Saturday, 3 December, 2022
HomePoliticsWant Ram temple at Ayodhya very soon, will remove cause of Hindu-Muslim...

Want Ram temple at Ayodhya very soon, will remove cause of Hindu-Muslim tension: Bhagwat

Text Size:

RSS chief Bhagwat talks of SC striking down Section 377, says it’s important to change with time but also need to address ‘aswasthata’ in society.

New Delhi: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat Wednesday said he wanted a Ram temple to be built on the disputed site in Ayodhya very soon. He claimed that if done, it will remove a “major cause of the rift between Hindus and Muslims”.

“As RSS chief, I want the grand Ram temple to be built at the Ram Janmabhoomi very soon. If this is done, one major reason for the tension between Hindus and Muslims will be dealt with,” Bhagwat said.

“Had it not been for politics over the issue, this would have happened long ago. If a temple is built there with consensus, there will be no more pointing fingers at Muslims”.


Also read: RSS interpretation of Hindutva does not exclude Muslims: Mohan Bhagwat


Bhagwat was responding to questions on a gamut of issues on the concluding day of the Sangh’s three-day conclave, Bharat of Future: An RSS Perspective.

Asked about why the minority community has a fear of the Sangh, the RSS chief said the definition of “minorities” itself wasn’t clear.

“The definition of alpsankhyak (minorities) isn’t clear. The Sangh disagrees with the use of the word,” he said.

“Before the British rule, we never used this term. We are the children of one country and should live as brothers, and not use terms like minority and majority communities”.

He also claimed the “Muslims who live closer to RSS shakhas feel safer”, and said those who fear the organisation should see its working.

“We are all Hindus by identity but it doesn’t mean we don’t consider Muslims as our own,” he added.

On the final day, Bhagwat also touched upon a number of issues — from Article 370 and 35A, the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to cow vigilantism and homosexuality.

On decriminalisation of homosexuality

The sarsanghchalak adopted a complex position on the Supreme Court’s striking down of Section 377 that criminalised homosexuality. While he said it was important to change with time, he also spoke of addressing “aswasthata” (unhealthiness) in society.

“We need to change with the times. Everyone is equally a part of society,” Bhagwat said, even as he added that provisions had to be made to address aswasthata in a healthy society so people don’t fall off the margins.

In recent times, the RSS has maintained that although homosexuality should not constitute a crime, the Sangh does not approve of it socially.

On cow vigilantism, demographic change, UCC

Bhagwat said while “gau raksha” (cow protection) was necessary, violence on any pretext was wrong.

“Taking the law in your hands or resorting to violence for anything is wrong and should be punished. But gau raksha is necessary. Many Muslims in our country also protect the cow with devotion,” he said.

Bhagwat also said that if voices are raised against violence by cow vigilantes, they should also be raised against cow smuggling. “We should stop these double standards,” he said.

To a question on the fears of “changing demographics due to a rising Muslim population”, he said, “Maintaining demographic balance is significant. Keeping this in mind, a population control policy is needed and it should be applied to all sections equally… Demographic imbalance also occurs because of infiltration.”

On the Uniform Civil Code, he said it should be the guiding principle and the country should be under one common law.

On Article 370 and 35A in J&K

Amid a heated debate around Article 35 A in Jammu and Kashmir, with the matter now before the Supreme Court, Bhagwat put forth the Sangh’s unequivocal stance that both, 35A and Article 370, should be scrapped.

“We don’t agree with both. We think both should go,” he said.

The abolition of Article 370 and 35 A, which grant special privileges to J&K, has consistently been on the BJP’s agenda.

On caste-related issues

The sarsanghchalak sought to portray the Sangh as an organisation that does not believe in caste discrimination.

“The RSS fully supports roti-beti relationship between various Hindu communities. If you look at the percentages of inter-caste marriages in India, the highest will be among swayamsevaks,” he said.

On the issue of reservations, Bhagwat said the Sangh “fully supports all reservations provided by the Constitution to remove social inequalities and will continue to do so”.

“Reservation isn’t the problem, it is the politics of reservations that is,” he said.

On the amendments to the SC/ST Atrocities act brought in by the BJP government, Bhagwat said the act needs to be “implemented properly but not misused”.

The Sangh’s political standing

Much like on the first two days of the conclave, Bhagwat sought to underline that the Sangh wasn’t a political outfit and was open to all political parties.


Also read: RSS’ vision of Hindutva is not meant to oppose anyone, says chief Mohan Bhagwat


“We have not supported any political party till date. As for organisation secretaries, we give them to whoever asks us,” he said.

“If other parties ask us for RSS organisation secretaries, we will consider and if the party’s work is good, we will give,” he said, when asked why it was only the BJP that had organisation secretaries from the RSS.

On education

Bhagwat emphasised that while the Sangh was not opposed to English, it believed education should be imparted in the mother tongue.

“We have no enmity with English but education should be in the mother tongue. Angrezi hatao nahi, angrezi rakho par yathasthan rakho (don’t get rid of English. Keep it, but keep it in place),” he said.

He also sought to underline the importance of the three-language formula, stating that while those from non-Hindi speaking regions of the country learn Hindi, those from Hindi speaking regions should learn at least one other regional language.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

2 COMMENTS

  1. My father’s village is in the present day Pakistan. If in his loving memory I visit Pakistan and wish to see the place “where my father was born”, I will be disappointed. The place must have changed beyond recognition even for the locals in, say, last twenty years, and my father was born “somewhere” in that village 100 years ago!

    Within a hundred years the probability to “pinpoint” a courtyard where my father was born has become ZERO, because no one from my grandparents’ time is alive and living there who could guide me to where that family “actually lived”.

    The point I am trying to make is, no matter how earnestly we revere lord Ram, we as fair people can only be sure that He was born “somewhere” in Ayodhya. If SOME Hindus are jumping up and down and shouting “HERE, HERE, this is THE COMPOUND where lord Ram was born”, then we can be sure that they are being, self-righteous, ignorant, arrogant, spiteful to the extent of being violent against some people (read Muslims) who were the occupants of THAT COMPOUND till recently.

    Since the emotions of the two communities have been inflamed to dangerous extent by the demolition of the Babri mosque, senior and responsible leaders from both sides should agree to declare “that FORCIBLY emptied compound” as a NO TRESPASS ZONE for both communities. Mr Mohan Bhagwat should take an initiative in THAT direction rather than harping that a Ram Mandir should be constructed EXACTLY in that compound.

    It might very well be that that was no mosque, no namaz was being offered there, and it was just a dilapidated structure which the Hindu zealots pulled down. That well might be true. But this truth should have been established in the courts and thereby told to the opposite side BEFORE it was demolished WITHOUT ANY LEGAL PERMISSION.

    The last badge that the structure carried read, MOSQUE. No one can deny that.

    It will be like an ostrich hiding its head in sand and believing that no danger exists, to say that this is “a land ownership case”. It WAS, before the demolition of the structure that stood on that land. Now it is the case of two people’s incensed religious feelings.

    In my humble opinion, the only way to break the impasse is to carry forward that “no trespass zone” idea. Let us first drop the word ‘Babar’ or ‘Babri’. Let us bring in a name that is revered by the Muslims just as “Ram” is by the Hindus. Muhammad. And let us construct a hospital for the poor there — because both communities have ample numbers of the poor. How about this:
    RAM-MUHAMMAD NATIONAL HOSPITAL FOR THE POOR?
    (Actually personally I wouldn’t mind even a football ground, because both peoples play football)

Comments are closed.

Most Popular