Shri Ram Janmabhoomi: The 500-year Hindu struggle to reclaim their sacred land

Each Divali, the radiant glow of lamps illuminates streets and homes across Bhārat (India) and the world, heralding the symbolic return of Shri Rām. It’s a poignant time, commemorating Shri Rām’s homecoming to Ayodhyā after enduring a 14-year exile and vanquishing the demon king, Rāvan. Yet, on the horizon, Ayodhyā itself braces for an unparalleled celebration – the grand inauguration of the Ayodhyā Rām Mandir, lovingly known as Rām Janmabhoomi.

Shri Ram Janmabhoomi: The 500-year Hindu struggle to reclaim their sacred land

The path to this moment has been a tapestry interwoven with faith, hope, and controversy. The history of the Rām Mandir is a mosaic crafted from fervent debates, ancient traditions, and a sequence of events that have deeply etched themselves onto India’s socio-political canvas. Beyond the political dynamics and historical context, stands an architectural wonder bearing the weight of millennia of culture and faith.

In this comprehensive exploration, we unfurl the intricate layers of the Rām Mandir’s saga and the struggle for it by millions of people across the globe. We meticulously navigate through legal history and present an account of Hindu efforts to reclaim the sacred land, thus presenting a tribute to the centuries-old struggle. We will first look at the rich history of Ayodhyā and then delve deeper into the struggle for Rām Janmabhoomi.

Shri Rām’s ancestry and brief history of Ayodhyā

Divali in Ayodhyā

Ayodhyā, formerly known as Saketa, is the birthplace of Shri Rām, the seventh incarnation of Bhagvān Vishnu. Shri Rām descended on earth to restore equilibrium between good and evil. Descended from Ikshvaku, Shri Rām’s lineage traces back to Shraddhadeva Manu, the seventh among the 14 Manus of the current cosmic age. Ikshvaku, who was a legendary ruler of ancient India and one of the sons of Shraddhadeva Manu became the progenitor of the solar dynasty, known as Suryavansh, with their kingdom situated in Koshala (modern-day Avadh in Uttar Pradesh, India). Koshala thrived with three prominent cities: Saket, Shravasti (the birthplace of Maharaja Suheldev), and Ayodhyā.

According to the Hindu scripture “Garuda Purana,” Ayodhyā holds significance as one of the seven sacred places for achieving “Moksha,” liberation of the soul from the cycle of rebirth. This sacred city, where billions of Hindus believe Shri Rām was born, holds an esteemed place in the hearts of devotees, signifying Ayodhyā as one of the holiest sites due to its association with the divine birth of Shri Rām.

Historical Reference

In the immortal work ‘Raghuvamsa’ by the revered Sanskrit poet Kalidas, rituals associated with Shri Rām in Ayodhyā during 600 B.C. are mentioned. Revered as one of the 63 illustrious beings known as Salakapurusha, Shri Rām holds a significant place in ancient scriptures. Buddhist literature, including the Dashrath Jatak and Anamak Jatak, considers Rām as a Bodhisattva. Moreover, the epic tale of Rāmayan finds reference in at least four instances within the Mahābhārat, underlining the enduring presence and influence of Rām’s saga across diverse literary traditions.

Innumerable places and temples have been associated with Rāmayan across the subcontinent, since time immemorial. Different versions of Rāmayan are celebrated within India and in other countries such as Khotani Rāmayan in Turkistan, Tibetian Rāmayan, Kakben Rāmayan in Indonesia, Rāmkiyen in Thailand, among others.

During the 11th century A.D., the kings of the Gahadavala dynasty adorned the landscape with numerous temples dedicated to Shri Rām. Renowned historian and Indologist Hans T. Bakker extensively documented these temples, including a Vishnu temple marking Rām’s birthplace in his book ‘Ayodhyā: A Hindu Jerusalem.’ Notably, the Parabhram Shiva temple in Java and the ancient Angkor Wat temple in Cambodia bear engravings from the Rāmayan. The walls of these ancient and medieval temples often boast intricate carvings depicting episodes from the epic Rāmayan, perpetuating the narrative through time.

Furthermore, there have been multiple mentions of Rām Mandir across different accounts:

1608-11: William Finch, an English traveller noted Hindu reverence for the city of Rām’s birth and described the ruins of Rām’s castle.

