Historic Hindu Temple Inaugurated in India on site of Mosque

[Aureumterra]

At this rate, 2020's starting to run out of ideas.

It's resorted to just blowing up cities at this point.

No really what is all this violence in India you people are talking about?

[The Hindustani State]

It's resorted to just blowing up cities at this point.

No really what is all this violence in India you people are talking about?

There is no violence here, they might be lying or looking at old articles from February when there were riots in Delhi, but nothing now

[-Astoria-]

It's resorted to just blowing up cities at this point.

No really what is all this violence in India you people are talking about?

I believe he was referring to the Beirut explosion.

[Aureumterra]

No really what is all this violence in India you people are talking about?

I believe he was referring to the Beirut explosion.

No shit

I’m asking about the violence Page was talking about

[-Astoria-]

No shit

I’m asking about the violence Page was talking about

Then I think you quoted the wrong person:

It's resorted to just blowing up cities at this point.

No really what is all this violence in India you people are talking about?

[Aureumterra]

No shit

I’m asking about the violence Page was talking about

Then I think you quoted the wrong person:

No really what is all this violence in India you people are talking about?

Sure, but you still haven’t answered my question, where is this violence?

[Loben III]

Then I think you quoted the wrong person:

Sure, but you still haven’t answered my question, where is this violence?

Soon(TM)

[United Nations organisation]

Ram Mandir Bhoomi Pujan: PM Modi offers prayers to Ram Lalla, performs 'sashtang pranam'

Basically, in an event that has largely been overshadowed in the news by coronavirus and the Lebanon explosion, a historic temple to the Hindu deity Lord Rama has been inaugurated in Ayodhya, the birthplace of Rama and one of the holiest sites in Hinduism.

For context, a massive shrine to Lord Rama had existed there for centuries, in 1527, Mughal conqueror Babur conquered Ayodhya, and as a symbol of his victory over the Kingdoms of India, he tore down the shrine to Rama and built a Mosque known as the Babri Masjid, burying the idols of the former shrine under the steps of the Mosque so they would have to be trampled when entering. Ever since, it has been a Hindu dream to one day rebuild the shrine to Lord Rama, however, this was not possible as for centuries, Hindus were second class citizens and oppressed by the Mughals and Sultanates of India.

In 1992, rioters forcefully tore down the Babri Masjid, sparking months of riots and communal violence in India between Hindus and Muslims. A court case arose which had not been resolved until early this year, when the High Court of India ruled in favour of the Hindus, but allowed the Muslims to build a Mosque nearby.

Today, the building of the historic temple has been commissioned in a ceremony known as Bhoomi Pujan, where the shrine of Lord Rama, which had been torn down in 1527, is finally being rebuilt. However, this has not come without controversy, a Hindu organization in America, which had bought a Times Square slot for people in NYC to see the inauguration of the temple in public, was revoked it’s slot due to activism from Islamist groups in the US, which the World Hindu Council has denounced.

What is your opinion on this issue?

I think this is an amazing day, and it is going to go down in the history books of India. It cannot be stressed enough how big this is for Hindus not just in India, but Hindus around the world. This is akin to the Jews rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem.

I as a Indian and Hindu salute you for bringing this topic

[-Astoria-]

Then I think you quoted the wrong person:

Sure, but you still haven’t answered my question, where is this violence?

Didn't know you wanted me to answer, but fine.

<editing>

[Sundiata]

That's an egregious violation of religious liberty and blatantly disrespectful to Indian citizens who don't practice Hinduism.

Why?

Because you can't just force your religion on other people like that, it's a process of discernment that every individual must decide for themselves.

[Outer Acharet]

Why?

Because you can't just force your religion on other people like that, it's a process of discernment that every individual must decide for themselves.

I agree, but in the context of this particular site, it makes a slight modicum of sense. As The Hindustani State (who is most certainly a neutral opinion on this topic) pointed out, this is an incredibly important monument for the Hindus, and the mosque built there (which was originally built on the site to emphasize conquering Muslim superiority over local Hindus) was torn down 20 years ago. Keeping in mind that the ruling party in India strongly favors Hindus over Muslims, this move is somewhat colored, but otherwise makes sense, as right now the site isn't being used for anything.

It's not really forcing one's own religion on anyone. Muslims don't need to go to the site, they haven't been using the mosque there for a long time now, and the importance of the site to the Hindu religion cannot be overstated.

EDIT: Corrected my grammar

[The Islands of Versilia]

Why?

Because you can't just force your religion on other people like that, it's a process of discernment that every individual must decide for themselves.

It’s rebuilding a temple on a Hindu holy site that was desecrated by Muslim invaders and oppressors of the Hindu faith and those who adhere to it. How is this forcing Hinduism on anyone?

[Aureumterra]

Because you can't just force your religion on other people like that, it's a process of discernment that every individual must decide for themselves.

I agree, but in the context of this particular site, it makes a slight modicum of sense. As The Hindustani State (who is most certainly a neutral opinion on this topic) pointed out, this is an incredibly important monument for the Hindus, and the mosque built there (which was originally built on the site to emphasize conquering Muslim superiority over local Hindus) was torn down 20 years ago. Keeping in mind that the ruling party in India strongly favors Hindus over Muslims, this move is somewhat colored, but otherwise makes sense, as right now the site isn't being used for anything.

