Parliamentary Debate on Places of Worship Act – Part III (Shri Shreesh Chandra Dikshit)

As a continuation of our series on the speeches made against the Places of Worship Act at the time of its introduction in the Parliament, the speech made by Varanasi MP Shri Shreesh Chandra Dikshit is shared here.

Shri Shreesh Chandra Dikshit was a retired IPS officer who joined politics in 1984. He also became a member of VHP in the same year and was arrested in 1990 because of his active involvement in the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. He was elected as the BJP MP of Varanasi in 1991. The speech made by Shri Shreesh Chandra Dikshit is as follows:

“Sir, I rise to oppose the Bill. Sir, you have put me in a strait-jacket. I have to confine myself to the provisions of the Bill and conclude my speech. I must point out why do we oppose this Bill. 

MR. SPEAKER: You must do it within a very short time. 

SHRI SHREESH CHANDRA DIKSHIT (Varanasi): Yes, I will conclude within a very short time. Sir, we see in this Bill, a particular purpose for which it has been brought forward. Now, let me put forth my point of view. It is very unfortunate that in this country every Prime Minister created a problem. The subsequent Prime Ministers, instead of solving those problems, created new problems. You may kindly see this right from the time of Independence. Now, this particular Bill is going to create a problem. It is going to create a problem for the country. And it has been mentioned repeatedly by various hon. Members that, as it is, this country is facing various problems and where is the necessity of bringing forward this legislation.

There is a provision in the Indian Penal Code. There is a Chapter XV in the Indian Penal Code relating to the Offences relating to Religion. In this, it is written: 

“Injuring or defiling places of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class.” 

In this Bill it is written: 

“Any conversion of any such place effected before such commencement which is not liable to be challenged in any court, tribunal or other authority being barred by limitation under any law for the time being in force.” 

The limitation is already there. I just do not understand what was the necessity of bringing forward this legislation. But we apprehend that there is a design in this matter. If we go through the hon. President’s speech we know that it is not the President’s view but the view of the Government and the President is only a spokesman. So, when I criticise or say something about the President’s Address, I do not mean any disrespect to the President. I quote from Paragraph 9 which says: 

“It is a matter of serious concern that the forces of communalism have been able to vitiate the atmosphere in the country leading to the outbreak of serious riots in the last two years. Government is determined to combat such forces and uphold the values of secularism.” 

We have nothing against this particular observation. But immediately the following sentence brings out a different connotation. It says: 

“Government will not allow the rights and interests of religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities to be compromised.”

What does this obviously mean? In the first sentence, you are not referring to the minority communalism but you are referring to the majority communalism because in the second sentence you say that you are going to protect the rights of the linguistic and religious minority forces. And subsequently, the next sentence says: 

“A composite Rapid Action Force will be formed and appropriately equipped and trained to deal with riots” 

May I know where was the necessity of using this word ‘composite’? Are all forces of this country not composite? Is the Army not composite? Are the para-military forces not composite or are the police force not composite. We see some design in this word ‘composite’.

SHRI DIGVLJAYA SINGH (Rajgarh): This is very unfair. He is quoting irrelevant matter

SHRI SHREESH CHANDRA DIKSHIT (Varanasi): You allow me to quote. 

MR. SPEAKER: Your time is very limited. Do not complicate the matter unnecessarily. 

SHRI SHREESH CHANDRA DIKSHlT (Varanasi): Reference has been given in this Bill from paragraph 29 of the President’s Address. Due to this reason, we think if this Bill is passed, it will have very objectionable provisions. 

We don’t know why Jammu and Kashmir has been excluded in this Bill. When Jammu & Kashmir is called as an integral part of the country, then why this Bill is not being implemented in that state, where a lot of Hindu temples have been demolished? That is why we oppose the provisions of this Bill. We oppose it because Jammu & Kashmir has been kept out of this Bill. We have a history before us. The History was Pandora’s box. You can quote any history today. The present cannot be denied. 

SHRI DIGVIJAYA SINGH (Rajgarh): Sir. I am on a point of order, you have confined my speech to certain portions. Now, the hon. Member is showing some photographs. Has he taken your permission to show them to you?

