Singhal on Advani's Offer

When asked to clarify the VHP stand on the reported statement by the BJP President, L.K. Advani, that he might intervene to influence the VHP over the issue of Krishna Janmabhumi and Kashi Vishwanath  shrines, if the Muslims withdrew their claim from the disputed shrine at Ayodhya. Mr. Singhal said what Mr. Advani had said was only that he would intervene to influence negotiations. As far as the VHP was concerned, it would go by the decision of its "margdarshak mandal". This body, at its meeting in October, 1997 had already included the issue of Kashi and Mathura in the five point-Hindu agenda.                                                                                                                                  (Source: The Hindu, 30 December, 1997)

On Babari Masjid Question

The temple at Ram Janmabhoomi is not one of bricks and mortar. It is an issue which is related to our culture and civilisation ... The temple issue has to be first looked at from the historical context of the site. It has been well established (sic) that in 1528 AD, at the instruction of the Moghul invader Babar, an existing temple in honour of Lord Ram was destroyed and the Babari structure built in its place. The belief that this site is the Ram Janmabhoomi has a history of more than 3000 years (sic) when there was no need to create a controversy if it was not a fact Having established the historical importance of the site for the Hindus, the right question that has to be answered is why the temple should not be built.

It stands to reason that any structure which has come up after destroying a temple, cannot have any religious significance. If (religious) significance is applied in this case, then clearly such people would like to uphold the memory of Babar over Lord Ram. The attachment of such people to our civilisation and culture should then the questioned ... The Babari structure was an ocular reminder that there was an Islamic rule even over the holy Hindu sites ... The Babari structure should not have been allowed to stand in a free India.

A valid issue that comes about is where does one stop in recovering the religious sites of the Hindus. The answer can be obtained from the statement of the VHP in January, 1991, at the time of the negotiation for the peaceful return of the Ram Janmabhoomi site. The essential message was: "We do not even demand the return of the thousands of places of worship that have been forcibly replaced with mosques ... We merely want three places back, three age-old sacred places. And we would prefer getting them back from the Muslim community to getting them back by an official decree ...

Muslims should understand what kind of message they are sending by insisting on continuing the occupation of our sacred places, and occupation started by fanatics and mass-murders like Babar and Aurangzeb. We do not like to think of our Muslim compatriots as heirs and followers of such invaders and tyrants. It is up to them to make a gesture that will signify a formal break with this painful past."

Mathura Spokesman On Mathura and Varansi Questions

As far as we are concerned, Mathura and Kashi are very much on our Hindu agenda. It is not important if the BJP has not taken a stand on them in its manifesto. Due to political compulsions at the moment, they may not like to admit certain things. But BJP is the only party which is so close to our Hindu ethos. Sooner or later, they will act in our interest. Whether Congress forms government at the Centre or the BJP does it, our stance will not change. The only thing is that if there is a non-BJP Government, we (the VHP) will have to work harder to achieve our aim"                                                       (Source: The Hindustan Times, 10 February, 1998)