BJP’s new case for Ram temple

A senior BJP functionary has made a new argument before the Allahabad High Court on why the title suits — on whether a Ram temple or masjid existed at Ayodhya — should be decided in favour of the Hindus, reports Shekhar Iyer.

A senior BJP functionary has made a new argument before the Allahabad High Court on why the title suits — on whether a Ram temple or masjid existed at Ayodhya — should be decided in favour of the Hindus.

HT Image

Invoking “the presence of the divine” at the disputed site, BJP general secretary Ravi Shankar Prasad has told the Lucknow bench of the HC that the Hindus needed to have a temple at the spot because they felt “that presence” there, apart from believing that Ram was born there.

Prasad’s argument is seen as politically significant by BJP leaders, who see the adjudication of the title suits in the near future as a first step towards resolution of the issue. A few days ago, BJP chief Nitin Gadkari had again appealed to the Muslims to allow building of the temple at the spot, while pledging help for them to build a mosque nearby.

Prasad appeared on behalf of the defendant in the case, Ram Chandra Paramhans, before a full bench of the Allahabad High Court. The bench comprising Justices S.U. Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D.V. Sharma is hearing final arguments in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.

Prasad held before the bench that the Hindus felt the “divine presence” at that site even after “the temple’s destruction and erection of a mosque in its place” because, for them, “the deity is the manifestation of the Supreme Being, which is eternal, permanent and omnipresent.”

Muslim groups have contended that the Babrji Masjid existed for a long time and that idols were placed “surreptiously” inside the mosque by Hindu groups to claim that the mosque was a temple once.