MR. SPEAKER: I approve his point of order. These things cannot be shown in the House

SHRI SHREESH CHANDRA DIKSHlT (Varanasi): At present no dispute is going on about any temple. This Bill has only been brought, because, besides the Ram Janambhoomi, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad had said about other two temples also – Kashi Vishwanath Temple and Krishna Janambhoomi temple in Mathura. Though you have excluded the issue of Ram Janambhoomi from this Bill, you have written in it that this issue will be solved through a negotiated settlement. I am showing these photographs because an hon. Member had said here that if it is proved that a mosque has been constructed by demolishing any temple, we will be the first person to demolish that mosque. It is proved from these photographs. 

MR. SPEAKER: Those photographs should not be shown here

SHRI SHREESH CHANDRA DIKSHIT (Varanasi): I have proof. It is proved from these photographs. I am telling you the factual position

MR. SPEAKER: Please don’t be worried. It will not be proper, if you rise again and again from your seat. If there would have been time, I would have given you time for everything. Please leave It on us, we will see to it. 

SHRI SHREESH CHANDRA DIKSHIT (Varanasi): An hon Member has said In this very House…

MR. SPEAKER: You do not have to reply to them. You have to speak on the provisions.  

SHRI SHREESH CHANDRA DIKSHIT (Varanasi): This is a very important thing. An hon. Member had said yesterday that it has been written on the Kashi Vishwanath Temple that downtrodden Scheduled Castes cannot go inside it. I challenge this statement and I would like to read whatever is written on the temple. This House has been misled. If I am not telling the truth, I should be punished. If that hon. Member has not told the truth and has misled the House, he should apologise.  

Please listen to what is written there. It has been written in four languages. In Sanskrit, it is written: “Arya dharmetaranam pravesho nishiddha”

SHRI SYED SHAHABUDDIN (Kishanganj): Sir, I am on a point of order. You have just now ruled that nothing except which is directly related and relevant to this Bill shall be allowed.

MR. SPEAKER: My ruling is that this is relevant.  PIease understand that time is a very very valuable thing. We have many other Bills to pass. If you do not allow the Bills to be passed, then it will be very difficult. 

SHRI SHREESH CHANDRA DIKSHIT (Varanasi): In Sanskrit, it is written: “Arya dharmetaranam pravesho nishiddha”. It means “Gentlemen not belonging to Hindu religion are requested not to enter the temple”. The same is written in Hindi and Urdu also.

SHRI RAJNATH SONKAR SHASTRI (Saidpur): What does it mean by not belonging to the Hindu religion?

SHRI SHREESH CHANDRA DIKSHIT (Varanasi): An effort is being made to mislead the House. That is why we are opposing this Bill. We have seen that the Britishers have become successful in creating a rift between the Hindus and the Muslims. The Government, which came after them in this country, also created friction between the Sikhs and the Hindus. The same thing is also taking place today. Such type of Bills are being brought to create a rift between the Hindus. Therefore, we are opposing this Bill. This is a policy of appeasement and we believe in secularism.  

We believe in positive secularism. We do not believe in minority appeasement which has resulted in the division of this country, which we certainly will not tolerate.

We think that the intention behind bringing this Bill is minority appeasement and not secularism. We are prepared to have a national debate on secularism. We have a lot of doubt about this Bill. This Bill is going to give rise to a very critical situation. I would like to say a thing here. Don’t take it otherwise. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad has passed a resolution in this regard. At present, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is agitating for religion and not for literary or political demands. When we start any agitation, a situation develops and the best way to tackle that situation is not to play with the feelings of the Hindus. Through this Bill, it appears that the feelings of the Hindus have been played with. It was said here that when the Ram Temple will be constructed, they will go there and agitate. We welcome them. But I would also like to tell them that such type of language has been used earlier also.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not again on the provisions of the Bill. I did not allow the other hon. Member. Please conclude now. 

SHRI SHREESH CHANDRA DIKSHIT (Varanasi): At present, I would only like to say that a big agitation will take place on this Bill and they can take this as a challenge. I am not giving a threat to anyone. Our observation is that if this Bill is passed. it will lead to such an agitation in this country that will be very difficult to control. Therefore, with all my force and with all my persuasive power I request the Government and the hon. Home Minister to kindly reconsider this Bill. Otherwise, this is going to lead to a very serious law and order problem”