PM Modi must lead to start Ram Temple in Ayodhya in accordance to Ayodhya Act, 1993 and Narsimha Rao Govt’s affidavit submitted to SC in 1994.

Dr Swamy’s Solution for Ayodhya: Modi Govt can start Temple at Ram Janmabhoomi in accordance to Ayodhya Act, 1993 and the P V Narsimha Rao Govt’s affidavit submitted to SC in 1994. The pending Title Suit in SC on Ayodhya matter does not affect at all. 

Upananda Brahmachari | HENB | Haridwar | Jan 13, 2018:: As the Supreme Court India has deferred the pending Ayodhya matter on 29th January after the recusal of Justice U U Lalit from the 5 judge bench as constituted most ‘irresponsibly’ by the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, the sentiment of Hindu mass and the litigants in favour of construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya unbounds all limits.

The most derogatory course of action taken by the Indian Judiciary through its court of law as it found no urgency in the Ayodhya matter pending for last 8 years in Supreme Court involving the majority sentiment of 1 billion Hindus is now enforcing the concerned people to get any option to reach its end to start Ramjanmabhoomi Temple surpassing the title suit pending in the apex court.

Let the Title suit of Ayodhya be pending in SC for the successive ten CJIs for next fifty years, but Hindu leaders in RSS-VHP circle and Bharatiya Janata Party representing it as a popular Hindu party must find the solution for the early construction of Ram Temple in Ayodhya avoiding all judicial truce and certainly in a constitutional manner. Though Hindus have their highest veneration for Judicial system, but they can’t wait indefinitely for any legal ploy.

Though there were several cases pending on Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri dispute since 1949, the Hindus of India destroyed the Babri structure on 6th December, 1992 and made a make-shift temple for Lord Ramlala in a tent house on the very Ramjanmabhoomi site in Ayodhya under the leadership of RSS-VHP & BJP.

Making a Ram Temple upon the razed Babri structure brought a severe communal and emergent law and order situation throughout India. The then President Shanker Dayal Sharma declared emergency in BJP ruled states including Uttar Pradesh and signed an Ayodhya Act 1993 under the recommendation of Congress led Government in the Center under the Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao.

By the virtue of The acquisition of certain area at Ayodhya Act (ACT NO. 33 OF 1993)+, the the right, title and interest in relation to the area of some stood transferred to, and vest in, the Central Government. The Narsimha Rao government acquired 67.7 acres of land in and around Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri structure situated at three villages viz Kot Ramchandra,  Avadhkhas and  Jalwanpur within Pargana Haveli Avadh, tehsil Faizabad Sadar, now renamed as Ayodhya. The then Central government had done so in order to prevent any further conflagration after Babri demolition.

In the advent of the acquisition under Ayodhya Act 1993, Dr Ismail Faruqui and other Muslims had challenged the validity of the act, saying governments have no right to acquire the area on which the Islamic prayer house Babri Masjid stood before 6th Dec, 1992. In 1994, while upholding the Act with certain caveats, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court had observed that, “(the mosque) is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in the open place. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India.” The judges had said so in the context of the acquisition of the disputed area alone. Hence, the Ayodhya Act 1993 is still valid and the acquired lands in and out Ramjanmabhoomi under the act are very much within the virtual possession and control of Central Govt.

The litigant parties now in the Supreme Court for the title suits challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court’s judgment on division of land of 2.77 acre disputed land of Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri between Ramlala Virajman, Nirmohi Akhada and Sunni Waqf Board have no impact on the authoritative and legal possession upon Ramjanmabhoomi sites at present. By the virtue of Ayodhya Act 1993, the Govt has already made parks, beautification, public utilities, pilgrim centers, police postings, barricades, razor fens on the acquired lands and the Govt may construct there Ram Temple also on the very spot Ramjanmabhoomi site including Ram Chabutara, Sita ki Rasoi etc. without any interference of anybody through govt or non-govt agencies. But, after its settlement of the pending title suit, the winner(s) must be given the compensation for the already acquired land under the declared ‘cash amount equivalent to the market value of the land, building, structure or other property’ as per clause 8 under Chapter IV of The acquisition of certain area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 and the proviso of Art. 300 A. Then there is no problem whether the Court of Law takes its time of 5, 10, 20, 50 or another 100 years to settle the pending Ayodhya title suit setting their priority on it. But, Hindus can’t tolerate Ramlala in a tent house for an indefinite period.

This position has also been advised by Rajya Sabha MP and Law Expert Dr Subramanian Swamy in a tweet on Jan 10 as, “We do not need SC for that. Namo govt can implement PVNR’s Cabinet decision 1994 and hand the janmabhoomi Ayodhya land tonight to VHP. After SC decides title, pay the winner compensation for nationalising his land u/Article 300A.”

