VHP claims SC panel mediating the Ayodhya dispute is a “conspiracy to deprive Hindus”

On 8 March, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court constituted a panel, to mediate the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute, headed by retired SC judge FM Khalifullah. It gave the panel eight weeks to arrive at an agreeable solution. This month, the apex court extended the deadline to 15 August.

Even before the mediation committee has submitted its final report, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, an affiliate of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, has criticised the panel. The attack came during a meeting of the VHP’s highest decision making body, the Kendriya Margdarshak Mandal—central governing council—in Haridwar, in Uttar Pradesh, on 20 June. At the meeting, Champat Rai, the VHP vice president and an RSS pracharak, accused the SC-formed three-member panel of “not working in the interest” of Hindus.

“In his speech, Champat Rai described the SC panel as part of a conspiracy hatched to deprive Hindus of their rights in Ayodhya,” a member of the KMM who attended the meeting told me, on the condition of anonymity. “Rai also said that Hindus have won whenever they have fought for their rights but lost in every negotiated settlement.”

While confirming Rai’s remarks, another KMM member, who also requested not to be identified, added that the VHP vice president, who has been representing the outfit before the mediation committee, referred to the panel as a “conspiracy hatched by three Tamilians.” Rai was referring to the fact that the three members of the panel—Khalifullah, the senior advocate Sriram Panchu and the spiritual leader Ravi Shankar—all originally hail from Tamil Nadu.

While setting up the committee, the court directed that the mediation would be held at Faizabad, in Uttar Pradesh. It said that “utmost confidentiality” should be maintained to ensure a successful mediation process and also barred the media from reporting the committee’s proceedings.

Shankar’s appointment on the panel had raised questions, as he is known to have signalled his preference for the way the mediation should go. In 2018, he said that Muslims should give up their “claims on Ayodhya as a goodwill gesture.” He further told India Today, “If the court rules against the [Ram] temple, there will be bloodshed. The government may not be able to implement the court order. Do you think the majority community will accept such an order?”

Despite the presence of Shankar on the panel—a member seemingly given to the VHP’s cause—the VHP has not been comfortable with the idea of a negotiated settlement of the Ayodhya dispute. However, it had maintained its silence ever since the panel was constituted.

According to the KMM members, Rai also said in his speech that the VHP will hand over the temple to the local sadhus of Ayodhya after building it through the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, a trust floated by the VHP to oversee its construction. The VHP also passed a resolution in the meeting claiming that only the Nyas had the right to construct the temple.

“The saints of the country appeal to the government to immediately remove all the obstacles in the path so that the grand temple of Lord Ram is built soon according to the wishes of crores of Hindus,” the resolution stated. It added, “Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas alone will build the temple.”

In the press conference that followed the KMM meeting, the VHP prachar-prasarpramukh, or communication head, Vijay Shankar Tiwari, maintained total silence on Rai’s remarks. Instead, he explained the rationale of the Nyas’s right to build the temple. “Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas has led the movement and has overseen the carving of stones so far,” he asserted. “Hence, only Nyas should be allowed to build the temple.”

Rai’s remarks on handing over the temple to Ayodhya’s sadhus after its construction indicate that VHP is trying to placate the sadhus, with whom it has been experiencing turbulent relations over the control of the so-called birth place of Ram. They also show that the VHP is trying hard to retain both—a right to construct temple, if and when it is allowed, and a foothold among sadhus of Ayodhya by addressing their fear of losing out a potent site to the Sangh Parivar.

“The sole objective of the VHP and the Nyas is to capture the sacred land so that it can be used for creating favourable political atmosphere for the Bharatiya Janata Party,” Dharam Das, the head of the Nirvani akhara—or militant ascetic order—one of the three Ramanandi akharas, and a litigant in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case, said. The Ramanandi orders consider Ram as their titular deity. “They should, therefore, be totally kept out of the construction of the temple and its maintenance. Sadhus of Ramanandi orders should alone have the complete right over the future temple.” Significantly, it is because of this realisation that Dharam Das, who was a prominent member of the KMM and one of the founders of Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, now stays away from all the VHP events.

A similar position has been taken by the Nirmohi akhara, another Ramanandi order. This akhara is one of the three litigants among whom the Allahabad high court had split the disputed site in a 2010 judgment. The litigants had challenged the verdict before the Supreme Court, which referred the matter to the mediation panel in March this year.