NEW Delhi: Gurdas Dasgupta a Communist Party of India upper house (Rajya Sabha) member Dec 28 moved a private members Constitutional amendment bill in the Rajya Sabha to maintain status quo of all religious places including Ram temple at Ayodhya as on august 15. 1947.
The statement of objects and reasons of the bill said in the country since independence a number of temples Mosques Gurdawara and churches had either been set up or renovated or their status quo sought to be changed which in some cases had resulted in the worst ever communal hatred. The statement said at the time of independence the Ram temple was lock and seal and thus there was no tension at all amongst cither Muslims or Hindus.
However later on the seal was opened under an order of the: court of law which had resulted in spread of communal hatred in the country.
The constitution amendment bill says that the Ram Babri Masjid controversy was threatening the unity and integrity of the country and had the status quo as prevailing on Independence Day (August 15 1947) been maintained this could have saved the country from communal virus engulfing.
The bill feels that still there is time to rectify the matters and make a provision in the constitution to maintain the status quo of all religious places as on August 15 1947. The bill was among the five constitutional amendments bills moved on the first day of private members business in the current winter session.
Among other interesting bills is a bill moved by Ram Jethmalani which seeks to amend articles 310 and 311 of the constitution and provide for setting up of a judicial commission to review the entire gamut of judicial process in the country.
Three other bills were also moved two by S.S Ahluwalia of the Congress (I) and another seeking to abolish the capital punishment by Dr Bapu Kaldate of the Janata Dal.
Ahluwalia’s bills seek to provide statutory financial relief to cyclone flood and drought affected persons and for compulsory insurance of crops.
Earlier a piquant situation arose in the house when some members objected to a minister being given leave to withdraw his bills which he had moved as a private member.
The situation cropped up soon after lunch when the petroleum minister S.P. Malviya rose to take leave of the house to withdraw as many as six private bills mentioned against his name
Article extracted from this publication >> January 4, 1991
