The history of labelling those supporting Ram Temple and Hindu interests as ‘communal’ and thereby scaring Muslims is old. The British’s favourite leftist and advocate of Muslim appeasement, Jawahar Lal Jawaharlal Nehru and his leftist disciples had started this narrative even before the partition of India.
After the partition of India and the terrible bloodshed caused by the infighting between the Congress and the Muslim League, in December 1949, when some pious people installed the statue of Ram Lalla in the disputed structure built by demolishing a Hindu temple in Ayodhya, the sentiments of the Hindus were Understanding this, Nehru started pressurizing then Chief Minister Govind Vallabh Pant to get the statue removed. Needless to say, this narrative was used as an excuse for this.
Before talking about the correspondence between Nehru and Pant in this regard, let us know what was the atmosphere then and why there was anger among the Hindus. At that time Muslims considered Congress as a party of Hindus. In the provincial elections of 1946, the Muslims of United Province (that was the name of Uttar Pradesh at that time) gave full support to the Muslim League and the League got a lot of votes from every Muslim-dominated area. The Muslims of UP were at the forefront of the effort to create Pakistan and Aligarh Muslim University had become the Mecca of Hindu opponents. League flags were hoisted openly in the homes of Muslims and pictures of Muhammad Ali Jinnah were put up. Obviously, in such a situation, the anger among Hindus towards the divisions was completely justified.
Muslims considered Congress to be a party of Hindus, but after partition, Nehru and his leftist disciples made it even more pro-Muslim than the Muslim League. In this light, see what letter Nehru wrote to Pant on placing the statue in the disputed structure. He wrote, “I would be happy if you keep me informed about the situation in Ayodhya. As you know, I attach special importance to this topic at the all-India level and especially its impact on Kashmir.”
In another letter, Nehru writes, “I am deeply distressed by the Ayodhya issue… Faizabad District Officer K. Of. Nair misbehaved to some extent (refused to remove the statue from the disputed structure)… I am sure if we behave ourselves properly it will be easier for us to deal with Pakistan. Today many Congressmen have become communal about Pakistan and this is also reflected in their behavior towards Muslims in India.”
By linking the Ram Temple issue to Kashmir and Pakistan, Nehru was clearly conspiring to provoke Muslims. Did he think even once about how Hindus were being treated in Pakistan or how their temples were being demolished?
When he was talking about ‘communal Congressmen’, it was clear that he was referring to Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Let us now see what Sardar Patel wrote in this regard in his letter to Govind Vallabh Pant. He said “…as far as Muslims are concerned, they are developing an understanding of their new allegiances…It is not possible that their allegiances on a large scale will change so easily…I think this step There are strong sentiments behind (keeping the idol in the temple), if we can get the consent of the Muslim community then such issues can be resolved peacefully. There is no question of resolving such issues by force….”
Obviously, like Nehru, Patel was not in favour of removing the statue. He wanted this issue should be resolved with the consent of the Muslim community. Patel was under no illusion, he was fully aware of the feelings of Muslims towards the Muslim League, Jinnah and Pakistan, the unprecedented riots that took place in the country after partition, being the Home Minister, he was fully aware of every aspect of them, he was against Hindus. He understood the sentiments very well but wanted to work with consensus in a sensitive environment. Nehru accused Govind Vallabh Pant of being the District Officer of Faizabad. Of. A lot of pressure was put to take action against Nair, it was Sardar Patel whose support enabled Nair to remain adamant about not removing the statue from the disputed structure.
If Patel had not been there, perhaps Ram Temple would not have existed or the direction and condition of this entire movement would have been different. Remember that it was Patel who mooted the idea of renovating the Somnath Temple on November 12, 1947, and also became the chairman of the committee formed on this subject. Nehru was also against the renovation of this Shiva temple. Unfortunately, Patel passed away before the construction work of the temple was completed. When the temple was ready and President Babu Rajendra Prasad was invited for its inauguration, Nehru opposed his going there. It is a different matter that he did not care about Nehru.
India is still suffering the consequences of the poisonous seeds that Nehru and his leftist disciples sowed against Hindus and distorted history. Later, the misconceptions spread against Ram Temple by the Babri Masjid Action Committee formed under the patronage of Congress and the so-called historian Irfan Habib is unprecedented. From Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court, everyone accepted that the disputed structure was built by demolishing the temple, but they never accepted the truth. Instead of accepting the truth, he and his Islamic communalist friends are now defaming the Supreme Court by calling it unjust.
However, after overcoming every obstacle, the grand Ram temple has come into existence. It symbolizes the victory of truth over untruth, reality over illusion, justice over injustice, and virtue over propaganda. This is a symbol of the will to live of Hindus, which existed in full glory for hundreds of years despite Muslim, Christian and leftist terrorism.
It is a matter of happiness that the temple has been built so strongly that it will be able to stand tall for the coming thousand years. Whether we live or not, the temple will continue to remind future generations of the struggle of Hindus in India.