Should we call 'RSS mandir' instead of 'Ram mandir'

[Goenitz]

The question rises from below videos:

I would like to know that if it is not blasphemous then we should call it RSS mandir instead of Ram mandir.

We should make a narrative that is not a religious but a political structure. It has neither to do anything to Hinduism but to RSS and hindutva.

Point is raising voice against it should not make us anti-hindu but anti-rss. So from our forum to media, common people to MoFA, we should call it RSS mandir. Essentially I am thinking why we propagate RSS agenda, when it is their political ambition. So by calling it RSS one, we can criticise it more openly and give an alternative identity.


However, relevant persons should look into it, before giving any statement. Like whether it is a legitimate construction by Hindu's law? by vague Supreme court verdict etc etc. I will add Faizan Mustafa videos too later, regarding supreme court ambiguous verdict.

 

[Goenitz]

01:43 02:10
The verdict is not entirely based on civil suit but on faith. It means it was not simple possession case as court said initially.
03:04 03:27
Court says no evidence of Muslim praying before 1856, but still assumes it is a mosque. if you assume it a mosque, so prayers must have been performed (contradiction)
05:55 06:13 , 06:30 to 06:52
If Muslims were offering prayer there, so it shows their possession.
11:48 12:05
4th, 5th century traveller accounts didn't mention of birth place of Ram. If that was important, it must have been mentioned, by them (no muslim rule era)
12:15 15:32
During muslim reign, it was impossible that muslim hadn't prayed in babari mosque as Ayodhya was somewhat capital of Awadh. So muslim had possession also it was working mosque.
19:48 20:40
At worse, it could have been divided. But court became pragmatic and gave all to hindus.
32:21 33:58
Court said it won't go in history but still go with ASI report which just said there was per-existing structure. (mandir/shop/house/or anything)
33:58 34:51
in another case court argued that if other faith people pray in Church, it will remain a Church. But neglected this in Babari case (it remains a mosque, even if Hindus started praying in some part of it after 1857)
and many more illegalities in SC verdict.

 

[Goenitz]

Point is raising voice against it should not make us anti-hindu but anti-rss. So from our forum to media, common people to MoFA, we should call it RSS mandir. Essentially I am thinking why we propagate RSS agenda, when it is their political ambition. So by calling it RSS one, we can criticise it more openly and give an alternative identity.
@PakFactor @waz @My-Analogous
I seriously think we should name it like that, especially by our electronic media.

 

[hussain0216]

It's a temple of hate and hindutva extremism


It will be known as nothing more then a temple of hate

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

It's definitely the Ram Temple in the Ram Kingdom...

 

[xeuss]

We should make a narrative that is not a religious but a political structure. It has neither to do anything to Hinduism but to RSS and hindutva.

You seek to distinguish between religion and politics in a country where the people themselves seek to blur the lines and proclaim a Ram Rajya.

Perhaps you missed the celebrations and commendation for the temple on Aug 5. Save the Leftists, there was no Hindu that expressed regret over the actions and on the contrary, congratulated themselves over the triumph.

So the question back to you is this? Why do you seek to differentiate between Hinduism and Hindutva, when the Hindus (except for @Joe Shearer and his tribe) themselves have no desire for such an exercise?

 

[Goenitz]

Why do you seek to differentiate between Hinduism and Hindutva, when the Hindus (except for @Joe Shearer and his tribe) themselves have no desire for such an exercise?

so that we can criticise w/o having 'Ram' name in it. It is BJP propaganda, so why shd Pak tow the same line when it has political motive (with religion facade). So better name it the original one. !!!
Similarly, Indians call Modi democratic, but we call him fascist. So this is the building not temple.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You seek to distinguish between religion and politics in a country where the people themselves seek to blur the lines and proclaim a Ram Rajya.

Not 'The People', a section of the people, largely drawn, but not exclusive to the cow-belt.

Sorry to be pedantic about it; I realise what you are saying, but those listening to you may not.

 

[Goenitz]