On the 8th anniversary of Hindu Vidhidnya Parishad, Hindu lawyers’ demand
When the agitation of Shriram Janmabhoomi was going on in 1991, the then Narasimha Rao Government legislated the ‘Places of Worship (special provisions) Act 1991’ 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 is built in place of the temple by demolishing it earlier than 1947, a temple cannot be built there again. Any such case could not be challenged nor appeal can be made in the court as per the said act. However, the Wakf Boards of Muslims can declare any property as Wakf property. This is contradictory to the provisions in the Constitution in the context of the principle of equality. It is nothing but sheer religious discrimination. Hindus who form the majority in the country should also get equal justice and religious rights. For this purpose and to liberate ancient religious places such as Kashi, Mathura, etc., the Central Government should repeal the ‘Places of Worship (special provisions) Act 1991’, this demand was made by the Spokesperson of ‘Hindu Front for Justice’ and a Supreme Court Lawyer Adv. Vishnu Shankar Jain. He was speaking at a special webinar session ‘Discussion of Hindu Rashtra’ (Charcha Hindu Rashtra Ki) organised online on the occasion of the 8th anniversary of Hindu Vidhidnya Parishad as a part of the ongoing National Lawyers’ convention. Supreme Court Lawyer Adv. Subhash Jha, National President of Hindu Vidhidnya Parishad Adv. Virendra Ichalkaranjikar and National Spokesperson of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti Shri. Ramesh Shinde participated in the webinar. This programme was telecast live on Facebook page ‘HinduAdhiveshan’ and Youtube channel of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti.
While addressing the webinar, 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 cultural lifestyle and behavioural patterns in the US are very different than those of us. The Court does not take the base of Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharat; this is a basic mistake.” Adv. Virendra Ichalkaranjikar said on the occasion, “India was partitioned on the basis of religion. Those who wanted Pakistan went there. Therefore, the remaining country is Hindu Rashtra. The demands of majority Hindus must be considered; however, this is not witnessed. In such a case, how can you call this a Democracy ? The Supreme Court says the slogan-of ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ is not a crime; then how could be the demand to establish Hindu Rashtra be a crime ?” Ramesh Shinde said, “It is always said that the Constitution is supreme. Many leaders, officers, Policemen who took oath in the name of Constitution indulge in corruption. In such a case, does the Constitution hold any significance whatsoever ? On the other hand, when an oath is taken in the name of Shrimad Bhagawadgeeta, the sentiment is ‘I will endure fruit of whatever karma I do’. The hearings in the cases of Rohingyas and terrorists are held by opening the Courts in midnight; however, the same practice is not followed in the case of Hindus. If the Constitution is for all, Hindus must be heard. Justice must be done to Hindus. For this purpose, the Hindu community should now demand ‘Hindu Rashtra’.