1551-1602: Abul Faizal, the official chronicler of Mogul emperor Akbar documents in Ain-e-Akbari that Ayodhyā is regarded as sacred ground, and a great religious festival is held on Sri Rām’s birthday in the month of Chaitra.

1634: Thomas Herbert mentions the old castle of RāmChand at the Rām Janmabhoomi

1766-71: Joseph Tiffenthaler, an Austrian Jesuit priest mentions a cradle worshipped by Hindu devotees and a large gathering of pilgrims on Rāmnavami, Sri Rām’s birthday. He mentions the destruction of a temple at Rām’s birthplace by a Mughal ruler and the construction of a mosque over it.

1810: Francis Buchanan visited the site and stated that the structure destroyed was a temple dedicated to Rām, not a house. Buchanan also recorded that there was an inscription on the wall of the mosque stating it to have been built by Babur.

1828: Walter Hamilton in his Gazetteer, noted an influx of pilgrims in the capital of Great Rām.

1838: Montgomery Martin who was entrusted with the task of compiling historical and topographical data on eastern India, describes Ayodhyā as a Hindu city. He mentions black stone pillars incorporated into the mosque.

The struggle

Babri Structure
Babri Structure

We will break down the struggle for Rām Janmabhoomi in three different eras, namely: The Mughal (Islamic) Era, the British Colonial Rule and the post-independence era.

First Phase: The Mughal (Islamic) Era

According to many researchers and Hindu leaders, more than 60,000 temples were destroyed during the Mughal period in Bharat. It is believed that in 1528, Mir Baqi, one of the generals of Babur, during one of his conquests of Northeast Bharat, went to Ayodhyā, destroyed the temple and constructed a structure intended to be a mosque. It came to be known as the “Babri Masjid” to give tribute to Babar. Since then, Hindus have waged constant battles to reclaim the land. As seen from evidence, between 1751-59, Ayodhyā, Kāshi and Mathurā featured as top priorities for the Marathās. However, their objective to reclaim the sacred sites of Hindus was jeopardised and taken aback after their defeat in the third battle of Pānipat. James Todd in his account of history mentions several attempts by descendants of Rānā Sanga to reclaim the sacred land of Ayodhyā. Hindus across Bharat have waged multiple battles to reclaim the sacred land, with a fair share of successes and failures, but the struggle continued.

Second Phase: British Colonial Rule

The battle to reclaim one of the most revered and sacred sites for Hindus continued during the British Colonial period –

1853: The Nirmohi Akhara forcefully entered the Babri Masjid and claimed the structure in the name of Shri Rām.

Note: Akharas are Hindu religious monasteries which were founded by Adi Shankaracharya in order to protect Hindu dharma. Traditionally, known as wrestling pits, Akharas later evolved to be the centre of debates and religious discussions.

1855: Battle of Hanumāngarhi, in which an attack by Mughal (Islamist) invaders on Hanumān temple (in Hanumāngarhi, which was a stone’s throw away from Rām Janmabhoomi) was successfully thwarted by Hindus. Despite pleas and complaints by Nawāb of Avadh, the British decided to maintain the status quo, as it was essential for them to maintain peace as a colonial power.

1858: An FIR filed by AVadh Police mentioned that 25 Nihang Sikhs entered the Babri structure, conducted “Hawan Pujan” for weeks and wrote Rām with charcoal on the wall. This shows that Shri Rām is revered and held sacred by different Dharmas born in Bharat.

1885: Three decades after the Battle of Hanumāngarhi, the first legal case related to the dispute was filed by Mahant Raghubir Dās, who was regarded as the mascot of the temple movement. The priest requested permission to build a Rām Temple on a Chabutarā (a raised platform) outside the Babri structure. The plea was rejected by the court.

Third Phase: Post-Independence Struggle

Now, we will explore the third and final phase of the Rām Janmabhoomi struggle which came in waves. The first wave began in 1949 when Murtis (idols) of Shri Rām and Sitā mātā (Shri Rām’s cosort) were placed inside the structure. This was followed by a relatively silent period until 1984 as the country went through three wars with its neighbours and had a turbulent time. The second wave is from 1984-1992 where the struggle took a political angle with key organisations in the Hindu community consolidating Hindus across the country and leading the fight to restore the sacred place. This phase ended with the demolition of Babri structure which was a key event in the struggle. The demolition of Babri structure didn’t end the long-drawn battle and thus began the third phase, which was a complex legal battle from 1992 till 2019. Let’s now look at a brief timeline of events – 

1949: Sant Digvijay Nath of Gorakhnath Math organised a 9-day continuous recitation of ‘Rāmcharit Manas’, at the end of which the Hindu activists broke into the structure and placed idols of Rām and Sitā inside. Hindus began offering prayers while the Muslim side protested and wanted the idols to be removed. The Government declared the area as disputed and locked the entrance.

