NEW DELHI: Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath on Friday targeted the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Congress, accusing them of disrespecting Hindu faith and practising ‘appeasement politics’ by allegedly allowing namaz to be offered at Hanumangarhi in Ayodhya during their tenure.Addressing a public meeting in Bikapur after inaugurating and laying the foundation stone of 217 development projects worth more than Rs 432 crore, UP CM said those who now claim to speak for faith had committed a ‘sin’ by allowing namaz at the temple.“They had namaz offered at Hanumangarhi. Can anyone imagine Hanuman Chalisa being recited inside Jama Masjid? Can any government or the Samajwadi Party or the Congress ever make that happen? If not, then why was this sin committed at Hanumangarhi? Who was responsible for it?” Yogi asked.The chief minister was apparently referring to an incident from November 2003 when an attempt was made to offer namaz outside Hanumangarhi, a temple dedicated to Lord Hanuman, but permission was not granted by the local police.Stepping up his attack, Adityanath alleged that the SP and the Congress had consistently opposed the development of Ayodhya and had also created hurdles in the construction of the Ram temple.“They questioned the very existence of Lord Ram, fired bullets at Ram devotees and created an identity crisis for Ayodhya. After the double-engine government came to power, the grand Ram temple was built and no one could stop it. Today, lakhs of devotees visit Ayodhya every year,” he said.The chief minister further claimed that the opposition was uncomfortable with Ayodhya’s transformation because it had failed to undertake similar development works while in power.“They oppose Ayodhya today because they could not do these works themselves. They are unhappy that an international airport has been named after Maharishi Valmiki and that projects have been named after Nishad Raj and other revered personalities,” he said.Earlier, BJP MP and former Uttar Pradesh director general of police Brij Lal alleged that the Mulayam Singh Yadav government had tried to facilitate Ramzan prayers near Hanumangarhi in 2003 as part of what he described as ‘appeasement politics.’Recalling the incident, Brij Lal claimed that during Ramzan in October-November 2003, the then inspector general of the Lucknow zone allegedly attempted to facilitate the offering of namaz on the road opposite Hanumangarhi with the backing of the state government.According to Brij Lal, the proposal was opposed by the then Faizabad senior superintendent of police, who refused to allow prayers on the public road. He alleged that after discussions, it was decided that namaz, if held, would remain confined to the private premises of the mahant’s residence.Brij Lal further claimed that intelligence inputs suggested prayer mats were being laid from the steps leading to the residence towards the temple complex, but police personnel removed the first mat on the instructions of the SSP, preventing the plan from extending onto the public road.Earlier, after the Ram Mandir Trust accepted the resignation of Champat Rai from the position of general secretary, Yogi accused the rival political parties of ‘making a mockery of Hindu faith’.(with inputs from PTI)
Trending
- A funeral in Iran and the performance of power
- Ram Mandir Donation Case: Ram Mandir donation case: Supreme Court to hear pleas seeking CBI probe on July 13 | India News
- ‘Bones beginning to show, but I feel energetic’: Sonam Wangchuk says hunger ‘stabilised’ after 13-day fast, loses 7.5 kg | India News
- India Women vs England Women Live Score, One-off Test: Historic Lord’s Test begins as Harmanpreet’s side eyes fresh start
- IIT Madras honours 1,842 NPTEL Stars from South India for lifelong learning excellence
- Taylor Swift’s Wedding Guest List Causes Controversy: A-Listers Allegedly Unfamiliar with Bride |
- ‘We're fighting this by ourselves’: Southern Black leaders feel abandoned by Democratic Party
- OpenAI is shutting down its Atlas browser launched less than a year ago and whose most-crucial ‘Google detail’ company did not openly tell users
