A lot of international media & certain section of the people are calling Ram Mandir inaugration as end of democracy & secularism. Which makes me question their reasons behind that statement. As a layman, I couldn't ask them directly thus asking here. I have my points, anyone who has any counter argument please do post your answers.

My Point:

  1. There has been historical accounts by various well known travellers of ram temple at the mentioned site.
  2. There has also been mentioned by one of the Sikh guru visiting the ram temple few years before it was demolished.
  3. We have written proof that it destroyed by Babur.
  4. We have cases filed during british rule
  5. The Sikh people performed Hawan inside the mosque, during 1858.
  6. We have archaeological evidence of pre-existing structure under the mosque which was not islamic.
  7. We had radio carbon dated those things
  8. We presented those evidence in the court. The court case went on for more than 30 years. Thousands of pages of arguments from both side were recorded.
  9. The judges were presented with deposition of 88 witnesses, running into 13,886 pages, also 257 related documents and video tapes. The earlier court orders run into 4,304 printed pages and 8533 typed pages.
  10. A total of 30,000 historical documents, written in Hindi, Awadhi, Gurmukhi, Persian and Urdu were presented to the court.
  11. The court even tried to give equal division to both the parties but it was rejected. Not forgetting there were other suggestion also which was also rejected.
  12. It was then only in 2019-20, both the party accepted the SC verdict. If they were unhappy then they should have said in the courts & not crying in the media. The equal division was a genuine solution anyone would have suggested for neutral approach.
  13. The masjid was already demolished in 1992, the verdict was given in 2019. People didn't cried that much during the verdict or the construction as much they did during the inauguration of the temple.
  14. What answers do you have for those community who broke their decades to generations of vow during the inauguration of the temple. Thousands of people who walked bare foot thousands of kilometers just to see the ram idol. What ans do you have for those people who literally cried on TV & in person when they saw Ram Mandir Idol. They were speechless.
  15. 500,000 devotees on day one, imagine the crowd for the rest of the year & esp imp & festival days.

When everything was carried out legally, asked, debated, argued publicly for decades & both parties were notified & both accepted then how it could be the end of democracy & secularism. We were just asking for correction which was gone wrong in history. We don't want demolition of every mosque then you could have argued but that's not the case.

  • 3
    Hello Varun, please take our tour and see How to Ask. We are a bit different from a discussion forum. We don't engage in political argument, counterargument or making points. It seems your post is about presenting a viewpoint and asking for debate. As such I've voted to close it.
    – James K
    Jan 27 at 21:32
  • I’m voting to close this question because there's no point in asking about western biases on western forums.
    – whoisit
    Jan 27 at 22:58
  • @whosit - I could certainly engage with the assumption that entire vague groups of countries are so monolithic that it would be pointless to seek explanation or criticism of their biases from within them, but it is much more relevant to point out that the "international media" decrying this move includes a lot of critical voices in, say, Pakistan, that the "certain section of the people" is a reference to a lot of Indian Muslims, and that the question does not mention "the West" in any fashion.
    – Obie 2.0
    Jan 28 at 1:21
  • @Obie2.0 The "certain section of people" is more about the so-called "secular parties" in India. Its very obvious why Islamic media (Pakistan or elsewhere) or this section would say something, so the question boils down to western media.
    – whoisit
    Jan 28 at 4:19
  • I call it western bias because their view of what history is and what religion is are quite distinctive and they don't even realize those are not the only views. This is the same in all western countries, so grouping them together isn't a problem.
    – whoisit
    Jan 28 at 4:22

1 Answer 1


People, Westerners in particular, couldn't care less if points 1-14 of your question are true or not--typical arguments about "we were here first". IDK about democracy (it depends how that is defined: purely on a majoritarian or on a more liberal basis), but secularism isn't much compatible with a country's leader saying stuff like

“Today our Lord Ram has come. After centuries of waiting, our Ram has arrived. After centuries of unprecedented patience, countless sacrifices, renunciations, and penances, our Lord Ram has arrived,” Modi said in a speech from the newly-constructed temple bedecked with colorful flowers.

“Ram is not a dispute, Ram is the solution.”

That's ethnoreligious fervor.

The Ram Mandir is the realization of Modi’s dream to create what he has called a “new India,” which many consider to be the transformation of the country into a distinctly Hindu nation.

For Modi’s detractors, the temple’s inauguration is the conclusion of a decades-long campaign to pull India away from the secular roots upon which the country was founded following independence.

And yeah, Westerns know a thing or two about religious fundamentalists running a country or what religious wars can do to a region.

If you read other Western press reports, that goes hand in hand with other stuff:

For Indian Muslims, in particular, the situation is dire. During the recently passed holy month of Ramadan [2022], they saw their houses and shops bulldozed, their businesses boycotted, and their religious gatherings heckled by Hindu-nationalist mobs. Open calls for genocide against Muslims have become commonplace, as have violent clashes and lynchings. Although the authorities generally avoid the appearance of explicitly endorsing these kinds of actions, they rarely go out of their way to condemn them. A recent open letter signed by more than 100 former civil servants accused the Indian government of being “fully complicit” in the subordination of the country’s religious minorities as well as in the undermining of the country’s constitution. [...]

Indian Christians face similar hostility. Attacks on Christians have been rising steadily since 2014, and 2021 was the most violent year on record for the community: The United Christian Forum, an ecumenical organization based in Delhi, reported a tally of more than 500 violent incidents—an 80 percent increase over the previous year. A human-rights lawyer who works on minority-rights and religious-freedom cases, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly about their work, told me that most of these incidents originate with Hindu-nationalist mobs, which descend on religious gatherings at churches and in homes to accuse those involved of forcing Christianity upon unsuspecting Hindus, in violation of the country’s anti-conversion laws. In the violence that ensues, pastors have been beaten, churches vandalized, and religious schools attacked. [...]

If the political system is no longer a check on majoritarian rule, neither is the legal system. Just as the authorities fail to protect minorities from communal violence—or even participate in the violence themselves—the legal system fails to hold officials to account. Worse, a series of draconian and discriminatory laws have recruited both police and courts to efforts to silence government critics and advocates for India’s religious minorities. (The Indian government did not respond to requests for comment.)

I'm glad Stack Exchange editors are so free of Western bias as to believe none of that and DV this answer to Naraka!


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .