According to a full page report of interviews published in Sunday Times of India recently, the famous social worker and Magsasay award winner Anna Hazare feels that neither a Mandir or a Masjid be constructed at Ayodhya as there is no dearth of these in India. What matters is a positive change in human attitudes. Famous poet and filmmaker Gulzar feels that a University or a Mosque be built on the spot. Mahashweta Devi, Author and winner of the prestigious Gyanpith Award has a similar feeling. Kiran Bedi is all for a nature park while author Nayantara Sehgal votes for a meditation space. Former Miss India Celina Jaitly is of the opinion that we should build a school where children, irrespective of the community they belong to, can study together. There are also the regular pro-Masjid voices like that of Mulayam Singh Yadav and pro-Mandir voices like the leaders of Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Famous historian Mushirul Hassan would like a Gandhi memorial since so that the site may become the Kaba and Kashi for all those who have a stake in our democratic and secular fabric. As the Mandir-Masjid issue starts to raise dust in the nation for one more time, a cross section of eminent personalities from different professions were interviewed by The Sunday Times of India - the largest selling daily in the country, and expressed their opinion as to what should be done about the controversial issue.
Known as the most prolific thinker of 21st century, Osho in an interview to Pritish Nandy in 1989 spoke on this subject. In the light of the recent and not so recent developments that have taken place it might be interesting to read Osho’s opinion on the issue.

Read on:
Question :
There is this issue of secularism, and there is a great controversy going on with regard to what they call "Ram Janam Bhumi and the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya." both communities, Hindus and Moslems, are claiming that place. How can this issue be defused?
Osho:
There is no problem of...These are politicians behind the problems. Otherwise both can worship the place, both can make it holy. It becomes double holy to Hindus and to Mohammedans. What is the problem? Israel is a holy land for the Christians because of Jesus was born there, crucified there. It is holy land for the Jew because Moses founded the country. It is holy for Mohammedans because when Mohammed went to heaven, riding on his horse, he stayed for rest on a rock in Israel. So that rock is a problem. And I don't see any problem. All can worship a rock. Rock will not say, "No, you cannot worship."
Just it has to be made clear to them that the whole earth is holy. And if you think this part is holy for you, you should be happy that this part is also holy for Hindus, for Mohammedans. You should invite Christians, Jainas, to make it more holy. Sheer childishness to fight on these problems, but politicians have power only if there is some fight going on. Now the government will be in difficulty. If the government sides with the Hindus, the whole Mohammedan community will go against in the elections. If they side with the Mohammedans, the whole Hindu community will go against. So they just talk about it, in the parliament discuss about it and nothing happens, and nothing will happen. My suggestion is very simple. A holy land is nobody's possession, anybody can worship. And more people worship it, more humanitarian it becomes.