Whatever I have researched over this topic, I found couple of things.
- Supreme court's decision was not only(in my opinion) based upon faith, it was based upon the physical avidence, ASI report.
- If there was temple, and if it is proved then, one must accept the fact. It is like, you are cheating from next person in the exam. Teacher asked you, whether you're copying, you said no, but when she checked the two copies they were exactly same. Just pretend to be blind about anything will lead to disaster.
- Honorable Supreme court said, the demolition was also crime(they may have not use that word but I am using). Which suggests that they acknowledge that the demolition was a criminal act, and cases are pending already.
- The most interesting inference I will say in another way, Modern day Britishers, or their children aren't responsible for our colonial experiences so we should not have any bitterness for them, but if they will pretend to be the colonial masters ofcourse there will be problems b/w Britishers and Indians
- What I am seeing is many people who known and proclaimed themselves to be an atheist are now theistic in nature, as said by many people, in spontaneous situation the person came out from you is the real you.
- Many people in both the communities are in trauma, because now on what topic and issue they will be communal in nature?
- It is because, SC give order in favour of the temple, not against it. and present government's background or helping hand. Hypothetically, if this ruling would have come 7years back, no will ask the question and the other party (ruling) would have also get perceived as a religious organization or party.
- They also want that ruling must had came in their side but they were saying that well be rely on SCs judgement but they projected hypocrisy, some people said they will accept the ruling but now they have questions, and when you say them about the same, the next arguments given by them will be, it is my democratic right to ask to cout and all..etc. it is an endless game.(although I like the arguments made by him- projects good intellect and very less people in Parliament have that kind of intellect).