The unanimous Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya dispute yesterday attracted mixed reactions from millennials across the country.
While some of them hailed the verdict, others said India could benefit from more hospitals instead of one more temple or mosque.
According to New Delhi-based Muskan Aggarwal, 24, the best way would have been to build a communally harmonious institute on the disputed land.
“I feel that a school or a hospital should’ve been made there where people from all religious backgrounds all welcome,” Aggarwal told IANS.
“Most of the people demanding a temple or a mosque there wouldn’t even go there and the dispute is just because of arrogance, Aggarwal added.
Thirty-year-old Tariq Anwar from Uttar Pradesh said everyone should respect the Supreme Court verdict and hope for no future tussles. “Let’s work together towards co-operation and brotherhood,” he added.
“Now, let’s concentrate on environmental pollution, unemployment and more,” he said.
“I respect the decision; for me, it is not about a community or religion, it was a land dispute and the possession has to be given to the rightful contender,” Gurugram-based Shaili Pandey said.
“The right to decide what is to be built remains with the owner of the land. But yes India could be benefited with one more hospital instead of one more temple,” Pandey said.
Hailing the verdict, 21-year-old Vishal Upadhyay, a youth activist, said it was a historic day.
“We have waited more than 130 years to see this day, many generations have perished and hundreds of young men have laid down their lives in this tussle. Justice to people of this country is delivered in true ways. This feeling of joy and contentment is just unexplainable,” he said.
He added that this is the victory of India’s secularism and “the judiciary and Supreme Court uphold the integrity and sovereignty of our constitution.”
“United we stand, divided we fall,” he said.
The temple issue has been a part of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s election manifestos since the 1989 Lok Sabha polls. However, at that time, the BJP did not speak about constructing the temple at the disputed site.
“By not allowing the rebuilding of a temple in Ayodhya, it (government) has allowed tensions to rise, and gravely strained social harmony,” the BJP manifesto had said then.
In the next elections in 1991, the saffron party said it firmly believed that construction of a temple was a symbol of the vindication of “our cultural heritage and national self-respect”.
In 1996, the year when the BJP first got power albeit only for 13 days, the party manifesto promised to facilitate the construction of “a magnificent temple”.
Zafaryab Jilani, a lawyer of All India Muslim Personal Law Board, speaks during a news conference in New Delhi yesterday.
