularism in India and rise of Hindu nationalism that resonate in international geopolitics. The Ram Mandir campaign and demolition of Babri Masjid drew global attention. The final temple construction has implications for India’s identity as a liberal secular democracy.

Reactions from Islamic Countries

Many Muslim majority nations condemned the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition and expressed concerns over the 2019 Supreme Court verdict:

Iran called the demolition a matter of deep concern for Muslims worldwide. It echoed the stance of India’s Muslim organizations.
Indonesia, which has a large Muslim population, said India should ensure religious freedom protection and hoped its tradition of tolerance will prevail.
Malaysia’s PM Mahatir Mohamed criticized the judgement as unfair and said Muslims have lost their mosque site.
Conservative Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Oman advised India to rebuild Babri Masjid to protect Muslim rights.
Turkey called the verdict a seizure of minority rights and urged India to cherish its secularism and diversity.
Pakistan invoked the verdict to validate its creation as a separate nation and two-nation theory.

The tearing down of Babri Masjid was often compared with destruction of ancient Bamiyan Buddhas by Taliban. Global Islamist groups used it to target India.

Concerns in Western Democracies

The rise of Hindu nationalism and majoritarianism has evoked concerns in Western liberal democracies:

The US Commission on Religious Freedom said the verdict sides with Hindus over Muslims. It earlier classified India as a “country of concern” over Hindutva policies.
Groups like Human Rights Watch argued the judgement undermines minority rights and India’s commitments to pluralism.
EU parliamentarians stated the verdict raises anxieties over erosion of secular spaces.
Canada’s liberal premier Justin Trudeau expressed unwavering support for secularism and religious freedom in India.
The UK Labour Party passed a resolution criticizing the communal violence and demolition.

Most refrained from directly criticizing the court verdict but advised upholding civil liberties and tolerance.

China’s Critique

China took potshots at India over the temple issue to highlight poor treatment of minorities:

Chinese state media said the verdict exposed India’s “cracked judicial system” and lack of protection for Muslims.
It drew parallels with alleged Indian restrictions on Kashmiri Muslims.
Critical op-eds in Global Times portrayed it as proof of India not being a secular democracy.
It allows China to deflect global criticism of its repression of Uyghur Muslims.
Strategic rivalry between India and China informs the critical framing of the temple issue.

Bangladesh’s Caution

Bangladesh responded with utmost caution given its friendly ties with India:

PM Sheikh Hasina called it India’s internal issue and appealed for communal harmony.
Media adopted a neutral tone, avoiding controversy over the mosque demolition.
Bangladesh balances religious sensitivities at home with importance of bilateral relations with India.
Memories of persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh also shape its muted stance.

Domestic Political Ramifications

The Ayodhya dispute has impacted the ideological positioning and electoral fortunes of political parties across democracies:

BJP’s championing of the temple cause cemented its image as the party of Hindu aspirations, contributing to its meteoric rise.
Congress has struggled to counter BJP’s Hindu nationalist narrative and regain its dominance.
Parties in Indian states like Tamil Nadu steered clear of the emotive mandir issue keeping local sensitivities in mind.
Bangladesh’s Awami League government has projected a secular liberal image to undercut conservative Islamist rivals.
Right-wing groups globally from US Republicans to European nationalists emulate BJP’s majoritarian strategies.

Implications for India’s Secular Identity

The Ayodhya dispute has fueled debates globally about the resilience of India’s secular identity:

Critics see the mandir verdict as a blow to India’s secular constitution, democracy and liberties.
Some argue it privileges faith of the majority and fails to uphold rule of law.
Others contend majority will prevails in all democracies and mosque relocation is not unusual.
Many count on India’s pluralist traditions and institutions like the Supreme Court to safeguard secularism.
The mandir’s political symbolism remains contentious but most nations treat it as India’s domestic affair.

In summary, the Ayodhya dispute and Ram Mandir resurrection has global implications for minority rights in India, rise of Hindu nationalism, majoritarian impulses in democracies, and resilience of India’s secular fabric. While many Islamic nations, Western democracies and groups expressed concerns, most treat the temple issue as India’s internal matter. Nations opposed to India including China and Pakistan exploit the issue for strategic gains.

Conclusion

The Ayodhya dispute has been one of the most protracted legal and religious conflicts in India’s history. The demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 and the final 2019 Supreme Court verdict handing over the disputed land for construction of a Ram Mandir temple has immense political and social ramifications in India and globally.

Domestically, the temple issue catalyzed the rise of Hindu nationalism and consolidation of majoritarian Hindu identity. Parties like BJP were able to derive political mileage by championing the Ram Mandir cause. Regionally, the dispute has had limited resonance in South India where linguistic and Dravidian identities take prominence over Hindu nationalism. Internationally, the verdict drew reactions from Islamic nations and concerns from Western democracies over India’s secular credentials and minority rights. However, most countries treat it as India’s domestic matter. Rival Pakistan exploited the issue to reinforce its rationale as a separate nation for Muslims.

The Supreme Court judgement has attempted to provide legal closure but its interpretation remains contested between those who see it as a blow to Indian secularism versus others accepting majoritarian outcomes in a democracy. The political symbolism of the temple continues to fuel debates. However, the focus for many now remains on upholding harmony, rule of law and inclusive development in society.