Sensationalized Ram Mandir Bias Erodes Journalism’s Core

On the historic event of Bhagwan Shri Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha in Ayodhya on January 22nd, 2024, when Hindus finally celebrated victory, one would assume that it would be celebrated by not only Hindus globally but everyone else. It was the movement that stood the test of time due to the devotion of Shri Ram and the resolute determination of the devotees to not give up their rightful demands over the last  500 years. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Some columnists in the US are desperately trying to monkey-balance this celebration by pointing out potential societal rifts being caused.

A prime example of this desperate monkey-balancing act is the article ‘Will The Ram Mandir Consecration End Up Dividing, Not Uniting India?‘ published in India Currents on January 20th, 2024 which is using half-truths to paint Hindus as aggressors. Not even once did it mention the fact that a temple stood in the Ram Janmabhoomi (birthplace of Bhagwan Ram) for centuries before being demolished by a barbarian Islamic invader, so much for neutral reporting. 

While India Currents added a general disclaimer that the views provided by the author do not necessarily reflect the official stand of India Currents,  the very fact that they taint the historic event by throwing aspirations of secularism fading in India just because Hindus have received justice, shows the lack of sensitivity from the publication.

One needs to read the article and the rebuttal provided below to understand the bias and the hatred laced throughout the article.

1. The point of the Shankaracharyas (Hindu pontiffs) not attending the temple consecration is being spun to allege that it will contribute to dividing society. Three of the four Shankaracharyas refuted the claims of the news organizations and emphatically stated that they would visit the temple soon. One of the Shakaracharyas expressed an opinion on a religious procedure and did not raise any objections to the temple. There the issue would have ended if the truth had not been suppressed. There’s no mention of the nearly 4000 seers from different Hindu sampradayas who were invited. Even Mr. Iqbal Ansari, the main opposition litigant in the case, was invited and he graciously attended the event. Again, it is not in their interest to acknowledge this fact, as it is against their objective. Nearly all opposition political parties, delegates from 50  nations, and people from various walks of life rich and poor were invited as well. All these unifying aspects of the event have been omitted by the article, obviously with an ulterior motive.
2. The link in the article that’s supposed to take the reader to the invitees list of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust takes you to an article on Deputy Chief Minister Mr. DK Sivakumar of Karnataka (Congress Party) complaining about not being invited to the inauguration. That is after the fact that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Mallikarjun Kharge, both of the Congress Party, were cordially invited to the inauguration, which they rejected. Any article that believes in fair reporting would have presented both sides and provided a link that shows all the people who were invited to the event. 
3. The link which takes the viewer to the demolishing of the disputed structure is a YouTube video by ‘The Wire’. The India Currents article is taking material from a tainted news media house that has been embroiled in multiple lawsuits about forging documents, publishing fake stories, etc. Meta and other experts also pointed out various flaws with ‘The Wire’s reporting.
4. By connecting the COVID-19 pandemic being at its height to when the construction of the temple began – it seems the article is alleging that the government was irresponsible and hasty in starting the construction of the temple. But there were many other infrastructure projects started by the government at the same time which were managed with the right level of care and attention of all the workers involved. India came out better after COVID-19 compared to all other Western nations. Is that a sore point for the author of the article?
5. The article opines about the disputed structure demolition but does not inform about the 500-year struggle Hindus have endured. The tens of thousands of lives lost by Hindus in numerous conflicts throughout history in trying to regain their place of worship where Shri Ram was born has been ignored. Why are the concerns and opinions only about the illegal structure and not about the Hindu struggle?
6. Karsevaks (volunteers) are referred to as ‘members of Hindu nationalist organizations’. This term is often used by Western media outlets to denigrate people. Sadhus and Sanyasis (monks) were part of this religious movement seeking justice and they aren’t part of any organization. It was a people’s movement for 500 years – much before there were any political organizations like in the current day. Furthermore, if this was the slightest objective of the article, it would have pointed to 16 Karsevaks being shot dead by the Uttar Pradesh government in cold blood – this was the official figure released but the people in the region recount more than 300 Karsevaks being killed on the orders of the UP  government at that time.
7. The article refers to the temple inauguration being seen “by some” as a political gimmick. If the reader clicks on the link for additional reference provided, it again links to the fake news peddler ‘The Wire’ as the source.
8. In the interview of Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth, Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, it is stated that he mentioned he has not been invited. However, multiple other news outlets claim that he has been – were there sufficient checks done by the author to ascertain the truth before printing this article? It should also be noted that other Shankaracharyas have shown full support to the ceremony.

For any reader, here are the takeaways one will leave with.

• This article in India Currents feels like it came straight out of a biased Western media outlet. It’s like the author is still looking through that old colonial filter that casts Hindu and Indian culture as backward.
• The article does not feel it important to even mention the hardships more than 20 generations of Hindus have faced in trying to get justice for their most beloved Bhagwan Shri Ram and the barbarity inflicted by the Islamic invaders on the Hindu civilization.
• The article fails to condemn organizations that are objecting to justice finally being delivered, It never mentioned that the Supreme Court of India unanimously delivered the judgment in favor of the Hindus. 
• This article should be used as a case study on the depths to which reporting by some media has fallen and how certain ideologies inimical to the Indic civilization have subverted the narrative to keep painting Hindus in a bad light globally.

This article has caused significant distress to members of the Hindu-American community. The publication of such material underscores the crucial role and responsibility of editorial teams in restoring confidence in the magazine’s reputation as a trustworthy source of information.