VHP claims about the Ayodhya .... inaccurate

[xyyz]

I pulled this from the BBC site.

Some pro-India people have stated that what happened in Ayodhya was justified because a hindu temple that stood there once upon a time was razed by Muslims.

Apparently this isn't true.

This is from BBC News.

"Temple controversy

Following the success of their campaign, senior VHP leaders announced at a religious meeting in 1984 their programme to "liberate" a site in Ayodhya from an ancient mosque to make way for a temple to the Hindu god Ram.

Analysts say this announcement heralded a turning point in the history of the Hindu nationalist movement.

The VHP has since then claimed that the site belongs rightfully to Hindu worshippers who believe that the mosque stood on the birthplace of the god, Lord Ram.

Although the claim does not stand up to substantial archaeological or historical scrutiny, the VHP and BJP are seen to have made possible the creation of a shared Hindu symbol that cuts through most divisions in Hindu society."

This article actually was a profile on the VHP party... I never realized that the VHP was spawned from the RSS... or the group that was responsible for mudering Ghandhi.

bbcnews link

 

[xyyz]

here's more...

Some Hindu groups, like the VHP, claim the mosque was built on the ruins of a temple marking the birthplace of the Hindu god Ram. While the VHP and other extremist Hindu groups say archaeological evidence supports their claims, many experts argue there is no historical evidence to substantiate claims that either Ram or the temple ever existed.

"There is no archaeological or historical evidence that a temple existed on the site or that Ram was born on the spot," says Richard Eaton, a renowned South Asia historian at the University of Arizona. "These things are like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus ? they have no substance to them."

ABC News link