One of the saffron-clad sadhus, Abhay Chaitanya, carried a trident to the disputed siteAYODHYA: Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Ram Vilas Vedanti visited the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi site in Ayodhya along with a contingent of sadhus on Saturday. One of the saffron-clad sadhus, Abhay Chaitanya, carried a 2-feet long trident to the disputed site, stirring a controversy over how it was allowed past the security layer at the site.
Following a Supreme Court order asking for status quo to be maintained at the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site, security norms prohibit the entry of mobile phones, pens, papers, belts, wallets, bags, watches and weapons of any kind. Devotees who visit must deposit their belongings outside the shrine before entering.
Talking to TOI, Faizabad ADM (law and order), Anil Kumar, said, “We permitted the sadhu to enter the premises with the trident because the trident is a religious symbol and such kind of religious symbols are allowed.”When contacted, Faizabad Divisional Commissioner SP Mishra said, “This was not a trident but a small replica of the trident with which the Sadhu was allowed to enter the shrine.”On April 18, the Faizabad police detained six persons from the Ramjanmabhoomi site in Ayodhya for allegedly clicking pictures of the disputed site. All of them belonged to Kerala and had claimed to be tourists.Vedanti’s visit to the disputed shrine, amid chants of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ come a day after the VHP leader claimed it was he, not former deputy PM LK Advani, who had given a call to bring down the Babri masjid in 1992. Chaitanya being allowed to carry a trident to the shrine triggered a controversy among Muslim groups on Saturday. A party to the Muslim side in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanamabhoomi title suit, Khaliq Ahmad Khan said, “In 2002, the Supreme Court banned all types of symbolic religious activities at the disputed site. As a result, if the Faizabad administration has allowed a person to enter with a trident and calls it his religious symbol which happens to be a weapon, this is in violation of the SC order.”