One key point to note here is that after placing the idols, the then Central and State Governments were not pleased with this action. They wanted the idols to be removed, however, this was opposed by K Karunakaran Nayar, District Magistrate of Faizabad. He warned against the removal of idols as this could have led to communal disturbance. Despite pressure from the Government, the result was status quo was maintained and the idols remained within the premises although the compound was locked. There were plenty of unanswered questions then, later revelations shed light on some of them. It was rumoured that KK Nayar was not only a District Magistrate who refused to remove idols, but he was a part of an intrinsic plan to install them.  In their book, “Ayodhyā: The Dark Night”, Krishna Jha and Dhirendra K Jha wrote, “The idea that eventually changed the politics of India, though much later than its originators had anticipated, emerged for the first time among three friends—Maharaja Pateshwari Prasad Singh, head of the princely state of Balrampur, Mahant Digvijai Nath, and KK Nayar”.

1950: Case is filed in Faizabad court by Gopal Simla Viharad and Paramhansa Rāmchandra Das, seeking permission to conduct Hindu pujas to Rām Lalla (child form of Shri Rām) and permanent injunction prohibiting removal of idols from Janmasthan (birth place). The Court granted the parties permission to conduct pujas and issued a temporary injunction, which was later confirmed by the Allahabad High Court. The Court orders the inner courtyard gates to remain locked. It is key to note that the State Government under Congress appealed against the Court’s injunction order.

1958: After a series of disturbances, the premises were partitioned with a fence by the British authorities so that the two communities could access separately.

1959: Third suit filed by Nirmohi Akhara, one of the 14 akharas recognised by the Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad, seeking possession of the land

1961: UP Sunni Waqf Board enters the fray and files a suit seeking possession of the Babri Masjid site as well as demanding removal of the Shri Rām’s idols from the Babri Masjid. It is key to note that the Muslim side entered the fray just days ahead of the expiry of the 12-year limitation period after which it would have lost claim to the site.

1975-77: Veteran archaeologist Professor Braj Bansi Lal (“BB Lal”) and his team led the Archaeology of Rāmayan  project to examine certain sites having references in Rāmayan. During the excavation work carried out near the structure (“mosque”), the team found pillar bases of a temple. The team had written a preliminary report stating the same, however, following the discovery, all facilities were withdrawn from the area and the project was stopped. Despite Professor Lal’s persistent requests, the project remained stalled for a substantial 10-12 years. Although the final report never materialised, the Indian Council of Historical Research published its preliminary findings in 1989 as part of its volume on the Historicity of Rāmayan and Mahabharat.

1984: Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), under the Presidentship of Shri Ashok Singhal constitutes a group to lead the Rām Janmabhoomi movement. This was a nationwide movement which received an overwhelming response from the Hindus.

1986: Faizabad district court judge orders the opening of Babri Masjid gates and allows pooja and darshan. This was in response to an appeal from lawyer UC Pandey. As an act of protest, the Muslim side forms Babri Mosque Action Committee (BMAC).

1989: Former VHP vice-president and a retired judge of Allahabad HC, Deoki Nandan Agarwal, filed a case in the HC in the name of Bhagvan Rām Lalla Virajman (Rām Lalla) claiming that Babur had destroyed the temple in 1528 and built a mosque in its place. The court maintained status quo at the site.

The Government under Rajiv Gandhi permitted the foundation laying ceremony (Shilayanas) of Shri Rām Mandir near the disputed site. The ceremony was done by Shri Kamaleshwar Chaupal a Hindu brother hailing from the Dalit community.

1990: Rām Mandir officially featured in BJP’s manifesto for the first time and LK Advani launched Rath Yatra from Somnath in Gujarat to consolidate Hindus and gather support for the movement. However, the Rath Yatra was stopped by then Chief Minister of Bihar Lalu Prasad Yadav, who ordered the arrest of LK Advani, citing concerns about potential communal tensions and law and order issues in the state. 

