The Ram Mandir issue has been covered in a biased manner by most of Western media. The coverage has painted Hindus as aggressors, while overlooking the history and facts around the matter.
Below is a letter sent in early Feb by a Hindu residing in Australia to an Australian News Channel, SBS News, to protest their coverage of the Ram Mandir issue –
I am writing this email to register my protest with SBS on the reporting of the recent Supreme Court of Bharat’s ruling in favour of Sri Rama’s birth place.
Your article, Hindus celebrate after Indian court ruling on disputed Ayodhya holy site, is offensive, misleading, devoid of facts, factually incorrect, inaccurate and aims to portray Hindus in a negative light. Hindus suffered immense persecution and humiliation at the hands of Muslim Mughal invaders for 300 years. A historical injustice was corrected and verdict delivered in accordance. Please do not make it a Hindu-Muslim issue as the article clearly aims to do so. It seems the Western world is baiting the people of Bharat (India) by publishing articles that are trying to incite violence in a country that has been peaceful. What is your agenda?
The writer of the article is quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling selectively without presenting the readers’ actual facts. There is no mention of Archaeological Survey of India’s findings. Extensive evidence in terms of literary evidence of travellers who visited Bharat during that time, evidence by the British officials and archaeological evidence was submitted to the Supreme Court which the Court used to rule in favour of Hindus. But your writer deliberately has failed to corroborate the article with the above-mentioned evidence but has gone on to say that the ruling was based on ‘just faith’.
Furthermore, I want to place on record why and how the article is selective and misleading readers, and is forcing them to develop a negative perception of this 135-year-old case. Also, please stop calling BJP as a ‘Hindu nationalist’ party. It is written like an insult, that a political party actually sides with Hindus in Bharat.
1.) Your article is quick to point out that a 460-year old mosque was destroyed by “Hindu mobs” but there is no mention on how, who and why the original Sri Rama temple was destroyed. Your article just mentions “a mosque was constructed on top of his birthplace in the 16th century.” Why are you hiding the truth that it was a Muslim Mughal ruler by the name of Babur who was instrumental in destroying the ancient Hindu temple and who built the mosque in 1528 CE? Temple destruction and mosque construction was done by Babur’s general, Mir Baqi. This was purely done to humiliate Hindus and to establish Islamic superiority in the region.
Due-diligence by the writer would have solved this mystery of what truly happened before the mosque was built.
2.) “Warrior God” – your article says, “Devout Hindus believe that Lord Ram, the warrior god, was born in Ayodhya some 7,000 years ago but that a mosque was constructed on top of his birthplace in the 16th century.” First, Hindus don’t consider Sri Rama as a ‘warrior’ God – yes, He fought a battle with Ravana who had kidnapped his wife Sita, but that’s about the only battle he fought. Second, a large temple was built to commemorate Sri Rama’s birthplace, and as mentioned above, it is this temple that was destructed to build a mosque – archaeological excavations have comprehensively proven the same. These facts are conveniently missing.
3.) “But it will also send shudders through some in the 200-million-strong Muslim minority. Under Mr Modi, a former RSS cadre, Islamic-sounding names of several cities have been changed, while some school textbooks have been altered to downplay Muslims’ contributions to India.” I am sorry but this sentence is fear-mongering and aims to incite religious differences within Bharat. All Bharatiyas have shown extreme maturity and togetherness to avoid religion-based riots. But the author was either waiting riots to take place or wants to incite violence between the two communities. Mind you, you are creating a problem for Australia as such a hate-inciting article and selective journalism creates division between peaceful Hindus and Muslims who call Australia their home.
Islamic rulers were invaders who wanted to plunder and Islamise Bharat. They where barbaric and brutal. It is estimated that they destroyed at least 16,000 Hindu temples and killed around 80 million Hindus. Will Durant said, “The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history.” So, if Bharat is changing the Islamic-sounding names of some cities, we are justified in doing so. Also, we changed the names of roads and cities that the British named after themselves. They even installed the busts of several of their Kings and Queens. After independence we removed many things that reminded us of the British. No one raised an objection then; why is it an issue now? During WWII Poland was invaded by Russia. Russians demolished Catholic Churches and built their Russian Orthodox Churches on top. After WWII Poland successfully demolished the Russian Orthodox Churches and rebuilt their Catholic Churches. Did anyone country question Poland on its actions? Why this hypocrisy?
4.) “The BJP owes its origins to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a militaristic group that has long espoused “Hindutva”, or Hindu hegemony in officially secular India.” What proof does the author have of RSS’ ‘militaristic ideology’? RSS is a social organisation that came into being on 27th September 1925. It is a 94-year old organisation that has worked for Bharat’s freedom and for nation-building after Independence. It provides relief work to remote regions during natural calamities. They espouse the feeling of oneness irrespective of one’s religion and believe in a strong, united Bharat based on cultural nationalism. Why do some Westerners have a problem with that? They very conveniently use RSS to pit Muslims against Hindus. This smacks of some higher agenda.
5.) “New Delhi also stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its autonomy, India’s only Muslim-majority state, something Modi insisted was to foster development and end decades of violence.” Please, once again I ask the author to perform due-diligence before writing. Article 370 was draconian. The law was gender-unequal to Muslim women marrying outside the state. They were stripped of their property rights. Hindus, who were a minority in Kashmir, were driven away from their lands on 19th January 1990. Not one single Human Rights Organisation, UNHCR, or external government opposed what happened to Hindus.
Bharat is a country for all religions. The Persians were welcomed with open arms when they were being persecuted by Islamic forces from 636-651 CE. We welcomed the Jews during WWII and even before. We even welcomed Polish children in 1942 who took refuge in India during WWII. This very BJP government in its previous term successfully got rid of Instant Triple Talaq (Instant divorce) that was plaguing Muslim women. 90 million Muslim women are the beneficiaries of this change in law. Why is this not highlighted? Again, it smacks of selectivism.
6.) “Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that the verdict has “plunged the Muslims of India into uncertainty and exposed them to a lack of security and protection.” Bharat’s foreign ministry responded that Pakistan’s “pathological compulsion to comment on our internal affairs with the obvious intent of spreading hatred is condemnable.”” Why is Pakistan even being mentioned in your article? What are you trying to achieve? What is your agenda in mentioning Pakistan when Sri Rama’s birthplace is exclusively Bharat’s internal issue? Do you mention Australia when writing about New Zealand’s internal matters? This is dirty and mischievous.
In conclusion, I am offended that SBS choose to publish an article that was poorly researched, lacked facts to back-up its arguments, was selective, aiming to incite hatred between communities and incite hatred towards Bharat, showing Bharat in a poor light by creating a negative perception and chose to ignore ASI findings. Instead, the author aimed to show Hindus and Bharat as barbaric, uncouth and uncivilised.
Bharat is one of the oldest civilizations and nations in the world, its languages are some of the oldest in the world. My nation and its people have undergone extreme persecution and oppression both at the hands of Islamic invaders and Christian British colonialism. We are home to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and a plethora of tribal indigenous religions.
So please stop this negativity towards Bharat, Bharatiyas and Hindus. We are kind, patient and accepting people. But do not under any circumstances use our kindness, patience and acceptance as a weakness. We are no pushovers nor are we doormats. I expect the author of the article to apologise publicly and correct the factual inaccuracies in the article.
Did you find this article useful? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.