As Ram Temple trust meets, why all eyes on Champat Rai, Nripendra Misra

A perceived distancing of sorts developing between the Ram Mandir Construction Committee and the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra, the trust managing the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, has become the subject of debate.

The controversy that erupted with the alleged pilferage of donations made to the temple has gradually raked up questions related to decision-making and management of the temple complex that draws thousands of devotees every month. At the centre of it all are Champat Rai, the former general secretary of the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra, and Nripendra Misra, chairman of the Ram Mandir Construction Committee. Rai stepped down from his post in the aftermath of the donation theft row.

The entire matter has gained further attention since a key meeting of the temple trust is scheduled for September 2 in Ayodhya. The events preceding it are worth noting: Misra’s sharp reaction on the alleged donation theft, a nine-page document/letter released in Rai’s name with comments about Misra, the absence of each other’s representatives in the frequent meetings of the temple trust and temple construction committee, and most recently a purported letter from the trust’s former auditor Mahipal Singh.

A meeting of the temple trust was held on July 6, but Misra, a regular attendee in earlier meetings, was not present. On the other hand, no official from the temple trust was present in the temple construction committee’s meeting held the same month and another one held from August 19 to 21. Earlier, Rai and some other office-bearers would routinely represent the temple trust in meetings of the construction committee.

Sources associated with the temple trust claim Misra had, over the past six months, started distancing himself from the arrangements at the temple (matters within the jurisdiction of the trust) and that he remained focused on the temple complex construction.

But what was previously seen as division of work is now being seen by many as institutional pull. This is why the upcoming September 2 meeting has attracted eyeballs. Against this backdrop has come a nine-page document issued in the name of Rai. The document projects Misra as a highly influential figure in both the construction of the temple and management of the project, including taking crucial decisions to accelerate the work by bringing together experts from various fields. It credits him with advancing the construction, which began in 2020, through even the difficult Covid pandemic. The document also outlines Misra’s role in developing the entire 70-acre temple complex, including projects such as pilgrim facilities, supporting infrastructure and the Ramkatha Museum.

However, the very document also allegedly claims that Misra had inducted certain individuals of his own choosing into the temple construction committee and that many key decisions were taken directly at his level.

When asked to comment about this by mediapersons at the Ayodhya Circuit House on August 21, Misra categorically stated that he had received no such letter (document). He remarked: “Which letter? I haven’t seen any such letter.” He added that until he saw the letter, he would regard it as a fabricated story.

Meanwhile, following the temple construction committee’s meeting held from August 19 to 21, Misra provided an update on the progress of the construction. According to him, of the approximately 70 construction tasks planned, around 60 had been completed. The completed works had been handed over to the trust, which would now bear the responsibility for their maintenance.

This is also where the core nature of the dispute becomes apparent. The temple construction committee focuses on construction, technical work and infrastructure whereas the ultimate responsibility for managing the temple complex, pilgrim facilities, and general arrangements lies with the trust. As construction nears completion, the question of the respective jurisdictions of these two bodies has naturally gained greater significance.

Rai’s nine-page document has emerged amidst this shifting dynamic. Rai has lately reportedly been meeting trust members, local seers, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leaders, and members of the general public. An RSS leader claimed Rai is participating in closed-door meetings with seers and is meeting numerous Sangh and VHP leaders daily. He is even attending family functions hosted by residents of Ayodhya.

At the same time, the letter from Mahipal Singh has given a new dimension to the controversy. Writing to temple trust chairman Nritya Gopal Das, Singh has reportedly objected to alleged efforts to make Rai general secretary again at a time the ongoing SIT (special investigation team) probe has raised serious questions related to the alleged theft of offerings made to the temple by pilgrims.

Singh has apparently demanded for his letter to be presented before members of the trust during the September 2 meeting. Singh remained out of reach for a comment on the purported letter.

All in all, Rai’s recent activism and the document released in his name before the September 2 meeting have intensified speculation. At present, the perceived differences seem to be limited to two names: Rai and Misra. It remains to be seen over the coming days whether this conflict goes beyond personal differences and decides the direction of the functioning of the temple trust. The events of September 2 may well give an indication.

Subscribe to India Today Magazine