Ayodhya: ‘Mandir and Masjid should be constructed together’ is evidence of mental bankruptcy, says VHP.
VHP rejects fresh proposal to accommodate both a mosque and temple in Ram Janmabhoomi premises to resolve Ayodhya dispute.
HENB | Ayodhya | 24 Feb 2015:: According to the news of DNA, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on Tuesday rejected a fresh proposal for accommodating both a mosque and a temple to resolve the Ayodhya dispute and smelt a conspiracy in it as the suggestion was evidence of “mental bankruptcy”.
“This is not the first time that such a proposal has been floated. This type of conspiracy can never happen. To think that Mandir and Masjid should be constructed together is evidence of mental bankruptcy,” VHP joint general secretary Surendra Kumar Jain said told reporters. He said this when his attention was drawn to a fresh initiative by the main litigant in Babri Masjid case Hashim Ansari.
Ansari met Akhara Parishad president Mahant Gyan Das today to discuss proposals for resolution of Ayodhya dispute and put it before the Supreme Court. The formula for out-of-court settlement broadly talks about the 70-acres of disputed premises accommodating both mosque and temple with a partition wall which will be 100 feet high, according to Gyan Das, the chief priest of Ayodhya’s famous Hanuman Garhi temple.
Jain said the proposal itself was an “insult” to judiciary as the High Court had clearly stated that there was a temple which was demolished for a mosque.
“These people are not aware of law. We cannot accept this,” he reiterated.
Strongly defending the ‘ghar wapsi’ programme of the Hindu outfits, he described the initiative as a kind of “vaccination to kill the virus of hatred.” At the same time, he supported enactment of law against religious conversion.
As per report of The Hindu, In a new twist to the complex Ram temple-Babri mosque case, main litigant Hashim Ansari has discussed with Akhara Parishad chief Mahant Gyan Das a new proposal for the resolution of the Ayodhya dispute that they plan to put before the Supreme Court.
The out-of-court settlement proposal suggests that the 70 acres of the disputed premises would accommodate both mosque and temple with a partition wall at a height of 100 feet.
Mr. Ansari has met Mr. Gyan Das, who is also the head priest of Ayodhya’s famous Hanuman Garhi temple, on several occasions to find a solution to the complex issue that has remained unresolved for decades.
The idea behind the plan is to find a middle path keeping in mind the sensibilities of both the Hindu and the Muslim communities, sources said.
“We are drafting the final points of a negotiation draft, which will be presented before the Supreme Court soon after the hearing starts. We will be meeting the Prime Minister too to seek his cooperation,” Mr. Das said after the meeting on Monday.
The proposal has been discussed with top Hindu religious groups and main spiritual leaders, he added.
Mr. Ansari said, “After the draft is finalised, we will get it signed by all the top religious leaders from both the communities who are supporting our cause since the beginning, before submitting it in the Supreme Court.” The negotiation draft would be made public only after it was submitted to the Supreme Court, he added.
Referring to recent statements by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on the issue, Mr. Das said it was not a party in the “peace process”.
“They just want to create communal tension between the communities…We are in favour of construction of both Ram temple and Babri mosque adjacent to each other but with a huge division wall of more than 100 ft in between,” the Hanuman Garhi temple head priest said.
Hindu Existence Editor and prominent Hindu interlocutor, Upananda Brahmachari told HENB that the a Special Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad had ruled on Ayodhya dispute on the last day of September 2010, after long sixty years after the matter went to the court, that the disputed land in Ayodhya (where the Babri structure stood for 500 years until it was demolished in 1992), would be divided into three parts. A two-thirds portion was directed to be shared by two Hindu plaintiffs (Lord Rama and the Nirmohi Akhara) and one-third would be given to the Sunni Muslim Waqf Board.
Hindus were never satisfied with such a decision to give a portion of a proved Hindu shrine complex to those who oppose Hindu culture, tradition, customs and rituals in every foot step. Though, now it’s an attracted matter in the Supreme Court of India, Hindus hope a new exploration to give the exclusive possession of Sri Ram Janma Bhoomi premises (2.7 acres) for Hindus only and for the civil settlement appropriate portion of land may be given to the Sunni Waqf Board in a Muslim locality, Brahmachari said to HENB. Brahmachari supports the stand of VHP as ‘To think that Mandir and Masjid should be constructed together is evidence of mental bankruptcy’.
The position of intervening Mohant Gyan Das of Hanuman Garhi Akhara ans the president of ABAP has always been disputed for his role against Hindu sentiment and favoring Muslim demands for constructing a Babri Mosque in the very Janmabhoomi complex. Gyan Das has a strong political connection with Congress and Samajwadi Party and he wants to blackmail both Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board, as experts opine. The Hindu society never likes the hobnobbing of this Mohant Gyan Das with anti Hindu forces including the opposing party to Shri Ram Janmabhoomi.