It's not really forcing one's own religion on anyone. Muslims don't need to go to the site, they haven't been using the mosque there for a long time now, and the importance of the site to the Hindu religion cannot be overstated.

EDIT: Corrected my grammar

Pretty much this

Although I should mention THS is a Modi and BJP supporter based on previous posts. Still doing my own research on this issue his analysis seems accurate

[Neanderthaland]

The Muslims who's mosque got torn down seem to interpret it that way.

But why ? They were not using it. They also have no problem with building a mosque at locations previously occupied by other religions - in fact, it being "sacred ground" is considered a plus when land is bought and construction plans are made.

Because they were using it. And then Hindu nationalists destroyed their building. And now those same Hindu nationalists want to build a temple there.

I don't see what's confusing about not wanting Hindu nationalists to get their way like this. It's rewarding bad behavior, and spitting in the face of secularism.

[The Islands of Versilia]

But why ? They were not using it. They also have no problem with building a mosque at locations previously occupied by other religions - in fact, it being "sacred ground" is considered a plus when land is bought and construction plans are made.

Because they were using it. And then Hindu nationalists destroyed their building. And now those same Hindu nationalists want to build a temple there.

I don't see what's confusing about not wanting Hindu nationalists to get their way like this. It's rewarding bad behavior, and spitting in the face of secularism.

The mosque wasn’t in use when it was torn down. It was nothing more than a spit in the face of Hindus, no different to the 1960s or something Confederate statues. Both were built solely to remind others of “their place”.

[Novus America]

But why ? They were not using it. They also have no problem with building a mosque at locations previously occupied by other religions - in fact, it being "sacred ground" is considered a plus when land is bought and construction plans are made.

Because they were using it. And then Hindu nationalists destroyed their building. And now those same Hindu nationalists want to build a temple there.

I don't see what's confusing about not wanting Hindu nationalists to get their way like this. It's rewarding bad behavior, and spitting in the face of secularism.

At the time it was torn down the mosque was not being used as a mosque and had not been used as one for decades, as it had been tied up in a legal dispute.

The last time it was used as a mosque was 1949.

[Outer Acharet]

I don't see what's confusing about not wanting Hindu nationalists to get their way like this. It's rewarding bad behavior, and spitting in the face of secularism.

Funny way to say "India".
Really, there's little difference between the two. India's government is secular in name only, anyways. Nationalistic sentiment is strong there, and most of it is tied to their unique Hindu identity.

[Region of Dwipantara]

I don't see what's confusing about not wanting Hindu nationalists to get their way like this. It's rewarding bad behavior, and spitting in the face of secularism.

Funny way to say "India".
Really, there's little difference between the two. India's government is secular in name only, anyways. Nationalistic sentiment is strong there, and most of it is tied to their unique Hindu identity.

I believe that nationalism is fine, however Hindu nationalism is directly inapplicable to 20% of India's population. Ethnic and sectarian conflict is a bad thing that will destabilize a nation, as shown in its results of Gandhi being shot, Gandhi being shot, and Gandhi being blown up. Not to mention all the rioting and killings.

[The Alma Mater]

But why ? They were not using it. They also have no problem with building a mosque at locations previously occupied by other religions - in fact, it being "sacred ground" is considered a plus when land is bought and construction plans are made.

Because they were using it.

How were they using it then ? Not as a mosque, as people earlier in the topic pointed out it has not been used as a mosque since the 40s.

[The Hindustani State]

But why ? They were not using it. They also have no problem with building a mosque at locations previously occupied by other religions - in fact, it being "sacred ground" is considered a plus when land is bought and construction plans are made.

Because they were using it. And then Hindu nationalists destroyed their building. And now those same Hindu nationalists want to build a temple there.

I don't see what's confusing about not wanting Hindu nationalists to get their way like this. It's rewarding bad behavior, and spitting in the face of secularism.

I am a Hindu nationalist, I want the land that was stolen from my people back and symbols of hate like this one taken down

[The Rich Port]

Kind of a scumbag move, innit.

They should make it a mosque/temple where everybody can come worship in commemoration of what was lost and the future friendship of Hindus and Muslims India wants.

[-Astoria-]

Kind of a scumbag move, innit.

They should make it a mosque/temple where everybody can come worship in commemoration of what was lost and the future friendship of Hindus and Muslims India wants.

*looks at current gov't*

Yeah; sadly that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

[Baltenstein]

I don't see what's confusing about not wanting Hindu nationalists to get their way like this. It's rewarding bad behavior, and spitting in the face of secularism.

Funny way to say "India".

India has more Muslim citizens than most countries have people. Defining the Indian national identity in a way that explicitedly excludes them inevitably results in desaster.

[Bombadil]

No really what is all this violence in India you people are talking about?

I believe he was referring to the Beirut explosion.

Yes, I was.

[Mzeusia]

Hindus were treated badly under previous rulers of India, and their temples replaced with ones of Islam. Today, Muslims are the second class citizens and their temples are being replaced with Hindu ones. Temple-replacing has gone on for thousands of years, and it doesn't look like this tactic has changed. Oh, how much progress thousands of years can bring in some areas, but absolutely zero progress in others.