VHP talks of political dimension to Ram Janmabhoomi solution

April 11, 2014 05:35 am | Updated November 17, 2021 06:38 am IST - CHENNAI

Virtually advocating a political solution to the Ram Janmabhoomi issue, Ashok Chowgule, Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s Working President (External), has said “it is now necessary for politics to enter the sphere.”

Restating the VHP’s stand that the Ram Janmabhoomi was forcibly taken away from Hindus and that justice could be done only when it was restored, he said in a communication: “Unless one separates the history and politics of the issue, obfuscation will persist. The historical question is whether a temple in honour of Shri Ram was deliberately destroyed to make way for the Babri structure. If the answer to this question is a no, then the question of whether a temple should be built at the place simply does not arise.”

To deal with the historical question, in December 1990, the Chandra Shekar government organised meetings between the VHP and the All India Babri Masijd Action Committee (AIBMAC). Both sides were to furnish evidence by December 22 and based on these, each side was to submit rejoinders by January 6, 1991. The meetings remained inconclusive, after the committee experts failed to turn up.

Mr. Chowgule said the Ram Janmabhoomi site should have been transferred to Hindus. The AIBMAC had said that if proof of the destruction of a temple was produced, it would have no objection to such a transfer. When the proof was given, it refused to honour its word, and neither the government nor the media insisted it did so.

The solution would have been on the lines of the Somnath temple.

Mr. Chowgule said that in A.D. 1528, Babur destroyed a temple in memory of Lord Ram to build the Babri structure. The purpose was not religious but political. The question now was whether Hindus were right in forcibly reclaiming the site. Hindus made efforts to negotiate its peaceful return, but they were frustrated. The P.V. Narasimha Rao government sought the Supreme Court’s intervention. The government undertook in an affidavit that if this question was answered in the affirmative, it would act in a manner that would respect Hindu sentiment. The Supreme Court then asked the Allahabad High Court to take up the matter. The High Court accepted the primary point that Hindus had made, but “confused the issue” by stating that the land be divided into three parts — two to the two primary Hindu litigants and one to the Muslim side.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.