What is the rationale of the people who make a case that there was no destruction of a temple at Ayodhya?
The rationale keeps varying as per the needs of the situation. It seems that the ultimate objective is to create and maintain a level of confusion. First, the historicity of Shri Ram is denied. When that is accepted, the concept of maryada purushottam as applicable to Shri Ram is denied. In effect, it is said that he was an ordinary person, without attributing any special importance to him. When that is accepted, it is denied that he was born in Ayodhya. When that is accepted, it is denied that the Ayodhya where he was born is not where the present day Ayodhya is. When that is accepted, it is denied he was born at the spot where the Hindus have a continuous tradition of more than 3000 years. And so on. In essence, the strategy is one of negation of the site of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi. A further element of this strategy is to negate that a discussion took place at the time of the Prime Ministership of Chandrashekar, where the VHP gave the totality of evidence to establish that a temple was
