New Delhi: With the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) stating that “there existed a Hindu temple prior to the construction of the existing structure” on the Gyanvapi website, Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) mentioned that the disputed construction must be handed over to the Hindu group.
“The ASI, an official and expert body, has submitted its report to the district judge hearing the Gyanvapi matter in Kashi. The evidence collected by the ASI from the Gyanvapi structure reconfirms that the mosque had been constructed after demolishing a magnificent temple. A part of the temple structure, particularly the western wall is the remaining part of the Hindu Temple,” VHP working president Alok Kumar mentioned in a press release Sunday.
“The Shivlinga in what was called the wuzu khana (a pond for ablution) leaves no doubt that the structure does not have the character of a mosque. The discovery of the names including Janardana, Rudra and Umeswara in the inscriptions found in the structure are the tell-tale evidence of this being a temple,” he added.
He additional mentioned that the “evidence collected and the conclusions provided by the ASI do prove that the religious character of this place of worship existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and as at present is of a Hindu Temple. Thus, even as per Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the structure should be declared as a Hindu Temple”.
Video assertion of Shri @AlokKumarLIVE … pic.twitter.com/2z2CY4f7Rn
— Vishva Hindu Parishad -VHP (@VHPDigital) January 27, 2024
The VHP additionally urged that the Hindus be permitted to supply sewa puja to the Shivlinga discovered within the so-called wuzu khana space.
It additionally known as upon the Intezamia Committee to “agree to respectfully shift the Gyanvapi Mosque to another appropriate place and to handover the original site of Kashi Vishvanatha to the Hindu Society”.
“The VHP believes that this righteous action shall be an important step towards creating amicable relations between the two prominent communities of Bharat,” he added.
One other VHP chief, whereas referring to the Gyanvapi case, mentioned “things are becoming brighter for the Hindu side”.
Various BJP leaders and plenty of within the Sangh parivar claimed that the Gyanvapi problem is one thing that the society has taken up itself. “It’s a legal procedure and law will take its own course,” BJP nationwide spokesperson R.P. Singh instructed ThePrint.
Taking to ‘X’, previously Twitter, Union Minister Giriraj Singh mentioned after the ASI report, the Muslim aspect ought to by itself handover the temple to the Hindu aspect. “This will provide an opportunity to correct the mistakes made in the past (history) and will also promote social harmony”.
Uttar Pradesh deputy chief minister Brajesh Pathak additionally took to ‘X’ and posted: “Bam Bam Bhole, Baba ki kripa”. Keshav Prasad Maurya, the opposite deputy chief minister, wrote “Har Har Mahadev”.
Final yr in July, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath had mentioned that there might be a dispute if one calls Gyanvapi a mosque. He had identified that whoever has eyes can see the construction (learn, can perceive that it’s not a mosque).
However a senior BJP chief mentioned that there’s want for a relook on the provisions of the 1991 Act, the primary bone of rivalry within the Gyanvapi controversy, and a marketing campaign pushed by the general public to “reclaim” the temples in Kashi (now often known as Varanasi) and Mathura.
The Act gives for the upkeep of the non secular character of anyplace of worship because it existed on 15 August 1947.
In its 2019 verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid matter, the Supreme Court docket had noticed that the legislation is “a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution”.
“The law addresses itself to the State as much as to every citizen of the nation. Its norms bind those who govern the affairs of the nation at every level. Those norms implement the fundamental duties under Article 51A and are hence, positive mandates to every citizen as well,” learn the Ayodhya judgement.
“The State, has by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalised its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism which is a part of the basic features of the Constitution.”
Two petitions difficult the Act are at the moment pending within the Supreme Court docket. One was filed by BJP spokesperson and lawyer Ashwini Kumar, whereas the opposite was filed by a Lucknow-based physique of clergymen, the Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh.
“It is quite evident that the 1991 Act is not sacrosanct and can always be changed. Neither the party nor the RSS has been actively involved in the legal matters related to the Gyanvapi issue but the public itself is demanding it,” one other BJP chief one other.
Sources within the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) mentioned that they might not press for a ‘mass public movement’ so far as Gyanvapi, Kashi and Mathura are involved not like the Ram Janmabhoomi however acknowledged that the demand itself stems from the general public.
In 2019, quickly after the Ayodhya judgement, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat mentioned that the Sangh wouldn’t be concerned in any political actions or agitations thereafter.
Three years on, Bhagwat commenting on the row over the Gyanvapi mosque had questioned the necessity to “look for a Shivling in every mosque (har masjid me Shivling kyun dekhna)”. The RSS chief additionally identified that the Sangh was not in favour of launching every other motion (andolan) on these points.
His assertion was important within the backdrop of slogans — ‘Ayodhya-Babri sirf jhaanki hai, Kashi-Mathura ab baaqi hai (Ayodhya-Babri is just a trailer, Kashi, Mathura still to come)’ — that had been raised by Hindutva outfits after the 1992 Babri mosque demolition.
A third senior BJP chief identified that the type of response obtained from the general public after the opening of the Ram Mandir exhibits that ‘Hindus would want to reclaim their mandirs with, or without a movement’.
“The opening of Ram Mandir and the response of the folks exhibits how the problem has great emotive worth for the Hindus who for years have remained silent. The actual fact a Shivling has been discovered there signifies that the society won’t let it go. The political technique must be in sync with that. For now, the matter is in courtroom however we have to chalk out a technique too,’ mentioned the chief.
A Sangh supply claimed that the society itself is taking up the trigger and therefore the necessity for a motion spearheaded by the Sangh isn’t required as of now. “The 1990s were different, we didn’t have social media, even news channels were limited. Today’s Hindu society is enlightened and knows how to fight its own battle,” he mentioned.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Additionally Learn: Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind head says will take Gyanvapi matter to SC — ‘politics being done to please majority’