Religion is not sufficient to explain the intricate and multifaceted conflict, which involves political, historical, social, and cultural components. A scholar must conduct a thorough and contextualized examination of the factors that led to the conflict and its aftermath to assess the role that religion played in the violence in Ayodhya.
When it comes to tackling the issue of religion and violence in Ayodhya, one technique that can be utilized is to differentiate between the various levels and types of religious practice. For example, according to Scott Appleby, a professor of religion and peacebuilding, there are four different ways in which religion and violence are connected. The framework, the resource, the target, and the source are the four possible sources from which violence might originate. The following aspects of religious participation are shown when this typology is applied to the city of Ayodhya:
For this definition, “religion as a source” refers to religious doctrines, beliefs, narratives, and symbols that either excuse or inspire acts of violence. Within the radical Hindu community in Ayodhya, religious beliefs were the source of violence. According to them, the demolition of the mosque was not just a historic mission but also a religious obligation because it was offensive to them and caused harm to their beliefs. By being the location where Rama was born and where a mosque was subsequently destroyed by Muslims, Ayodhya possesses considerable historical and mythological significance. This has contributed to its increased popularity among the Hindu population. They attained triumph by capitalizing on the religious sentiments of the Hindus. Militant Muslims who opposed Hindu assertions and actions while defending their faith and identity were also subjected to acts of violence. Their extremism stems from the religious convictions that guide them.
The phrase “religion as a target” refers to religious institutions, community leaders, and groups that fall prey to acts of vandalism or violence. Persecution based on religion hit Muslims and Hindus in Ayodhya. When one group vandalized their sacred icons and locations, every side was fully engaged in the conflict. As if infringing upon the religious liberties of Muslims wasn’t terrible enough, the destruction of the mosque incited looting and murder in the neighborhood. In contrast, Hindus held the belief that their religion was not esteemed by the laws and government due to their failure to restore or safeguard the location of their temple. The conflict in Ayodhya affected both the religious consensus that predominated and the peaceful coexistence between the two factions.
When individuals discuss violent religious networks, organizations, or leaders, they are employing religion as a weapon. With the escalation of the Ayodhya conflict, nationalist Hindu parties incited violence through the use of religious rhetoric. All three political parties—the BJP, the VHP, and the RSS—participated in the effort to demolish the mosque so that it might be possible to construct the temple. Hundreds of volunteers engaged in demolition efforts were organized and instructed with the approval of religious authorities. They advocated for the use of violence against Muslims and disseminated their views through religious media. By appealing to Muslims’ religious convictions, the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) were able to galvanize them against Hindu demands and activities. Furthermore, they effectively leveraged their Islamic affiliations to gain the support and understanding of other Muslim governments and organizations.
Religion as a framework is a term used to describe the worldviews, values, and standards associated with different religions and which inform or explain violent behavior. Muslims and Hindus invoked their religious beliefs to account for the massacre at Ayodhya. One point of view of the dispute was that it was a cosmic or theological clash between justice and injustice, between good and evil, and between dishonesty and truth. Moreover, they asserted that their actions were moral or divinely sanctioned, and they excused their violent behavior by citing the doctrines, practices, and authorities of their different religions. Religion played a role in shaping the attitudes of the public, the media, and people from other countries toward the conflict. Rather than depicting the issue as a dispute about politics or the law, these groups usually depicted it as a disagreement between religious groups or communities.
A religious element was there during the Ayodhya crisis that occurred in 1992; yet, it was not the primary reason for the violence that occurred. Several factors, including politics, history, society, and culture, were intertwined with religion, which contributed to the struggle and its consequences. All of these particulars were intertwined. Therefore, to develop an academic conclusion regarding the part that religion played in the violence that occurred in Ayodhya, it is required to conduct a comprehensive and well-balanced investigation of the numerous and nuanced aspects of the conflict, as well as the continually shifting function that religion plays.