Source: ST
Svami Nishchalananda Sarasvati is consistent in his stand. His stand was and remains - “No mosque. Only temple.” This he had said even immediately after the Supreme Court judgement. Mosque not just not next to the temple, not even 5 KM or 25 KM or any KMs away.
His Reasoning:
-
why should Hindus, who are owners of this property, give to the squatter any compensation? This case is about eviction of the squatter to reclaim what belongs to Hindus, not a give-and-take bargain.
-
If you give Muslim Ulemas a replacement of Babri in Ayodhya, they would turn this into a renewed launchpad of Islam, and worse - from within your teertha kshetra. (Like देववृंद a Hindu teertha, is today known primarily for Dar ul Uloom Deoband - the ideological mother of Taliban)
What the book you are quoting doesn’t say is two things:
-
PVNR wanted VHP out of this process (his political agenda), but it was Puri Acharya who insisted on PVNR and his emissaries that VHP was also a stake holder and therefore he wanted them included. This didn’t work because VHP insisted that their preferred Shankaracharya of Jyotirmatha, Svami Vasudevananda ji should be in the trust. This was a spanner in the wheels because no other peeth acknowledged him as a Shankaracharya (and indeed he was later declared by the Court also as invalid and unqualified since he was not a Sanyasi)
-
What was the stand of VHP and RSS to this initiative of the Shankaracharyas of Shringeri and Dwaraka? Ashok Singhal derided the Shankaracharyas as “Sarkari Sadhu”! Vinay Katiyar said he would turn entire Uttar Pradesh into a battlefield, when the Shankaracharya proposed to do a renewed Shilanyasa on the erstwhile Babri location as the next step.
Pujya Mahabhaga of Shringeri, who avoided going to other Peethas - had personally visited Puri in 1994, stayed there, and spent quite some time in trying to convince the Puri Acharya to join the Ramalaya proposal.
The Puri Acharya, very junior as a Sanyasi to the Shringeri Mahabhaga, and who was only recently installed as a Shankaracharya, didn’t agree to a mosque being allowed anywhere, leave alone nearby.
I had mentioned in this quoted tweet how bitterly VHP opposed Shankaracharyas’ Trust for temple construction on RJB site.
Here is RSS Sarsanghchalak Rajju Bhaiya categorically declaring that RSS would not allow RJB construction under any other body except VHP’s Nyas. If Govt wanted they could appoint some of its nominations to VHP’s Nyas. Shankaracharyas may guide VHP’s nyas, but only a temple built under VHP trust would be acceptable!
Not only “Mandir Wahin Banaenge” (which PVNR agreed to) but actually “Mandir Hami Banaenge”!
All politics.
18 April 1994.