Some Parties Delaying Ayodhya Process: VHP
New Delhi: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which has been in the forefront of the Ayodhya movement, feels that some parties to the dispute are indulging in delaying tactics and wants the Supreme Court to address this while speeding up the trial in the decades-old issue.
The outfit, which is an affiliate of RSS, insists that it will accept no solution, except building of a grand Ram temple at his birthplace in Ayodhya.
“We want a solution, either through mediation or else,” said VHP spokesperson Vinod Bansal amid efforts by the Supreme Court to speed up the trial in the matter.
The top court has set up a three-member mediation panel to look for a consensus by talking to all stakeholders to the vexed dispute.
“We participated in the mediation process, giving due respect to the Supreme Court. But the question is why should there be mediation at all when it is established that it is the birthplace of Lord Ram,” Bansal said.
He asserted that there can be “no compromise” on building a grand temple there as “It is not negotiable.”
Commenting on the legal process, Bansal said, “Since 2017, there has not been a single hearing on the original matter of Ram Janambhoomi but only about scheduling, procedures and constitution of the bench to hear the case.”
The Supreme Court will need to deal with the delaying tactics being used by some sections.
“For those delaying the matter, it is a ‘zameen ka tukda’ (a piece of land) but for us it is ‘jigar ka tukda’ (a piece of heart),” the VHP leader said.
“For those delaying the matter, it is a dispute about a mosque but for us it has been a struggle of 500 years to restore the temple of Lord Ram at his place of birth. Even after 70 years of Independence, there is no movement on it. Hindus are eagerly waiting for the Ram Lalla to leave the tent (a temporary structure built after demolition of the disputed structure on December 6, 1992),” he said.
“Lord Ram is our ancestor and it is the duty of every Indian to stand up for rebuilding his temple at his birthplace. On the other hand, how can anyone support a mosque in the name of Babur who was a foreign aggressor who looted India of wealth and prosperity? Babur can’t be an ideal for anyone in India as he has nothing to do with ancestry of Indians,” Bansal argued.
“There can be no mosque within the cultural limits of Ayodhya and there can be no mosque in the name of Babur anywhere in the country. This is the framework in which a solution has to be found otherwise, it won’t be acceptable to us,” he said.
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the mediation panel to submit its report by August 1.
It fixed August 2 as the next date of hearing to decide on future course of action.