Yogi Adityanath Did Not Order for Ram Mandir Construction to Begin
Yogi Adityanath had only said the date for the construction of the temple had been set by Lord Ram himself.
CLAIM
A viral post on social media claims that Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has directed for construction material to be delivered to the Ram mandir site in Ayodhya so as to begin work on the temple.
The post is accompanied by photos of cranes and trucks transporting construction material – particularly red stone – to a barren land.
The post was circulated by a Facebook page ‘Amit Shah Fans’ on 27 October, and had amassed over 3.5k shares at the time of writing.
TRUE OR FALSE?
While the claim of Yogi having ordered that Ram Mandir be built is untrue, the photos of the construction materials being transported are from last year. The transportation of the materials was widely reported by several news organisations like The Times of India and News18.
A reverse image search shows that the first photo is an ANI screengrab.
The second and third images were from The Wire.
In June 2017, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad had transported bricks and other material in trucks to its Ayodhya headquarters in Karsewak Puram.
Speaking to The Wire then, senior VHP leader Triloki Nath Pandey had said:
Later in July, three more trucks carrying material were seen unloading material at the site.
Similarly, in December 2015, the VHP had transported two truckloads of materials to Ayodhya for the same purpose. The Wire noted that while the movement was material was stopped in 2015 by the then Samajwadi Party government, the later BJP government posed no such hurdle for the VHP.
WHAT DID YOGI ACTUALLY SAY?
Speaking at a conference in Lucknow on 1 September, CM Yogi Adityanath had said the date for the construction of the temple had been set by Lord Ram himself, and whatever has been ordained would happen.
The post appears to have gained mileage in light of the Yogi government’s plea with the Supreme Court for a early hearing in the Ayodhya dispute case. However, the apex court on 29 October, listed the appeals before an “appropriate bench” for hearing in the first week of January 2019, observing that it had “its own set of priorities.”
(Not convinced of a story you came across on social media and want it verified? Send us the details at WebQoof@TheQuint.com and we'll fact-check it for you. You can also read all our fact-checked stories here.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)