Following the bhoomipujan (foundation stone ceremony) at Ayodhya, the demand for restoration of Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi to Hindus has reached the courts with Sri Krishna Virajman filing a civil suit in the Mathura court demanding the return of 13.37 acres land as well as the removal of the Shahi Idgah. The civil suit has been filed jointly by Ranjana Agnihotri and six other devotees.
The UP Sunni Waqf Board and the Shahi Idgah Management Trust Committee (the Trust) have been called upon as defendants (arraigned) by the suit under charges of encroaching upon the land belonging to Shri Krishna Janmasthan and the deity. The suit has also said that the birthplace of Bhagwan Krishna lies below the mosque constructed by the Shahi Idgah Trust.
Furthermore, a demand was put forward to revoke the 20th July 1973 judgment by the Mathura civil judge accepting the compromise between the Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and the Trust.
The plea was made on the basis that the compromise arrangement in 1968 between the two parties (Seva Sansthan and the Trust) was against the interest of the devotees and fraudulent as a considerable portion of the temple land was conceded illegally.
Another allegation made in the suit is that the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust is the actual owner of the temple land and since it has not been active since 1958, the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan has forcefully taken over the rights of the former. Considering this fact, the 1968 arrangement becomes illegal too.
The most important plea made under this suit is to consider Bhagwan Sri Krishna as a child under this petition on the lines of Ramlalla Virajman and be declared as such.
At present, the biggest hurdle in reclaiming Hindu temple lands which have been encroached by Islamic invaders and their descendants including the famous Kashi Vishwanath Mandir and the Sri Krishna Janmasthan is the 1991 Places of Worship Act that restrains Hindus from approaching courts for remedial action and states that status quo as of 15th August 1947 is to be maintained.
The 1991 Act itself is an infringement on the fundamental “right to worship” and practice one’s religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the constitution. Such a blatant anti-Hindu act was allowed to pass muster under the then PV Narasimha Rao Congress government which did monkey-balancing by keeping Sri Ram Janmabhoomi out of its purview.
Despite the Supreme Court (SC) having mentioned this in its order, an Act such as the 1991 Places of Worship Act is an infringement on the rights of Hindus and the courts should not close the doors on the rights of the majority community to seek remedial action on this.
It must also be mentioned here that in a recent meeting of the Akhada Parishad at Prayagraj the gathering of sadhus (seers) had discussed the issue of reclaiming Kashi and Mathura. Even the chief priest of Vrindavan Pandit Gangadhar Pathak who had conducted the bhoomipujan at Ayodhya had reiterated the demand to free Kashi and Mathura to Prime Minister.
In his book “Hindu Temples: What Happened to them?” (Volumes 1 & 2), Shri Sitaram Goel details the brutality unleashed by marauding Islamic invaders who destroyed numerous temples and replaced them with mosques.
However, they employed a cunning modus operandi. Islamists would more often than not partially destroy temples and replace the gopura with a dome to convert the temple into a masjid. Additionally, they would break the vigrahas and carry them off along with temple wealth. Most of the time the pieces of these broken vigrahas would be strewn on steps of mosques for Muslims to trample upon; that was the level of hatred Islamists harbored for Hindus and other Dharmics.
As we have often emphasized, the time for Hindu awakening is ripe and it is the duty of every Hindu to press for reclaiming what is rightfully ours as a part of restoring Hindu pride and heritage. Let the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi struggle be the first step in that direction.
(Featured Image Source: )
Did you find this article useful? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.