No Temple at Disputed Site Ayodhya

• I don't believe there was a Ram Temple at disputed site in Ayodhya.
• Most probably there was a Buddhist site much before to that.
• Afterwards there were mosques.
• The theory comes from valid data.
• India was Buddhist for several centuries before Islam entered India
• Hindu revival probably happened subsequently in 11th and 12th Century AD onwards
• Ramanujam, Sankaracharya, Chaitanya among others must have contributed to the Hindu revival.
• If we see at major Hindu temples in India, they have their origin in or around 10th Century AD (plus minus two centuries). Why? Because we can suspect that earlier to that the reigning religion in Indian subcontinent was Buddhism. 
• Then Islam entered and in a sense it gave fillip to rise or re-rise of Hindu while extinguishing Buddhism.
• Later there was Swami Vivekananda and Iskcon founder among others
• Areas all around India are dotted with Buddhist sites
• I have read that when Nagarjuna Sagar dam was constructed several Buddhist locations were submerged.
• In one Jackie Chan movie (probably "The Myth") there is a scene where a lady tells Chan take this river and this will lead you to your homeland. Maybe it may be true if the move was shot in Eastern China. Fact is the movie was shot in Hampi area and the river there would lead to present day area near Vijayawada before flowing to ocean. It is an indication of Buddhism in Hampi area and peninsular India (Deccan) in the past.
• In Odisha also sites are full of Buddist ruins like Ratnagiri, Lalitgiri and so on.
• In Maharashtra also Kanheri caves and the location of Lenyadri AshtaVinayak temple is proof that Buddhism was a premier religion in Indian subcontinent before the advent of Islam and the revival of Hinduism by modern day preachers.
• Another link I can mention below:
• https://m.huffingtonpost.in/amp/2018/12/04/there-is-no-evidence-of-a-temple-under-the-babri-masjid-asi-lied-to-the-country-say-archeologists_a_23604990/
• What the above post says that there never was a temple in Ayodhya be for Ram or for other deity
• Deities have been planted and evidence planted to supplement the claim
• All evidence points to earlier Islamic structure perhaps Shia or Turkish 
• Later Babar must have built a grander mosque so that he would be the one to be remembered for a beautiful structure
• If we go even more centuries back, the reality is Buddhist.
• It is but a hard truth that Buddhism was all pervading in Indian subcontinent before Hinduism was revived.
• Not only that Buddhism spread from India to Central Asia (like Bamiyan Buddha example) and East Asia like China, Japan and South East Asia from Burma to Java (Borobodur) to Cambodia.
• Why Buddhism declined is anyobody's guess. Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe the procedures were too rigid. Maybe people could not remain celibate for Priesthood in Buddhism. Maybe they could not remain nonviolent like the Buddha. Maybe people went back to their roots.
• But no doubt that Buddhism even today is a living breathing religion whose ranks are growing everyday.
• Now in 2018 and even earlier to this BJP has been exploiting people sentiments for votes and power and there never was a temple.
• Justifying violence and rioting and killing in the name of religion.
• Divide and rule is the motto of BJP 
• Also they are not bringing out the truth as they will lose the only cause that helps them during elections.
• Any temple imposed would be an artificial one which is not relevant to past.
• Apart from that I feel there is do not need to insist that temple be there on that site only.
• Temple can be built on any place where there is no dispute.
• But BJP feeds itself on dispute and hatred and can only create disharmony in the country.