KS Eshwarappa claims Amit Shah declined to meet him
Bengaluru, Apr 4: Former Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister K S Eshwarappa, who is contesting as a rebel candidate against BJP's B Y Raghavendra from Shivamogga Lok Sabha seat, on Thursday claimed Union Home Minister Amit Shah did not meet him as he found it difficult to respond to questions raised by him.
Eshwarappa, a senior BJP leader, said he went to Delhi as Shah had summoned him but the meeting could not happen.
"I went to Delhi as I was summoned. If I had not gone there then they would have called me arrogant. I could not meet Amit Shah. I think the meeting did not happen because I had asked him certain questions, which he found difficult to answer," the former BJP state president claimed.
Eshwarappa has entered the electoral fray in Shivamogga constituency as an independent, against Raghavendra, son of BJP veteran B S Yediyurappa.
Explaining, he alleged Shah did not allow the meeting to happen.
ALSO READ: Shah asks Eshwarappa to withdraw candidature, rebel BJP leader says not changing mind
"I went to his office where I was told not to meet him. It is good for me. What would I have done if he had asked me to withdraw even after narrating the story of injustices?" Eshwarappa wondered.
The veteran BJP leader said Shah must have thought that whatever he was doing was justified as he was fighting for justice.
"He only had called me to Delhi and did not meet me," he claimed. Further, the 75-year old leader alleged, "in Karnataka, Congress culture has crept into BJP where Yediyurappa's family politics is prevailing."
Sources close to Eshwarappa said he wanted a ticket for his son K E Kantesh from Haveri constituency, which did not happen.
This upset him and he blamed Yediyurappa for the same. Hence, he decided to fight the election against Yediyurappa's elder son Raghavendra.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
