On Friday, the Varanasi district court rejected the Hindu side’s plea, which sought a scientific study of the Shivling discovered within the Gyanvapi disputed complex. Before the court pronounced the verdict, OpIndia interviewed Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, the counsel of the Hindu side in the Shringar Gauri case. Here is an excerpt from the interview.
What role has the Ayodhya Ram Mandir verdict played in this case?
Firstly, we need to understand the Ram Mandir judgement. That judgement has its own merits and meanings. It is not that the Ram Mandir judgement has strengthened or weakened this case, it is that all the cases have their own merits and nuances which are to be dealt with separately. The Kashi and Mathura cases have better footing than the Ram Mandir case because in that case, there was no proof of record that could be used to substantiate the assertion of the Hindus. In fact, the two pages of Babarnama having reference to the time when Babar visited Ayodhya, are missing. So in that case, we were only to rely on circumstantial pieces of evidence. In this case, there is the Farman of Aurangzeb to demolish the temple. The present structure is proof in itself.
Similar is the story of the Mathura Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi case. In the title suit there, we have a strong footing that 13.37 acres of the land belong to Hindus so how can Muslims claim that site? Coming to the Ram Mandir Judgement, I personally feel that in future, when the Hindu legal thought will be in place, it will also be reviewed. There are various aspects of Hindu Shastric Law which have not been decided in a proper manner in the case. Also, we are the only Hindu party who filed a review petition in the case, as we found that several aspects of the judgement were not according to the Hindu Shastric Law. This was on various fronts ranging from the rights of deities to the Places of Worship Act.
The Ram Mandir judgement was of the same order as the things which were being discussed in arbitration and mediation. All the evidence including the ASI survey, which was presented to the court, was not dealt with properly by the court and the judgement did not mention that the 14 pillars below the disputed structure were pillars of a Hindu temple. It needed to be mentioned that the structure was made by demolishing a Hindu temple. This is the reason we are not completely relying on the Ayodhya judgement.
What would you like to say about the support by Hindus and opposition by other people from other religions?
It needs to be understood that whether people support us or oppose us, has no effect on the merits of the case. Whether Rakhi Singh stays or steps out of the case, we have nothing to lose. This is not parliament, this is about justice which is delivered in a court of law. Several conspiracies were put in place to defame me and my father in this case. But, I want to express this very well that whatsoever comes our way, we will not take any U-turn and will not resort to any kind of compromise at any stage of the case. We will keep on fighting the case. This case is the hard work of me and my father. We have worked day and night to correct the injustices done to Hindus.
We are currently representing 4 woman petitioners in the case, and we have 6 other title suits pending in the Varanasi court. We are adamant on our stand that the ancient temple of Kashi Vishvanath must be restored at any cost, and whatever conspiracies and cloak and dagger method people want they can use, we are not going to step away without getting justice for Hindus, who have been disadvantaged for centuries.
As the courts are now deciding on religious matters, is it desirable for the court to decide on the Essential Religious Practices of a religion? This needs an answer with reference to the Hijab controversy in Karnataka
I feel the entire controversy around hijab is bogus and the courts needed not to interfere in this. If they wanted to wear hijab, they should be allowed to wear hijab, but we should also be allowed to wear Dhoti and Tilak and attend classes. The debate around hijab is a self-destructive one. Today, a court is deciding whether hijab should be allowed or not, tomorrow, another court will decide if Sikhs should be allowed to bear turban or not. Some day some court will say that Hindus can’t apply Tilak on their forehead. In this way, I will need to prove my faith every time in court.
Instead of this debate, Hindus should have contested that they are allowed to wear Hindu religious attire in schools. They should have gone to schools and colleges wearing Tilaks and Saffron Dhotis.
As you say this, it was well reported how violence ensued in the Hijab debate and a boy named Harsha Hindu was murdered brutally for supporting uniformity in educational institutions. Notably, the other side got to the ‘street veto’ technique. What do you want to say about that?
You’re right. This is what I want to say. The murder was a violation of the law but when we talk about the principle, hijab could have been allowed and Hindus too could have attended their classes in Hindu religious attires. What a wonderful dilemma it is, that the majority community of this country is demanding the right to equality. Surprisingly, India would be the only country in the world where the majority community is demanding equality with the minority community. What a beautiful secular constitution we have come up with, you see. Hindus in this country are seeking equality with minorities under Article 14 of the constitution.
On Population Control
There is one more thing on which I would like to weigh in. It has not been asked, but, I feel it is important to mention my point of view on this. The discussion around population control is also futile and a destructive step for Hindus. Any legislation on population control will prove detrimental to Hindus. There is a common perception in society that Muslims have more children than Hindus. Muslims have up to four wives and they have more children than Hindus, and we feel that if a population control law is implemented, it will result in the population of Muslims being controlled. However, this is not the truth.
