29.8 C
New Delhi
Tuesday 7 July 2020

Congress to accept whatever SC verdict on Ayodhya is

As a Hindu, I want a temple to be there, but the law of the country is to be respected, too: Jitin Prasada, member of Congress Working Committee

Before the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ayodhya dispute case is out, the Congress, citing the need for respect for the law, has said that everyone should come to terms with the decision of the apex court. Party leaders are cautious about the impact of the decision. Jitin Prasada, a member of the Congress Working Committee (CWC), advocates the construction of a Ram temple on the disputed site, but he says that the court order should be followed and citizens should not challenge the law of the land.

The former Union minister said in a conversation with a news agency, “As a Hindu, I want a temple to be there, but the law of the country is to be respected, too. Whatever is the order of the Supreme Court, it should be acceptable to everyone.

“The verdict should arrive,” Prasada said, “as soon as possible and put an end to all debate on this issue. This is the time to move in the direction of communal harmony.”

Congress is firm on the stand that all parties should accept any verdict that is delivered by the Supreme Court. Recently, the issue of Ram temple was raised in a workshop of Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee held in Bareilly. A source said that the issue was discussed briefly.

The hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case has been completed in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is scheduled to retire next month and it is expected that a decision may come forth before his retirement. For, otherwise, a fresh bench has to be constituted to hear the case anew.

In the near-40 day-long hearing in the case, while the Hindu parties to the dispute based their arguments largely on archaeological findings, scriptures and modern literature, the Muslim side either questioned the veracity of every claim or asked why a temple demolition by Mughal conqueror Babur was not mentioned either in Ramcharitmanas or in Baburnama. The Supreme Court took no action, in the meantime, on an unethical act like the Muslim party sharing their moulding-of-relief affidavit with others before submitting it to the bench or the unseemly act of Rajeev Dhavan tearing apart a map submitted by one of the Hindu parties.

Follow Sirf News on social media:

For fearless journalism

%d bloggers like this: