https://www.facebook.com/kannansastrigal.kannansastrigal.3/videos/1072305363340957/
A friend of mine —- an experienced retired high ranking public servant in the Government of India, after watching the video link on Facebook above that I had rather forwarded to him wrote to me as follows :
QUOTE : Some basic facts about the video:
- It’s not in Tambaram as stated.
- It’s temple in Manimangalam road which is about 6 Kms from Tambaram outside of Chennai.
- Constructed illegally on top of a kind of acquaduct. The blockage of such a water passage caused huge flooding during recent rains.
It’s a different matter if a decision to demolish a structure belonging to a different religion under similar circumstances would be taken by ruling dispensation if such an instance were to take place. UNQUOTE
My reply to my friend was as as follows:
Thank you for sharing the facts of the case .
No one in the Hindu community would ever defend the indefensible if the demolished temple is found indeed to be an illegal encroachment upon a city waterbody… But the fact that the temple was built 12 long years ago raises the following questions in our Hindu minds.
1. Which government authority or authorities gave tacit approval for the temple construction originally ?
2. How many governments in the last 12 years chose to look the other way allowing the encroachment to continue ?
3. While the temple gets now demolished and punishment stands meted out to the temple trustees … what equal punishment is going to be meted out to all those government officers and authorities who from 12 years ago are to be held accountable for (i) irregularly sanctioning construction in the first place and then (ii) to be also held accountable for dereliction of duty in allowing encroachment to continue for so long until Dec 10 2022 ?
My friend answered the above question as follows:
QUOTE: Accountability in an executive function has always been the weak spot largely due to the competitive nature of the political system that is responsible for running government. Both the executive and the parliament are aware of their mutual dependance and resulting need for quid pro quo. In the instant case not only officials, but also the political entities involved are responsible and hence accountable but get scot free due to such dependencies. Bearing the cross is a function of various factors such as importance, centrality to the issue, damage potential and so forth. UNQUOTE
To which my reply was as given below:
In that case , the least that Hindus aggrieved in the instant case should be demanding is this : The Tamil Nadu Government having demolished our temple now, should be compelled under law to give we Hindus another land-site elsewhere in the Tambaram vicinity and allow us to construct a new temple there instead ….
The precedent for such a demand are detailed below:
A. In the Ayodhya Ram Mandir case the Supreme Court ruled that Muslims aggrieved by the loss of their disputed mosque site at Babri Masjid location should be given alternate land site by the Ram Mandir Trust of 5 acres elsewhere in the vicinity of Ayodhya .
B. In the city of Chennai itself , at many places where illegal slum encroachments mushroomed in the past several decades, the Government while evicting the slum squatters promised to rehabilitate them at alternate housing sites elsewhere. The slum dwellers agreed to relocate only on such condition of alternate dwellings being provided for them.
The Trustees of the demolished Ram Temple at Mudichur/ Manimangalam Road would be well within their rights to demand that the Tamil Nadu government having demolished their temple now should treat them no less equitably and justly as it treats illegal slum-dwelling encroachers.
Sudarshan Madabushi
