Muslims are not opposing Ram Temple in Ayodhya: Sri Sri

Agencies
November 16, 2017

Ayodhya, Nov 16: Spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar on Thursday said by and large Muslims are not opposing Ram Temple in Ayodhya.

The Art of Living founder Sri Sri is here to mediate in the Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute between Hindus and Muslims.

"I know some may not agree with this, but Muslims by and large are not opposing the Ram temple," Sri Sri Ravishankar said while addressing the media here.

He expressed confidence that both the communities are capable of reaching to a solution over the issue.

"A solution may sometimes seem impossible, but our people, youth and leaders of both communities can make it possible," the spiritual guru said.

Earlier in the day, the Art of Living founder reached Ayodhya amidst high security.

Talking to media upon his arrival, Sri Sri said, "The environment is positive. People want to come out of this conflict. I know it is not easy. Let me talk to everyone. It is too early to reach a conclusion."

It is notable that the Supreme Court will hear the 13 appeals in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute on December 5, 2017, the eve of the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the 15th century mosque.

In March, the apex court, however, suggested that it would be best if the contentious issue is settled amicably out of the court between concerned parties.

On Monday, Ramjanambhoomi and Babri Masjid issue grabbed headlines again when Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said he would open talks with stakeholders in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.

"I will be going to Ayodhya day after tomorrow (November 16), and so far, all talks have been positive," he said.

However, the spiritual guru's effort has got mixed reactions.

Uttar Pradesh Governor Ram Naik on Wednesday welcomed Sri Sri's mediation efforts but said the final word in the Ayodhya issue will be of the Supreme Court.

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has also welcomed the mediation by Sri Sri Ravishankar.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national general secretary Ram Madhav downplayed Sri Sri's visit and said first let the legal process be completed in the Supreme Court after which other options should be explored.

Former BJP MP Ram Vilas Vedanti on Thursday alleged Sri Sri Ravi Shankar had "jumped" into the Ayodhya dispute to avoid probe into his illegal wealth.

BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj on Tuesday hailed Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's offer to mediate in the Ayodhya dispute.

The president of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) Asaduddin Owaisi on Monday dismissed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's mediation and said that the spiritual leader is no authority in this matter.

The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and the All-India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) have welcomed Sri Sri's mediation efforts but said Muslims will not surrender their claims on the land belonging to the Babri mosque.

Ram Janambhoomi- Babri Masjid dispute is century old point of tussle between Hindus and Muslims.

The mosque was demolished by Hindu Karsevaks on December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya. The country witnessed massive riots in which over 2000 people were killed.

The Hindus claim that it is the birthplace of Lord Rama where a mosque was built in 1528-29 CE (935 AH) by Mir Baqi. Since the mosque was built on orders of the Mughal emperor Babur, it was named Babri Masjid.

Two FIRs were filed after the disputed structure was demolished- Crime no. 197 deals with actual "demolition of the mosque by karsevaks." Crime no. 198 named senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and others for 'communal' speeches before the demolition.

In May, a Special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Lucknow charged senior BJP leaders L.K Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Union Minister Uma Bharti with criminal conspiracy in Babri Masjid demolition case. They are facing trial in the conspiracy case almost 25 years after the Mughal-era mosque was demolished by kar sevaks.

All the accused were granted bail by the Court but it rejected the discharge petition and said charges would be framed against them.

Comments

Abdullah
 - 
Saturday, 18 Nov 2017

A big lier. In Zakir Naik case also he lied. Who the hell he is to talk about muslims!

 

 

SHARIEF
 - 
Thursday, 16 Nov 2017

Building mandir or mosque will have worst consequances. 

Dont give to any community. 

Build a large common eminity for people of all  religions.

 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
August 1,2020

Bengaluru, Jul 31: A total of 5,483 new COVID-19 cases and 84 deaths were reported in Karnataka in the last 24 hours, the state's health department informed on Friday.

Karnataka now has a total of 1,24,115 coronavirus cases, including 72,005 active cases and 49,788 discharges.
So far, 2,134 deaths have been reported from the state.

Meanwhile, India reported the highest single-day spike of 55,079 COVID-19 cases in the last 24 hours, crossing the 16-lakh mark, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare informed on Friday.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 17,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 17: Days after 10 MLAs were inducted in the Cabinet, Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa is likely to expand his Cabinet again as some BJP MLAs are unhappy, said BJP sources.

Several leaders including Umesh Katti, CP Yogeshwar, Raju Gowda and MP Renukacharya are miffed over the recent cabinet expansion, claim sources.

On February 6, ST Somashekar, Ramesh Laxmanrao Jarkiholi, Anand Singh, K Sudhakar, BA (Byrathi) Basavaraj, Arabail Hebbar Shivaram, Hasavanagowda C Patil, K Gopalaiah, Narayana Gowda and Shrimant Balasaheb Patil took oath as ministers.

It should be noted that many MLAs had won the by-polls on a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ticket in December last year after switching loyalties from the Janata Dal (Secular) (JDS) and Congress.

