Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (File photo) Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (File photo) IN NOVEMBER 2017, when he visited Ayodhya in a bid to mediate in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said that “if this issue has to be resolved forever, the only solution is that a grand temple is constructed with cooperation of both communities”. He made this statement after meeting all the stakeholders in the case. Sri Sri began his visit by meeting Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in Lucknow on November 15, 2017. The next day, he went to Ayodhya, where he met Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas head Nritya Gopal Das, plaintiff in the land dispute case Iqbal Ansari, sants of Nirmohi Akhara, and Haji Mehboob, a litigant in the case. He also met RSS pracharak Mahirajdwaj Singh, Mahant Suresh Das of Digambar Akhara, representatives of several Muslim organisations, Raja Ramachandracharya of Nirmohi Akhara and Swami Chakrapani of Hindu Mahasabha during his visit. Read | ‘Nothing but temple can be built there, way to be found is how,’ says Uma Bharti Speaking to reporters after these meetings, he said: “After 100 years, one particular community could think justice was not done. The same issue could be raised again. If this issue has to be resolved forever, the only solution is that a grand temple is constructed with the cooperation of both communities. This dream could be made true. There is generosity, love and bhaichara among people of communities and youths in the country.” He said that “Muslims, by and large, are not opposing Ram temple.” While saying that he was not offering any solution and had not come to Ayodhya with a formula, Sri Sri said: “I am visiting Ayodhya with an open mind to give a platform for everybody to come and discuss their strategy. I have come with the hope that this could be done through dialogue”. Sri Sri and Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas head Nritya Gopal Das had held a meeting with sants, where the general opinion was that a temple should be constructed under the Nyas’s leadership. “He (Sri Sri) said an agreement should be reached in an atmosphere of harmony,” Das had said. Read | Congress says SC verdict on Ayodhya must be final, BJP says essential to build temple Ansari had maintained that the issue could not be resolved through dialogue and only the Supreme Court could come up with a solution. “I told him I am not against his initiative and the temple. But the disputed site should be left for a mosque and the temple should be built elsewhere,” Haji Mehboob had said. The next day, Sri Sri met Sunni cleric Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali in Lucknow. “We both agree that we have to build bridges. There is really no conflict between the communities. We have been living together for centuries and we have to create an atmosphere of friendliness and togetherness,” Sri Sri said after the meeting. “We respect the courts, but courts cannot connect hearts. After 50 years or 100 years, the judgments of courts will remain as such. But if a solution comes from our hearts, it will be recognised for ages,” he had said. He had urged Mahali to speak to other Muslim clerics and members of the Sunni Waqf Board to find a way to hold a dialogue of all stakeholders. Denying any agenda, he had said: “This is not an issue that has to be discussed with two or 10 people. Many people, responsible and religious persons, will meet and a discussion will take place”. At a meeting of the All India Sant Samiti in Delhi in November last year, Sri Sri had reiterated that people want a grand temple in Ayodhya. He said there were three possible ways forward: a dialogue, an appeal to the Supreme Court for an early verdict, or a request to the government. Sri Sri’s mediation bid in 2017 was unsuccessful. “His attempt faced opposition from both the Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya. He did not contact any sant in Ayodhya after that visit,” Sharad Sharma, VHP spokesperson on Ayodhya, said on Friday. “Sri Sri met me… but there was no discussion on the Babri Masjid dispute. He never contacted me after that. His idea was not acceptable to anyone, because he suggested that a mosque be built in Lucknow,” Iqbal Ansari told The Indian Express.<doc-sep>The Supreme Court decided on Friday to refer the Ayodhya title suit, a festering dispute over the former site of the Babri Masjid, to a panel of mediators that includes spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Justice FM Kallifulla, a retired Supreme Court judge, will head the panel of mediators, which includes senior advocate Shri Ram Panchu. Hindus believe the site in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid was razed in 1992 was the birthplace of Lord Ram. "No Lord Ram devotee or saint wants a delay in the construction of a Ram Mandir." - KP Maurya, Deputy Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh | March 8, 2019 In 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the land should be divided equally between the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. Fourteen appeals have been filed against that verdict in the Supreme Court. The mediation panel will begin work in a week. It will submit an interim report four weeks later. Then, it will have