Whatever checks and balances are applied, the population of Muslims is not going to decrease. Instead, the impact of the legislation would be that the population of Hindus will reduce drastically. If we look at the population of Hindus at the world level, we are just 15 %, whereas Muslims are over 24%. So, we are already far behind Muslims and if a population control law is implemented in the country, the fall in the population of Hindus over the coming decades will be drastic and devastating.
Whatever sanctions are put on, Muslims are not going to obey them. What can we do? They will not be given jobs, no preferential treatment, or whatever, they don’t bother about all this. They don’t need all this. They will continue producing more children to achieve their desired goals. That’s it. So why do Hindus compromise on this front? I would like to make a bold point that if a population control law is implemented in this country, it will be completely Anti-Hindu in nature.
On Uniform Civil Code
The same is the case with Uniform Civil Code. People keep crying about the Uniform Civil Code reforms. What is the reform you want? Tell me what kind of uniformity you are demanding. Is it that the Seven Phera by Hindus in their marriages will be equated with Nikaah? Will Muslims and Hindus marry in the same way? Will everyone agree to it? Again, this is a ridiculous proposal.
The Mitakshara and Dayabhaga law in Hindus will work accordingly and so will the laws of Muslims. But to equate them to put another community at disadvantage is not acceptable. Tell me where do we want uniformity in civil law? Uniform Civil Code will become the father of Secularism. Hindus should not insist on Uniform Civil Code as if it is implemented, Hindus will be barred from using the Hindu Shastric Law and practising their traditions, making them survive at the feet of the state.
There is only one place where we can have uniformity is the number of marriages. This is the only place where uniformity is needed and can be applied. Jawahar Lal Nehru brought the Hindu Marriage Act and imposed single marriage on Hindus, whereas Muslims were allowed to marry four women at a time. If a Hindu marries more than one woman, it is an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas a Muslim will never face any action for the same. The root cause of all the problems is Section 494 IPC, which is the only section in IPC that discriminates against criminal conduct by Hindus and Muslims. Under 494 IPC, something which is an offence for Hindus is not an offence for Muslims. This is real discrimination. This is the only section in the entire IPC which lacks uniformity. Uniformity is needed here.
If the number of marriages is restricted, this will automatically have an effect on the population. This is the main problem and we just need to address this. There is no point in lengthy arguments on Uniform Civil Code and Population control.
As Hindus are now coming up collectively against the injustices to them, what would you like to say or advise Hindus on this?
Firstly, I would like to mention it explicitly that OpIndia has played a revolutionary role in showing up the injustices done to Hindus. I and my father thank OpIndia from the bottom of our hearts for being the voice of the ones who were forced shut due to various reasons. Today, whenever I open any social media site, I get to see reports and articles by OpIndia which are very authentic and revealing. Whether it be the post-poll violence in West Bengal where Hindus were butchered like anything, or be it the Delhi riots, OpIndia has played a very important role to bring every news relevant in the public domain. I believe the reportage by OpIndia will be definitely considered and valued by judicial forums across the globe someday in future.
Secondly, it is painful that if one Ikhlaq dies, the judicial system convenes and acts on laws pertinent to lynching and violence, but when Hindus are murdered and beheaded openly, no such court takes suo motu cognizance of the incidents. Why did the judicial system of this country not appoint any commission on the post-poll violence in Bengal? Everyone shouts about the Gujarat riots, why has no one questioned Mamata Banerjee to date? Why any SIT was not constituted for the Bengal violence?
Hindus in this country are in pain because they are not being treated equally and are instead being subjected to discrimination everywhere. Rs 5200 crores are given to minorities using the recommendations of the Sachar Committee. Why this discrimination? The ministry for minorities should be disbanded as it has no role to play in a country like India where the majority population is at a disadvantage and minorities enjoy all the benefits. There are a whole lot of issues which will be addressed once this country becomes a Hindu Rashtra.
I believe that we are heading to become a Hindu Rashtra and the day is not far when we will be a Hindu Rashtra. When I say Hindu Rashtra, I mean a spiritual Hindu Rashtra, the Ram Rajya, where there will be no discrimination against anyone. Hindu Rashtra will be a Rashtra with the principle of justice to all and appeasement to none. The present constitution has gone futile, it has failed to address the concerns and faith of Hindus in this country. The judicial system of this country lacks the resolve to provide justice to Hindus. This is why we want a Hindu Rashtra. A nation which will be based on the principles of Dharma, the Dharma which was protected by Sri Krishna and Sri Rama, and the dharma which was preached by Swami Vivekananda all over the world. It is only then Hindus will get Justice.
A part of the interview published earlier can be read here.
