After Bhagwat’s temple-mosque dig, Prayagraj meet to take final call on future disputes

All eyes are now on Prayagraj where Hindu religious leaders are expected to meet in January 2025 as part of the ‘Dharam Sansad’ of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) to decide the future course of action on disputed sites in Mathura and Varanasi.

Why Hindu leaders do not agree with RSS

Bhagwat’s statement has created a divide between the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and other Hindu outfits, with leaders of the latter asserting that the RSS ‘Sarsanghchalak’ doesn’t speak for them.

Annoyed by Bhagwat’s remarks, several Hindu religious leaders who plan to meet in Prayagraj for the three-day meeting starting January 25, 2025, have decided to discuss the matter and decide on the future course of action.

Also read: Why September 2025 could be make or break for Narendra Modi

The religious leaders believe that the RSS cannot stop people and organisations from taking up issues related to disputes over temples and mosque premises.

“The real challenge for the members of the Sangh Parivar is that we can neither comment on the statements of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat nor go against the statements of the religious leaders. The issue will come up for discussion at the VHP’s Dharam Sansad in January. Among the topics that will be taken up for discussion are the disputed sites in Mathura and Kashi and what should be the future course of action,” a senior leader of VHP told The Federal.

Final call at Prayagraj meeting

At a recent lecture in Pune, the RSS chief while highlighting the plurality of Indian society had commented that certain people and organisations, emboldened by the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, were now raking up temple-mosque disputes only to emerge as Hindu leaders.

While the statement, coming from the chief of the ideological parent of the ruling BJP, seemed like a warning to stop Hindu outfits in their tracks, senior VHP leaders said a final call on the issue will be made by religious leaders at the meeting in Prayagraj.

Also read: Another blunt talk by Mohan Bhagwat, but is he really walking the talk?

“If the religious leaders give some instructions after the three-day meeting at Prayagraj in January 2025, then it will be very difficult for the VHP and other organisations of the Sangh Parivar to ignore their directive,” a senior VHP leader told The Federal.

‘RSS chief spoke for Sangh Parivar’

While the statements of the RSS chief have annoyed some religious leaders who have spoken openly of their disagreements, members of the Sangh Parivar believe that it was a conscious decision of Bhagwat to talk about the views of RSS and its affiliates on some of the crucial issues.

“I am not surprised that Bhagwat spoke about the temple-mosque issue. The RSS chief gave the view of the Sangh Parivar. At a meeting with intellectuals on December 5, he also made it clear that he will speak openly about different issues and the RSS stand on them,” said Dilip Deodhar, Nagpur-based author and observer on RSS.

Also read: Mohan Bhagwat's Vijayadashami speech: Duality at best, duplicity at worst

“When the RSS chief speaks about an issue, he considers the different opinions that his statement will elicit from various individuals and organisations. Yet, he decided to speak on the temple-mosque issue. This show it was a conscious decision. His statements reflect the stand of the Sangh Parivar and have nothing to do with the decisions of other individuals and organisations,” Deodhar added.

‘Hindu’ in RSS vs ‘Hindu’ in other outfits

Speaking about the reactions and criticisms that the RSS chief’s remarks have received from different religious leaders and organisations, Deodhar said Bhagwat was only responsible for RSS and the 32 affiliates of the Sangh Parivar.

“There is a difference between the definition of Hindu in RSS and other organisations. In RSS, Hindu is about civilisation, but in Hindu Mahasabha or other organisations, Hindu is a religious identity. In RSS, the word Hindu is for everyone irrespective of caste and religion, it is an inclusive concept,” Deodhar said.

Also read: Generous, shows goodwill regardless of religion, caste: Bhagwat defines Hindu

Demand to amend Places of Worship Act

Religious leaders and organisations which have worked with the RSS during the Ram Janambhoomi movement and do not agree with Bhagwat’s latest statement, say the real problem lies in the Place of Worship Act, which must be amended.

The 1991 law prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

Also read: India’s fertility rate going down, every woman must have 3 kids: RSS chief

“Our religion has been here for millennia. Although the Places of Worship Act 1991 excluded the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya, we have always opposed it because we took a decision that August 15, 1947, cannot be taken as a cut-off date to deny our Hindu community legal recourse to recover its ancient places of worship, whose character was changed by oppressive foreign rulers,” Karttik Chopra, national spokesperson of the Nirmohi Akhara, told The Federal

“Anyhow, the Act does not stop the process of ascertainment of pre-existing religious character of any such site. It only says that the existing religious place as on August 15, 1947 cannot be changed. Ideally the Places of Worship Act should have been repealed by Parliament long ago,” he added.

Also read: Places of Worship Act: SC bars registration of fresh suits till further orders

Decision must lie with affected party: Nirmohi Akhara

While most religious leaders and organisations differ from the statements of Bhagwat, members of the Nirmohi Akhara believe that it was the right of the affected organisations and individuals to take legal recourse. Senior leaders of the Nirmohi Akhara believe that the first right to decide on taking a legal recourse should be with the affected party.

“We firmly believe that it is the Constitutional right of everyone to say what they want within the boundaries of the rights given to all citizens of our nation by the Constitution. We believe that it is first the right of the affected party to decide if any legal steps to ascertain the religious character of a place should be taken or not with relation to its owned or overseen religious site under a superimposing structure,” Chopra said.