four more weeks to mediate and can ask for an extension if it needs one. Proceedings will be strictly confidential and closed to the media. At a hearing held on Wednesday, the Supreme Court observed that primarily, the issue was not about 1,500 square feet of land, but about religious sentiments. It said it was aware of the gravity and impact of the issue on "public sentiment" and also on India's "body politic." "It is not only about property. It is about mind, heart and healing, if possible," the court said. Inputs from agencies<doc-sep>Hyderabad: MIM president Asaduddin Owaisi welcomed the Supreme Court-monitored mediation effort to resolve the decades-old Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title dispute but expressed reservations over the inclusion of spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on the three-member panel. Mr Owaisi said his only concern was “about a person who has been nominated as one of the mediators because of his stated position in the public domain, wherein he threatened the Muslims that India will turn into Syria if Muslims do not give up that land,” Mr Owaisi recalled, “He said, ‘give it as a goodwill gesture’. A mediator has to be neutral. He should not have any connection with the subject matter.” The MIM president said that the Art of Living founder had gone on record on November 4, 2018, threatening violence. “He is not only connected with the party but subject of the issue, whereas the other two mediators do not have such connections. He is not a neutral mediator. It is regrettable to appoint such a person for mediation.” Mr Owaisi said neither he nor the MIM was against mediation. “I am not saying it is unfair. I just have reservations on the inclusion of a person who is biased on the issue,” he said. He said though he was a member of All India Muslim Personal Law Board, he was not authorised to speak on its behalf. He hoped that the Muslims would cooperate with the panel. He said that he hoped even now that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar would retract his November 2018 statement and behave like a neutral person. Mr Owaisi said it was good that the whole process of mediation would be confidential. “In the backdrop of the Lok Sabha elections, politicians will not get a chance to exploit the issue,” Mr Owaisi said. He pointed out that there was a difference between mediation and arbitration. The findings of the mediation panel would be an interim report. In mediation, the litigant parties put forward their views while in arbitration the arbitrator gives his judgment, Mr Owaisi said.<doc-sep>
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the spiritual guru who has long championed negotiations to end the decades-old Ayodhya temple land dispute, on Friday spoke about ending conflicts and maintaining harmony. “Respecting everyone, turning dreams to reality, ending long-standing conflicts happily and maintaining harmony in society - we must all move together towards these goals,” the spiritual guru tweeted minutes after five judges of the Supreme Court decided to give mediation a shot. The top court has appointed a three-member panel led by retired SC judge FM Khalifulah. Senior lawyer Sriram Panchu, who specializes in mediation and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar are the other two members. The spiritual guru had volunteered to mediate earlier too and reached out to many of the stakeholders concerned. Not everyone was as enthusiastic to engage with him. Like the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. Shortly after Sri Sri Ravi Shankar attempted to engage him, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat questioned the offer to play mediator, saying any such decision had to be taken through consultation at the Dharma Sansad. “There is a very popular person who also proposed to negotiate, announced in the media, which is where I heard it from... that person also came to me as well, but I said that is not my job,” Bhagwat said at a closed door session of the three-day Dharma Sansad in November 2017. The Art of Living founder held dialogue with stakeholders Ram Lalla Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board and had also met chief minister Yogi Adityanath before travelling down to Ayodhya in mid-November last year. All appreciated his efforts but refused to adhere to any formula. The formulas have ranged from construction of a temple where a makeshift one exists today on the debris of the demolished shrine while shifting the mosque elsewhere in the temple town to building a mosque and temple side by side. The Supreme Court decision is an effort to try arriving at a negotiated settlement since this case wasn’t just about property but “about mind, heart and healing, if possible”. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar had welcomed the Supreme Court’s recent stress on giving mediation a chance. “We should keep our egos and differences aside and come together with a spirit of honouring and accommodating the sentiments of the communities concerned,” he tweeted this week after the Supreme Court’s constitution bench discussed the possibility in court. The Uttar Pradesh government along with other Hindu parties had objected to the effort but the top court has ruled that there were “no legal impediments” to give negotiations a shot.