A call for Kar Seva (selfless service) in Ayodhyā elicited a massive response from Hindus across Bharat. It was on the auspicious day of Kartik Purnima on 2nd November 1990, when Hindu Saints and thousands of Kar Sevaks were marching towards the Rām Janmabhoomi site. Despite being peaceful, the security personnel were asked to stop the march. Each time when security personnel tried to stop the march, Hindus would sit there and start reciting Bhajans. The devotees would touch the feet of the security personnel, each time they did this, the security personnel moved back, and the devotees moved forward. This happened in a loop until the police started unprovoked open firing. Although the exact number is not known, it is estimated that hundreds of Kar Sevaks lost their lives. Some shocking details emerged after the incident:

  • The security personnel not only refrained from aiding the injured but also prevented others from helping.
  • There was no prior written order for firing; the district magistrate signed the order after the police had already executed the firing.
  • Contrary to claims, no Kar Sevak suffered leg injuries; all were shot in the head and chest, indicating an intent to kill rather than merely injure.
  • Tulsi crossing turned into a battleground, drenched in the blood of Kar Sevaks. The Kothari brothers were pulled out of the Digambar Akhara and shot.
  • Security forces invaded the Digambar Akhara and opened fire indiscriminately at the Sadhus present.
  • A Hindu temple priest, situated opposite the police station, was a target of the gunfire.
  • A Sadhu, offering aid by pouring water to counter tear gas, was also targeted and shot while on a rooftop.
  • Following the firing, the bodies of devotees were collected in sacks and disposed of

Years later, the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav justified the firing by police personnel. Information about the shootings was largely suppressed by the Indian media at that time.

In December, Dr. K.K. Muhammed, Deputy Superintending Archaeologist at Madras and part of Prof. BB Lal’s team which had carried out excavations at the site, wrote an article in the Indian Express, citing that there was archaeological proof for a Hindu structure under the Babri edifice. This angered a lot of heads in the Government, however, the truth had to come out eventually. This was one of the first blows in a systematic series of strikes that would burst the propaganda by anti-Hindu forces.

1992, the year of reckoning: the structure at the disputed site was demolished on 6th December. 10 days after the incident, P V Narsimha Rao forms Justice Liberhan Commission to inquire into the demolition. President’s rule was imposed, and Kalyan Singh’s BJP-led government was dismissed. This was followed by the dismissal of three more BJP-led governments in other states.

1993: P V Narsimha Rao led the Congress Government at the Centre and issued an ordinance to acquire 67.7 acres of the disputed land. ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhyā Act, 1993’ was passed later to include 2.77 acres of land (on which the disputed structure stood)

1994: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhyā Act (‘Ismail Faruqui verdict’). It is key to note that the Supreme Court observed and decided that a mosque was not an “essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam” and that namaz (prayers) could be offered anywhere, “even in the open”, and hence, “its acquisition (by the state) is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India”.

1996: Allahabad High Court (HC) started recording oral evidence.

2002 – 05: a 3-judge Lucknow Bench of Allahabad HC begins hearing Ayodhyā Title Dispute. The court directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to excavate and verify the claim that a temple existed in the area as claimed by Hindus. In 2003, the ASI began excavation work and concluded that the claims by the Hindu side were true. The Muslim parties reject the findings of the report. In March 2003, the Supreme Court stopped all religious activities at the site and stated that the interim order should be followed until the suit was pending in the Allahabad High Court

2009: after 17 years of delay and 48 extensions, the Liberhan Commission submits its report to the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

2010: Allahabad HC, in its judgement divided the disputed land into three equal parts amongst – Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and “Rām Lalla”. Both, the Hindu as well as the Muslim parties challenged the decision in the Supreme Court.

2011: The Apex Court stayed the decision of Allahabad HC, stating that the status quo be maintained.

2016: BJP member and Parliamentarian Subramanian Swamy files plea in the Supreme Court seeking construction of Rām Temple at the disputed site.

2017: In March, the then Chief Justice J S Khehar suggested an out-of-court settlement. In August, a three-judge bench was formed to hear pleas against Ismail Faruqui verdict in 1994. In December, 32 civil rights activists enter the fray with pleas against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict.

February 2018: Supreme Court started hearing civil appeals in the case.

March 2018: Supreme Court rejected all interim pleas, including Subramanian Swamy’s request to intervene.

