If Ordinance Can Save Jallikattu, Then Why Not Ram Temple, Asks VHP
Photo for representation only
With legal hurdles looming over the issue, Dr. Surendra Kumar Jain, International Joint General Secretary and VHP spokesperson, said the BJP's victory will ensure the temple is built "very soon".
ALSO READ | A 'New India' is Emerging, Says PM Modi After Resounding Poll Victory
“There will be no legal hurdles to the construction of the temple because a temple is already there in existence. To put it more precisely, what the nation witnessed during Jallikattu is an important precedent here. We have always demanded that a legislation be brought in Parliament just like in the Shah Bano case to facilitate the construction of the temple. If an Ordinance can be brought in to save Jallikattu, then a similar Ordinance can help in the construction of the temple. I am sure that with the BJP in power now, this is happening,” Jain told News18.com.
Jain also believes that Ved Prakash Gupta, the BJP candidate, who won the Ayodhya seat will now be under pressure to deliver on the temple promise. But if recent court orders are anything to go by, the promise seems difficult to achieve.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court decided it would want the CBI to restore conspiracy charges against BJP and RSS members. The apex court said senior BJP leaders LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti should be investigated for conspiracy charges, a charge which a lower court had exonerated them of around seven years ago. The bench also expressed its desire to conduct the trial in a speedy manner and asked the two pending cases in Lucknow and Rae Bareli to be heard together.
ALSO READ | How Will the BJP's Win in Uttar Pradesh Remake Indian Politics?
The apex court was hearing an appeal by the CBI against the Allahabad High Court verdict of 2010 in which the court’s Lucknow bench ordered that the conspiracy charges against Advani and others be dropped.
However, Jain allayed any such concern and said it was a ‘non-issue’ in this case.
“That case of re-opening the investigation of conspiracy charges against BJP leaders is not related to temple construction at all,” said the VHP spokesperson.Apart from re-opening the conspiracy charges, there lies another suit pending in the Supreme Court. It is an appeal against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict directing the three-way division of 2.77 acres. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had ruled that the disputed land be divided between the Hindus, the Muslims, and the Nirmohi Akhara. Hindu and Muslim organisations, including the Sunni Central Wakf Board, Nirmohi Akhara, All-India Hindu Mahasabha and Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman had appealed against the order.
In May 2011, it was felt that the case is gaining momentum. But Justice Aftab Alam in 2013 ordered status quo at the site and as Justice Alam has retired, the case has not been heard effectively yet.
However, during an interview with News18, Ranjana Agnihotri, counsel for Ram Lalla Virajman, said that there were notices from the SC registrar in November 2016, stating that the “case might come up for hearing”, but the case has not been listed as yet.
But Jain told News18.com that even this suit will have no bearing on the construction and an Ordinance could soon pave the way for a temple as the “Supreme Court will also surely note the same thing as what the High Court did and order for the construction of the temple.”
“High Court has earlier ruled that there was never any Islamic structure in the place of Babri Masjid and our demand always was to build the temple on the birthplace of Lord Ram. The issue of dividing the land into equal parts was not prayed for and hence was stayed by the Supreme Court. I am sure the Supreme Court would rule in our favour and then the secular mafias will oppose the verdict, but in any case, the construction will happen very soon,” said Jain.
Now, March 22 is set as the next date of hearing at the Supreme Court when the court will decide whether to revive the conspiracy charges or not. But unless the primary question of land dispute is solved, the issue continues to remain sub-judice.