To liberate ancient temples at Kashi, Mathura, etc.the Central Government should withdraw the ‘Places of Worship Act’
On the 8th Anniversary of Hindu Vidhidnya Parishad, Hindu Advocates demand
Mumbai – When the agitation of Shriram Janmabhoomi was going on in 1991, the Narasimha Rao Government legislated the ‘Places of Worship Act’ to suppress the just demands of Hindus. Therefore, the state of religious places was maintained status quo as on 15th August 1947; the only exception was the Shriram Janmabhoomi. According to this Act, if a mosque or church has been built in place of a temple by demolishing it before 1947, a temple cannot be built there again. Any such case can not be challenged nor an appeal can be made in the Court.
However, the Wakf Boards of Muslims can declare any property as Wakf property. This is contradictory to the provisions of the Constitution in the context of the principle of equality and leads to religious discrimination. Hindus who are the ‘majority’ in the country should also get equal justice and religious rights. For this purpose and to liberate ancient religious temples at Kashi, Mathura, etc., the Central Government should withdraw the ‘Places of Worship Act’ – this demand was made by Supreme Court Lawyer Adv. Vishnu Shankar Jain (Spokesperson of ‘Hindu Front for Justice’) in a special discussion session on ‘Hindu Rashtra’. This session had been organised Online on the occasion of the 8th Anniversary of ‘Hindu Vidhidnya Parishad’.
Adv. Virendra Ichalkaranjikar (National President of Hindu Vidhidnya Parishad), Adv. Subhash Jha (Supreme Court Lawyer) and Mr. Ramesh Shinde (National Spokesperson of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti) participated in the discussion, which was telecast live on the Facebook Page ‘HinduAdhiveshan’ and YouTube of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti.
Adv. Subhash Jha said, “While passing the judgement on Sabarimala Temple case, the Supreme Court referred to the judgements of the US Courts. However, the lifestyle and cultural, behaviour patterns in the US are very different than those of Indians. The Court does not refer to the Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharat; this is a basic mistake”.
Adv. Virendra Ichalkaranjikar said, “The partition of the country took place on the basis of religion. Those who wanted Pakistan went there. In such a case, how can you call this a democratic act ? The Supreme Court says the slogan-raising of ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ for demanding Khalistan is not a crime; then how can the demand to establish the Hindu Rashtra be a crime ?” He added, “It is always said that the Constitution is supreme. Many leaders, officers, Policemen who took oath in the name of the Constitution indulge in corruption. Then, what is the importance of the Constitution ? On the other hand, when an oath is taken in the name of Shrimadbhagawadgeeta, the sentiment is – ‘I will undergo the fruit of whatever karma I perform’. This is why, the Hindu community should now demand the Hindu Rashtra (Nation)”.