New Delhi: Union Minister Uma Bharti raked up the issue of Ram Temple and said that she is ready to do everything for the construction of the temple. Talking to reporters, Bharti said, “The construction of Ram Temple is my dream and whatever initiative is required from my end I am ready for it.”
It is to be noted here that Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute cases will be heard by an appropriate bench in the first week of January 2019. While voices emerged within the BJP, favouring early construction of the temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya.
She further said, “I have actively participated in Ram Janambhoomi Andolan & hearing of a case is also underway in connection with it. And I am proud of it.”
On Saturday, former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP and Ram Janambhoomi Nyas president Ram Vilas Vedanti had claimed that the construction of Ram temple will begin in December. Talking to reporters, he had said, “Without an ordinance and on the basis of mutual agreement, Ram temple will be constructed in Ayodhya and a masjid will be constructed in Lucknow.”
Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Sadhvi Prachi also said that Ram Mandir will be constructed in Ayodhya and they will lay the foundation stone of the same on December 6, 2018. She had added that they don’t need anyone for the construction of the
The Visva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have demanded an ordinance to acquire land for the temple in Ayodhya.
Earlier on Friday, the RSS, the ideological mentor of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had said Hindus were “insulted” by the apex court’s observation that Ram temple is not a priority. The RSS has been pressing for Ram Temple in Ayodhya and has found support in Shiv Sena as well while the Congress has been questioning the motive behind the timing of the demand.
The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528, was, on December 6, 1992, razed to the ground allegedly by Hindu activists, claiming that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Ram temple that originally stood there
Earlier, a three-judge bench, by a 2:1 majority, refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam. The matter had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.
An apex court bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence, adding that the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue.
As many as 14 appeals have been filed against the high court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.