April 2018: Advocate Rajeev Dhavan on behalf of Muslim parties filed a plea to refer the issue of Ismail Faruqui judgement to a larger bench.

September 2018: The Supreme Court refused to refer the matter to a larger bench.

2019: the then Chief Justice, Mr. Ranjan Gogoi constituted a 5-judge bench, overturning the order of 2018. The Supreme Court appointed a mediation panel to resolve the issue, however, this could not yield any result. After the proceedings failed, the court began daily hearing on the issue from 6th August.

9 November 2019: THE SUPREME COURT ANNOUNCES VERDICT IN FAVOUR OF HINDU PARTIES. THE LAND IS ALLOCATED TO THE HINDU PARTY ONLY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RAM TEMPLE. Supreme Court also ordered the Government of India to provide alternative land to the Muslim party for the construction of the mosque.

Thus, after 491 years of struggle and seven decades after independence, Rām Lalla will finally come back to its abode. While full credit should be given to the Hindus across the globe for patiently waiting and trusting the system for a decision, one should not forget the immaturity and insensitivity of the opposition including self-proclaimed progressives and liberals who tried to derail the judgement. Below are some incidents portraying the dirty tactics, false media narratives and the ultimate meltdowns of the anti-Hindu forces:

  • Just to appease the Muslim community, Mulayam Singh Yadav, the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh in 1990, ordered the police to indiscriminately fire against peaceful Hindu Saints and Kar Sevaks stopping their march towards Ayodhyā. As expected, the mainstream media was completely silent on the incident.
  • In 2007, the Congress Government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court, denying the very existence of Shri Rām. Multiple Congress Leaders have refuted the existence of Shri Rām.
  • In 2017, Kapil Sibbal, Congress leader and lawyer representing Sunni Waqf Board asked the Apex Court to defer the trial until 2019 or the next Lok Sabha elections, thus delaying the process.
  • In 2022, Jairam Rāmesh, a Congress veteran dubbed the opening of Babri Masjid by Rajiv Gandhi Government as a mistake. It is important to note, that Rajiv Gandhi ordered to opening of the gates of the Babri structure only as a monkey balancing act after his government was accused of favouring the Muslim community when it overturned the Supreme Court’s decision on the Shah Bano case.
  • In 2010, Allahabad High Court ordered ASI to do excavations of the site. ASI report concluded the presence of a Hindu structure below the Babri “Masjid”. Few prominent self-proclaimed experts were quick to dismiss the findings. However, when deposed in front of the judiciary, to Hight Court’s astonishment, these experts who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, were displaying an “ostrich-like attitude” to facts. The Judge also pointed out how these experts were connected – one had done a PhD under the other, and another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness. Some further observations include:
    • Suvira Jaiswal said, “Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to the disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told”. She said she had prepared the report on the dispute “after reading newspaper reports and on the basis of discussions with medieval history experts in my department”.
    • Another “expert” named Supriya Verma, who challenged ASI findings had not read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation.
    • Verma and Jaya Menon alleged that pillar bases at the excavated site were planted but HC noted that none of them were present at the time of actual excavation to make this comment.
    • Archaeologist Shereen Ratnagar, under whom Supriya Verma did PhD, and who has written the “introduction” to the book of another expert noted that she had no field experience.
    • Expert Suraj Bhan’s evidence in the court was contradicted by another expert for the Muslim parties, Shirin Musavi, who told the court that Bhan “is an archaeologist and not an expert on medieval history”.
  • KK Muhammed, former regional ASI Director mentioned in his book “The Babri issue would have been settled long ago if the Muslim intelligentsia had not fallen prey to the brainwashing by the Leftist historians. A set of historians, including Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra and S Gopal argued that there was no mention of the dismantling of the temple before the 19th century and Ayodhyā is a Buddhist-Jain centre. They were supported by historians Irfan Habib, R S Sharma, D N Jha, Suraj Bhan and Akthar Ali”.
  • Multiple so-called liberal and secular journalists mocked Rām Mandir when the issue was pending in the courts:
Liberals mocking Rām Mandir
Liberals mocking Rām Mandir
  • As expected, there was no resolution reached in an out-of-court settlement, post which SC decided on for daily hearing of the case. To this, Sunni Waqf Board objected, clearly showing no intention of resolving the dispute.
  • As the decision was nearing, the frustration was at its peak. In October 2017, the opposition side lawyer, Rajeev Dhavan created a ruckus in the court when he tore up the documents and maps showing the location of Shri Rām’s birthplace, which were presented by the Hindu Mahasabha. This clearly showed the frustration as the case was almost lost by the opposition side.
  • Later, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi revealed in his book that he had stopped a person from disrupting the final hearing of the Rām Janmabhoomi case. This clearly shows that the opposite side wanted to delay the decision.
  • After the Supreme Court decision, the opposition side still tried to be insensitive and demanded the 5 acres of land within the 67 acres that had been given for Rām Janmabhoomi.
  • It is critical to note that one of the Judges on the 5-judge bench was a Muslim – Judge S Abdul Nazeer. He had to be given Z plus security (the highest level of protection in India) post the judgement as he and his family were under threat from radical Islamist organisations.
  • Even after a unanimous judgement by the Supreme Court of India, Bloomberg in its article called Rām Janmabhoomi a disputed site.
Bloomberg Headline
Bloomberg Headline
  • Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind, CPM and various other political parties showed displeasure at the outcome of the case.
  • On the 30th anniversary of the Babri structure demolition, opposition politicians and activists cried “death of Indian democracy” and “BabriZindaHai” was trending.
  • Finally, despite everything being settled, the Congress and Aam Aadmi Party tried to malign the movement, when they accused Rām Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra of a “Land Scam” while acquiring land for the development of the Mandir complex. This was strongly and successfully refuted by the trust.
Oppositions attempts to malign the movement
Opposition attempts to malign the movement


