The Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s authorised decision making committee of saints and seers for the construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, Sant Uchhadhikaar Samiti (SUS), demanded on Friday that the government brings a law to construct a grand Ram temple at Ayodhya even as the Supreme Court has set October 29 as the next date of hearing in the case saying that it cannot wait indefinitely for the judicial verdict.
The working president of the organisation, Alok Kumar, in a meeting held in Delhi, along with 50 out of the 70 members invited to the meet, passed a four-point resolution calling for a new law and building pressure on Parliament for the same.
A delegation of few members of the SUS also met the President Ram Nath Kovind, with a copy of its resolution and asked that the same be forwarded to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
In a day-long meeting, the ‘Sants’ demanded a joint session of Parliament if need be. There were calls made to “remind Prime Minister Modi” of his “promise” of the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya.
It was further decided that if a law wasn’t passed in the winter session of Parliament, considered the last working session of the current government this term, then a Dharam Sansad of seers to be held during the Allahabad Kumbh on January 31 would decide future action.
The plans for a nationwide agitation, of meeting Governors of respective States and local MPs to press for such a Bill, were also discussed and cleared at the meeting.
Disappointed with the Supreme court verdict, the working president of VHP, Alok Kumar urged, “When the Representation of the People Act could be amended during the pendency of Indira Gandhi’s appeal in the SC against her election being set aside, why can’t a law be brought in on Ayodhya. We had expected the Dipak Misra bench to deliver its verdict in September. But rivals put roadblocks to delay the hearing of the main title suitcase,” he claimed.
The Ayodhya dispute is a political, historical and socio-religious debate in India, centred on a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya, located in Faizabad district, Uttar Pradesh. The main issues revolve around access to a site traditionally regarded among Hindus to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Rama, the history and location of the Babri Mosque at the site, and whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to create the mosque.
In the latest judgement over the long-standing dispute over the Ram Janambhoomi, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, on September 27, ruled that the Ram Janambhoomi case will not be referred to a larger bench.
The judgment was in connection with the 1994 Ismail Faruqui verdict which dealt with the acquisition of religious place by the state. The verdict had concluded that offering Namaz at the Mosque was not integral to Islam as long as the Masjid did not have any particular significance in Islam. which dealt with the acquisition of religious place by the state. The verdict had concluded that offering Namaz at the Mosque was not integral to Islam as long as the Masjid did not have any particular significance in Islam.
Alok Kumar, however, stating the reason behind the meeting briefed the press saying, “When the documentation and other papers required for consideration of matter were completed before the Supreme Court Bench headed by former Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, we thought that a judgment would be forthcoming on the issue by September end this year, and the VHP had passed a resolution in an earlier meeting that we would wait for the court’s judgment. But, in the meanwhile, various obstacles were put in the way, like moving an impeachment motion against Justice Mishra and opening the Ismail Farooqui verdict. We are convinced that the case will not see a resolution any time soon, hence we have announced this programme.”
The Supreme Court has, however, set October 29 as the next date of hearing in the case.