In the December 5 by-polls held in 15 Assembly constituencies, the BJP had won 12, while Congress managed to bag only two. One seat was won by an Independent candidate while the JDS drew a blank.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
January 22,2020

Shivaji is a great icon in Maharashtra. Different sections of society have given him very high status, though for diverse reasons. Folklores about him abound in the state. His statues, popular songs on him are very prevalent. These folk songs (Powadas) praise his multifarious actions. So it was no surprise that when Jayabhagwan Goyal, released his book, ‘Aaj ka Shivaji: Narendra Modi’, at religious-cultural meet organized by Delhi BJP, there was a strong resentment in Maharashtra. Various leaders from Maharashtra were furious. The Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut challenged the Shivaji’s descendent, Sambhaji Raje who is in BJP and is member of Rajya Sabha, to resign on the issue. Sambhaji Raje in turn stated that "We respect Narendra Modi, who was elected as the prime minister of the country for the second time. But neither (Narendra) Modi nor anybody else in the world can be compared with Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj,"

Not to be left behind Jitendra Awhad of NCP felt Modi-BJP are insulting the pride of Maharashtra. It is not the first time that controversy is erupting around the Maharashtra warrior of medieval period. Earlier we had seen Sambhaji Brigrade demanding the ban on James Laine book, Shivaji: ‘A Hindu King in an Islamic Kingdom’, for its objectionable content. Bhandarkar Institute in Pune, which had helped James Laine in his research, was also vandalized. At another level there was a talk that Babasaheb Purandare, a Brahmin, who has written some popular material on Shivaji will be made as the Chairman of the committee for statue of Shivaji. Maratha Mahasangh and Shiv Dharm officials objected to a Brahmin heading the committee for a statue for the Maratha warrior. The caste angel in Shivaji’s case is coming to the fore from quite some time.

While there is no dearth of controversies around Shivaji, it is also true that each political tendency has created Shivaji’s image from their political point of view. Who was the real Shivaji, is the question. One can see two clear streams of projection in this matter. On one hand there is an attempt to present Shivaji as the anti Muslim King, a king who was respecting Cows and Brahmins (Go Brahman pratipalak). This view was brought forward from the times of Lokmanya Tilak and picked up by Hindu nationalists, who have been looking for icons in history to suit their political agenda. Nathram Godse, while criticizing Gandhi says that Gandhi’s nationalism was dwarf in front of the one of Shivaji or Rana Pratap.

In tune with this the Hindu nationalists are promoting both these as icons of Hindu nationalism and giving anti-Muslim slant to the whole discourse. This discourse also hides in this the Brahmanical agenda of Hindu nationalism as Cows and Brahmins are presented as the central object of veneration by Shivaji. This image of Shivaji fits well into the current agenda of Hindu nationalists, being spearheaded by RSS Combine.

It is because of this that for seeking votes in Mumbai Narendra Modi on the eve of 2014 elections stated that Shivaji attacked Surat to plunder the treasury of Aurangzeb. This also presents Shivaji-Aurangzeb, Shivaji-Afzal Khan interactions as battle between Hindus and Muslims. The truth is that Surat was plundered for its wealth as it was a rich port city and Bal Samant’s book on the topic gives in depth description of the same. It is noteworthy that Shivaji began his real career of conquest in 1656 when he conquered Javli from the Maratha Chief Chandra Rao More. He took over the treasures of this kingdom. That it was not a Hindu Muslim battle becomes clear when we know that in confrontation with Aurangzeb it was Mirza Raja Jaisingh who was negotiating and engaging with Shivaji on behalf of Aurangzeb. And Shivaji had Muslim officers like Kazi Haider as confidential secretary and many Muslim Generals in his army.

Darya Sarang was chief of armor division, Daulat Khan was in-charge of his naval division; Ibrahim Khan was another general of significance in his army.  This mixed up administration just shows that the kings were not having Hindu or Muslim administration depending on their religion. In the confrontation between Shivaji and Afzal Khan, Rustam-e-Jaman was Shivaji’s side and Afzal Khan had Krisnaji Bhaskar Kulkarni on his side.

As far as Shivaji’s popularity is concerned it was due to his being a King with welfare of his subjects in his mind. He lightened the burden of taxation on the average peasants, and reduced the domination of landlords over the serfs. This picture of Shivaji is well documents in the booklets by Com. Govind Pansare (Who was Shivaji) and Jayant Gadkari (Shivaji: Ek Lok Kalyankari Raja- Shivaji: King doing People’s Welfare). He did not belong to the warrior caste so Brahmins had refused to coronate him, for which purpose Gaga Bhatt a Brahmin from Kashi was brought in with heavy fees. Teesta Setalvad’s hand book on History for teachers underlined this fact.

Today while BJP-Brahmanical forces want to present Shivaji as worshipper of Brahmins and cows, the non upper caste have seen through the game. As such it was Jotirao Phule who brought forward the caste angel of Shivaji as he wrote Powada (Poem) in his honor and today dalit Bahujan are not toeing Hindu Nationalist projection on the issue.

The likes of Jayabhagwan Goyal of BJP as such are trying to give two messages through such attempts. One hand they want to paint Shivaji in anti Muslim and Brahmanical color, they also want to give the subtle message of similarity of this presentation of Shivaji with what Modi is doing. Non BJP forces have seen this game and want to present the other picture of Shivaji, which was highlighted by the likes of Jotirao Phule and which today many of those standing for rights of dalit-Bahujan are trying to articulate. The criticism of the said, book, since withdrawn is on these twin aspects. One about the picture of Shivaji who was concerned about welfare of the farmers, and two his respect for people of all religions.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.