VHP gives Modi until May to decide the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue – Piyush Srivastava

Sri Ram Lalla Temple, Ayodhya

Ram Lalla Virajman“We are against any formula other than handing over the entire 70-acre land to us.” – VHP 

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has given Prime Minister Narendra Modi a May 2015 deadline to decide the vexed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue, threatening mass campaigns for the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.

VHP spokesperson for Ayodhya affairs Sharad Sharma told Mail Today: “The VHP doesn’t believe in trivialising the issue. We need entire 70 acres of land, which is dubbed as disputed because of the litigation filed by Muslims.” 

Sharma said: “Modi has come to power because the BJP raised agendas of development and national growth. We didn’t want to disturb the government in the beginning. It was decided at a meeting of VHP leaders and important saints that the Centre should be given one year to take the country on the path of development and fulfil its other promises made to the people during the election campaigns. 

“The saints will hold a meeting with the PM after May 2015 and demand that a law be enacted in Parliament to pave the way for construction of the Ram temple at the same site.” 

The VHP leader alleged that some people with no locus standi have been trying to show interest in the case. 

Hashim Ansari & Gyan DasHe said: “We understand the eagerness of Hashim Ansari, the oldest surviving plaintiff from the Babri Masjid side. He keeps raising trivial issues out of sheer frustration. Now and then, he takes the help of Akhara Parishad chief Mahanth Gyan Das and comes up with a bizarre plan. Every time, Samajwadi Party president Mulayam Singh Yadav or his representative meets him and Ansari peacefully returns to his ivory tower. We really don’t care about his gimmicks.” 

Ansari and Gyan Das have sought time from the PM for a meeting while claiming that they have reached a compromise formula on the Janmabhoomi-Masjid issue after discussions with major saints of the country. 

Ansari said: “We believe that there can be a temple and a masjid on 70 acres of the disputed land with a 100-feet high wall that will separate activities of the two communities in their religious sites.”

However, when asked why he was trying to stitch a formula with the help of Gyan Das, who doesn’t figure in the case, Ansari said: “He wants peaceful co-existence of Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya. This is why I stand with him. I am 93 years old and can die any day. I am in a hurry for a solution to this problem.” 

Das said: “But we don’t want the VHP to mess around because its leaders don’t want peace in the country.” 

But while rejecting his theory, Additional Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh Zafaryab Jilani, who is also a counsel for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board which looks after the related case of the Sunni Central Waqf Board, said: “The VHP is part and parcel of the case because its leader represents Ram Lalla Virajman in court. There is no possibility of arriving at a compromise formula without involving the VHP.” 

The Allahabad HC, in its 2010 judgment, had ordered to trifurcate the disputed 70 acres of land and give the makeshift temple area to Ram Lalla Virajman (a party in the case) while handing the Chabutara (platform) and Sita Ki Rasoi (kitchen of goddess Sita) to Nirmohi Akhara, besides an unspecified one-third portion to the Sunni Central Waqf Board. 

Triloki Nath PandeyRam Lalla wants Supreme Court to expedite case, says Triloki Nath Pandey of the VHP

Triloki Nath Pandey — Ram Lalla’s next friend — wants the Supreme Court to expedite the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case. 

Pandey, who pursues the case on behalf of the God, told Mail Today that he is frustrated to see delay in the case that has been pending in the apex court since 2010. 

“The case was filed in a lower court in 1950, but the order was pronounced finally in 2010 by the Allahabad High Court. Enough is enough. We cannot wait for so long for the apex court to take up the case. We moved the SC against the order of the Allahabad High Court. We want the 70-acre disputed land in Ayodhya to be trifurcated. Even the God wants to be liberated from the make-shift tent,” said Pandey. 

“There shouldn’t be confusion in anybody’s mind that the next friend of Ram Lalla, that is me, belongs to the VHP,” he said. 

Proposed Ram Temple in AyodhyaPandey said the high court order was almost in favour of the Ram Janmabhoomi. 

“The high court had rejected the theory that there was a masjid at the disputed site. One third of the land was allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board. I was the first on behalf of the God to oppose it and move the SC against the HC order. This means that the God is not ready for any compromise,” he said. 

He also reminded that Mohammad Hashim Ansari — the oldest surviving plaintiff in the case — is one among nine plaintiffs. A single plaintiff cannot give a solution without the support of the remaining eight plaintiffs. 

“We are against any formula other than handing over the entire 70-acre land to us,” Pandey said. 

He alleged that a section of Muslim leaders have been urging the VHP to withdraw its claim over Gyanvapi Mosque, which is adjacent to Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi, and Shahi Idgah that is close to Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple in Mathura in return of Ram Temple in Ayodhya. – Mail Online India, 25 February 2015

Ayodhya Dispute Players

3 Responses

  1. Muslims have no business in Ayodhya at all. It is a Hindu holy place for many centuries and of no religious significance to Muslims.

    No mosque should be built in Ayodhya. That is the bottom line. If the VHP feels they must build a mosque, they can build it in Faizabad the old capital of the Nawabs of Awadh.

    That the court judgement trifurcated the Jamnabhumi area into three parts, giving one part to the Muslim litigant, graphically proves the idiom that the law is an ass and some judgements asinine.

    The history of Muslims in Ayodhya is utterly shameful. If the community had any honour, they would quietly pack up and leave the place without making demands.

    • your comment is straight to-the-point ;

      as per the ASI report mentioned in the link provided by you above , habitation in Ayodhya dates back to 3300 years ago , almost 2 millennia before islam came into existence !

      and as s’ri deoki nandan agarwal claims , the place belongs to S’ri Ram —–” when the Babri Masjid was built, “Ram was its owner.” ……Muslims who had offered prayers at the site in the past did so without the “permission of the owner of the land.”

      yes ! as you say , if the community had any honour, they would quietly pack up and leave the place without making demands.

    • The word honour does not almost exist in their dictionary. And when it appears it has a different meaning.

Comments are moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: