BJP's Vishnu Dutt Sharma slams Digvijaya Singh's Mahakal-Ayodhya padyatra plan
Synopsis
Digvijaya Singh's planned Mahakal-to-Ayodhya foot march — framed as a demand for transparency in Ram Temple donations — has drawn an immediate BJP counter-attack, with the party pointing to Singh's own land-allotment record as Chief Minister. With an SIT probe already underway and a court petition threatened, the row over temple finances is set to intensify through October.
Key Takeaways
BJP's Khajuraho MP Vishnu Dutt Sharma dismissed Digvijaya Singh's allegations over the Ram Temple Trust and Mahakal Temple land as 'baseless'.
Digvijaya Singh announced a padyatra from Mahakal Temple, Ujjain to Ayodhya , beginning 2 October , demanding transparency in Ram Temple donations.
Singh also said he would approach a court seeking details of how Ram Temple donations were utilised.
An SIT constituted at the Ram Temple Trust's own request is conducting an ongoing investigation into alleged irregularities.
Sharma countered by citing charnoi land allotments during the Congress government, which Singh had himself acknowledged as a mistake.
Khajuraho MP Vishnu Dutt Sharma on Saturday sharply rebuked senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh over his announced Mahakal-to-Ayodhya padyatra, calling Singh's allegations against the Ram Temple Trust and land linked to the Mahakal Temple in Ujjain 'baseless'. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) counter-attack came a day after Singh declared he would undertake the foot march beginning 2 October, framing it as a demand for financial transparency in Ram Temple donations.
What Sharma Said
Speaking to reporters in Katni, former Madhya Pradesh BJP president Sharma defended the ongoing probe into the Ram Temple Trust, saying the Trust itself had taken cognisance of any complaints received. 'If any complaint regarding irregularities in the Ram Temple Trust has been received, the Trust itself took cognisance of the matter. At the Trust's request, the government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT), and an impartial investigation is underway. If anyone is found guilty, strict action will be taken,' Sharma said.
Singh's Padyatra Announcement
Digvijaya Singh had announced a day earlier that he would begin what he described as a 'non-political' padyatra from the Mahakal Temple in Ujjain on 2 October, concluding in Ayodhya. Singh also said he intended to approach a court seeking an account of how donations collected for the Ram Temple were utilised, arguing that devotees had the right to know how their contributions were spent.
BJP Turns Tables on Congress's Temple Land Record
Responding to Singh's allegation that land linked to the Mahakal Temple had been allotted for the construction of a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) guest house, Sharma pivoted to Singh's own record as Chief Minister. 'During the Congress government, allotments of charnoi land took place, and Digvijaya Singh himself later admitted that it was one of his biggest mistakes. The BJP government is ensuring transparency, and every complaint is being investigated fairly,' Sharma said.
Broader Political Context
Sharma further alleged that Singh had 'repeatedly tried to raise questions about Hindutva and Sanatan Dharma,' while asserting that the BJP government had nothing to hide. This comes amid a broader pattern of Congress leaders using religious site governance as a political pressure point ahead of state-level electoral cycles. Notably, the Ram Temple Trust's finances have drawn scrutiny from multiple quarters in recent months, with the SIT probe still underway. The BJP's swift and detailed rebuttal signals that the party views the padyatra as a political challenge despite Singh's 'non-political' framing.
What Happens Next
Singh's padyatra, if it proceeds on 2 October, will draw national attention to the Ram Temple Trust's financial disclosures. The SIT investigation into the Trust is ongoing, and its findings — or the absence of them — will shape the political narrative around both the Ujjain and Ayodhya temples in the months ahead.
Point of View
Ending in Ayodhya, and paired with a court petition on temple finances is a calculated political move. The BJP's response, while predictably dismissive, is notable for its specificity: invoking the SIT and Singh's own charnoi land admissions shifts the burden of credibility. The deeper issue — whether the Ram Temple Trust's financial disclosures are adequate — remains unresolved and is precisely the kind of accountability question that should be answered regardless of who is asking it. The SIT's eventual findings, or prolonged silence, will matter far more than either side's rhetoric.
NationPress
5 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Digvijaya Singh's proposed Mahakal-to-Ayodhya padyatra?
Digvijaya Singh announced a foot march beginning at the Mahakal Temple in Ujjain on 2 October, concluding in Ayodhya. He described it as a 'non-political' walk aimed at demanding transparency in donations collected for the Ram Temple construction.
Why is the BJP opposing the padyatra?
The BJP, through Khajuraho MP Vishnu Dutt Sharma, called Singh's allegations against the Ram Temple Trust and Mahakal Temple land 'baseless'. The party argued that an SIT probe is already underway and pointed to Singh's own record of land allotments during his tenure as Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister.
What is the SIT investigating in the Ram Temple Trust case?
An SIT was constituted at the Ram Temple Trust's own request to probe alleged financial irregularities. The investigation is ongoing, and Sharma stated that strict action will be taken if anyone is found guilty.
What is Digvijaya Singh's allegation about Mahakal Temple land?
Singh alleged that land linked to the Mahakal Temple in Ujjain was allotted for the construction of an RSS guest house. Sharma rejected this, countering that the Congress government itself had made questionable charnoi land allotments during Singh's time as Chief Minister.
What legal action has Digvijaya Singh threatened?
Singh said he would approach a court seeking details of how donations collected for the Ram Temple were utilised, arguing that devotees who contributed had the right to know how their money was spent.