As the centuries-long battle and several decades of legal dispute came to an end, Hindus across the globe celebrated Shri Rām’s return to his abode. Even though Mughal (Islamist) invaders destroyed thousands of temples and erected mosques over them, they could not break the spirit of Hindus towards Dharma. Our Rishis and Gurus did not let the time fade away memories of Ayodhyā and other sacred places such as Kashi and Mathura. These are not just some pieces of land, but they are the nerve centres of Dharma itself. For Rām Janmabhoomi, thousands of Hindus and Sikhs fought the most atrocious conditions. Goswami Tulsidas and other poets kept the memory alive, and no Hindu ever gave up on the dream. We bow down our heads and owe this victory to – 

  • Unnamed Hindus whose faith could not be destroyed.
  • Unnamed Hindus who kept the memory and struggle alive through generations.
  • Kar Sevaks (selfless workers) continued to do pooja on Rām Janmabhoomi.
  • Nihang Sikhs swooped down on the illegal occupation and freed the temple for a while in the mid-19th century.
  • Unnamed Hindus who filed legal petitions, fought legal cases and defied any pressure from the opposition camp.
  • Hundreds of thousands of Kar Sevaks who braved the police brutality under Mulayam Singh Yadav’s government in the 1990s.
  • Unnamed Hindus who sent one brick and one-and-a-quarter rupee (Sawa Rupaya) from every household for it.
  • Jan Sangh (now known as the BJP) for organising the movement politically and consolidating the Hindu power, and
  • Millions of Hindus who contributed in all the ways they could to defy the odds and make the impossible possible.

When the doors of this Mandir swing open, the world won’t merely witness a stone structure; they’ll behold a testament to humanity’s unwavering resilience against the harshest religious oppression. It’s a declaration that legacies thought lost can indeed be reclaimed.

Rām Janmabhoomi shall emerge as the nucleus of Hindu devotion, optimism, and courage. The desecration of these sacred sites by others has steered Hindus from denial to righteous indignation, fostering greater adaptability, strength, and resilience against injustices.

Now is the time to acknowledge our unyielding determination and realign our faith with the eternal Dharma ingrained in our very essence. The Vedas, Shastras, revered mentors, and rituals have kindled a fire within us, one that may flicker but can never be extinguished—a beacon that compels us to rise every time we stumble.

The uniqueness of Rām Janmabhoomi lies not only in its connection to Sri Rām’s birth but also as the most sanctified ground in Hindu memory and consciousness—an eternal presence that neither perished nor can be erased. It’s a powerful testament, proving that we’re willing to defend this sacred space against all odds, despite ridicule and scorn.

The essence or “Tatva” of Rām transcends the confines of time, perpetually reawakening. It’s an eternal current that fortifies Hindu society even amidst the most harrowing adversities, a force destined to persist.

Jay Shri Rām!