As a matter of fact, for the P V Narsimha Rao govt’s cabinet decision, its affidavit in the SC submitted by the Solicitor General of India on 1994 in Ismail Faruqui  Case+ and for exercising the  power conferred in Clause (1) of Article 143 of the Constitution of India by then President of India, Dr Shanker Dayal Sharma, the construction of a Ram Temple can be started on the Ramjanmabhoomi as the pre-existence of an old temple under the then existed Babri structure was established by the Report of Archaeological Survey of India as submitted in  the court.

On 7th January, 1993,  President Shanker Dayal Sharma wanted to know from the court of law, “Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood?”

And from the available statement submitted in Supreme Court in Sept 1994 on behalf of GOI to SC through the Solicitor General, it is known that the P V Narsimha Rao Govt committed to enforce a solution in the Ayodhya matter in a way of decision would come in a manner, “If efforts at a negotiated settlement as aforesaid do not succeed, Government is committed to enforce a solution in the light of the Supreme Court’s opinion and consistent with it. Government’s action in this regard will be even-handed in respect of both communities. If the question referred is answered in the affirmative, namely, that a Hindu temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished structure, Government action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu community. If, on the other hand, the question is answered in the negative, namely that no such Hindu temple/structure existed at the relevant time, then government action will be in support of the wishes of the Muslim community.”

Subsequently, in 2002, the Allahabad High Court ordered the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to find out if a temple existed under the disputed and destroyed Babari structure in the area as claimed by the Hindus and in January 2003, the ASI started its excavation to find out the traces of the temple beneath the Ram Janmabhoomi.

K K Muhammad, a lead archaeologist of ASI in 2003 Ayodhya excavation writes+:

“In 2003, when excavations were again conducted, as ordered by the Allahabad High Court, more than 50 brick foundations, which once supported the pillars of the temple were found.

“The ‘amalaka, which is usually found on the top of the temple and makar pranali’ through which the ‘abhisheka’ water flows, were also excavated. Uttar Pradesh’s Archaeology director, Ragesh Tiwari, submitted a report that when the front yard of the Babri Masjid was leveled, 263 temple-related artifacts were found. After a comprehensive analysis of the evidences that had surfaced during the excavation and the discovery of historical artifacts, the Archaeological Survey Of India came to the conclusion that there existed a temple beneath the Babri Masjid.

“The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court also reached the same conclusion. To make the excavation impartial, it was ensured that 52 Muslims were included in the team of 131 of excavators. Not just that, the excavation was conducted in the presence of the representatives and archaeological historians belonging to the BMAC group, Suraj Bhan, Mondal, Supriya Varma and Jaya Menon. The ASI had once again, proved its impartiality”.

Hence, as per Ayodhya Act, 1993, commitment of then P V Narsimha Rao Govt and findings of ASI including the observation of Allahabad High Court on the affirmation for a pre-existed Hindu Temple beneath the once existed Babri structure…. all lead a conclusion to start a Ram Temple in the Ram Janmabhoomi site without any hesitation and hindrance.

All these are also precisely told by the Ram Sethu and Ram Mandir Expert law maker Dr Subramanian Swamy in a series of tweets as, “There is only one way now to build Ram Temple in Ayodhya and that by giving the land to VHP asap, and then inform SC that when it decides on the Title, perhaps by 2029, the Government under Article 300A of the Constitution will pay compensation for the land” or “I repeat again and will keep repeating till Namo hears me on this: Supreme Court hearing on the Title issue is irrelevant because of the concept of Eminent Domain for Govt under Art 300A. Namo must hand over the Janmabhoomi today to VHP on PVNR “firman”.”

View: “Ram Mandir Ayodhya hearing is irrelevant”, Says BJP MP Subramanian Swamy

Dr Subramanian Swamy’s EXCLUSIVE Interview over Ram Mandir row

So, the solution for early construction of Ram Temple is here as ready reference. It has been made on the basis of many legal experts including Dr Subramanian Swamy.

Now, it is the compulsion of PM Modi, BJP President Amit Shah, BJP and Sangha Parivar to start the Ram Temple in Ayodhya without delay with the help of construed Ayodhya Act, 1993 and the PV Narsimha Rao Govt’s affidavit made in the SC in 1994.

To show Hindu broadness, a beautiful Mosque can be built in the Muslim dominated Alambagh Katra locality in Ayodhya as it was also confirmed in P V Narsimha Rao affidavit in 1994.

If PM Modi, BJP and Sangha Parivar fail to use these useful weapons handed over them by earlier Cong Govt to win the Ayodhya battle, it will be a fate of Ravana for BJP in 2019 General Election.

…

__inputs from various sources. Courtesy to the pics and links used above.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.