Ram Temple Donation Theft: 'The Individuals Involved Were Too Well-Placed For Anyone To Speak Up'

'What struck me at the time was simply the scale of it -- that something of this magnitude could be unfolding inside the Ram temple itself.'
'It was bewildering. And what troubled me further was the manner in which people were shielding it.'

Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay runs a YouTube channel Top Secret and has broken several stories exposing the powerful in the Ayodhya Ram Mandir Trust donation theft case.

A television journalist with close to two decades in the field, he has covered conflict zones from Syria and Iraq to the Russia-Ukraine front and has built a reputation for stories that make institutions uncomfortable.

On his YouTube channel Top Secret, he has spent the past month pulling apart what may be one of the most sensitive scandals to hit Ayodhya since the Ram temple's consecration: Allegations of theft from the temple's donation boxes, running alongside claims of commission-taking in construction contracts and the disappearance of donated jewellery.

His reporting, built on a chain of on-record interviews with insiders, is widely credited with forcing the Uttar Pradesh government's hand in setting up a Special Investigation Team. Champat Rai, the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust's general secretary, and trustee Anil Mishra have since tendered their resignations.

In this two-part interview with Prasanna D Zore/Rediff, Upadhyay reveals how the story came to him and what he thinks the investigation is still avoiding.

'When I approached the Trust, they confirmed as much to me, off the record: 'Yes, this had happened, but it was an internal matter that they would settle themselves.''

How did you first get wind of this entire affair? What was it that convinced you this was not merely gossip, but a genuine investigative story waiting to be told?

A dispute surfaced for distribution of donation theft at the Ram temple on the fifth and sixth of June.

Behind the scenes, there was a great deal of friction -- a dispute had reportedly broken out over the splitting of collection money amid different groups of the collectors.

Word of it reached the senior functionaries of the Trust first since the complaint was lodged with them. They passed on some information, and by then it had already begun to leak internally.

So when an employee of the Trust approached the police with a complaint, was an FIR registered, or not?

No FIR was registered.

To my knowledge, an understanding was reached between the two sides. In such matters, they tend not to file an FIR -- they arrange a recovery of the money and close the chapter quietly, so that nothing travels beyond the Trust's own walls.

When I approached the Trust, they confirmed as much to me, off the record: 'Yes, this had happened, but it was an internal matter that they would settle themselves.'

I then checked with the police who confirmed the very same thing, off the record -- 'nothing on record, please, we'll handle it, just let it be.'

At what point did you realise that this could turn into a very large story?

Frankly, I had no such inkling at first. What struck me at the time was simply the scale of it -- that something of this magnitude could be unfolding inside the Ram temple itself. It was bewildering. And what troubled me further was the manner in which people were shielding it.

Wrongdoing can occur anywhere -- in a workplace, in a household -- but here, curtains were quite literally being drawn over it.

When I looked into why, it became clear: The individuals involved were too well-placed for anyone to speak up. We began reporting on it regardless.

Once we did, several political leaders (from the Opposition) picked up the thread, and it started circulating on social media.

The Trust's response was to dismiss it outright -- nothing of the sort had occurred, Champat Rai said in a formal statement, merely a routine audit was under way. That statement is on record, dated June 8. He even recorded a video and circulated it to members of the press.

The matter had first been reported on June 7, and it was on the eighth that the Trust moved to brush it under the carpet.

What I needed at that stage was proof -- some record that would stand up against their denials. By June 9, after considerable effort, I had managed to speak to people who were willing to go on record.

Those who agreed to speak, I interviewed, and I ran my findings on my own programme that evening. From that point on, the entire complexion of the story changed, because these were people who had themselves been employed by the Trust, with backgrounds in the RSS and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

Even now, as I speak to you (on the afternoon of July 6), the Trust has not been able to deny what has been aired.

First of all I interviewed Mahipal Singh, the former account in-charge of the Ram Mandir Trust. Whatever he told me on record, was later corroborated: He told me, yes, the theft did take place; and that eight months' worth of footage had been deleted. His testimony forced the trust to make the rot public.

'That interview proved to be the turning point'

Now, this statement your source gave regarding the SIT -- is it on the SIT's official record?

He gave the interview to me. The SIT itself has not spoken to him yet as per my knowledge.

To clarify, has the SIT questioned Mahipal Singh at all thus far?

Not to my knowledge. He remained in contact with me for roughly three-four days. After that, the pressure on him grew so intense that he asked me to take the report down. I refused -- I told him it simply could not be done.

He said the pressure on his family had become unbearable, that he could not go on. And so it stood.

Later, he told me he was grateful I had aired it and that he would supply further information -- but very soon after that, he vanished entirely.

That interview proved to be the turning point; it was only after it aired that the authorities felt compelled to announce the SIT.

And where is he now?

He hails from Kota, in Rajasthan, Where he is at present, I could not say. But he confirmed on record that theft had indeed occurred from the donation collection, and that CCTV footage documenting it had been wiped.

Secondly an engineer attached to the temple's construction -- Deenanath Verma by name -- also told me -- on record -- that commissions were being demanded even on construction work, at a rate of some forty per cent, and he named a trustee directly (on camera).

He said he possessed a recording of the demand being made, that Champat Rai had heard this recording and taken no action whatsoever, and that he himself (Verma) was subsequently eased out.

Did he tell you all of this on record, on camera?

Yes, entirely on record.

Verma told me the same, entirely on record -- the commission-taking, the theft, all of it. There is a third important testimony in this story.

I interviewed Acharya Vinod Mishra, the family priest of a family from Jaunpur currently settled in Mumbai, who had donated an extraordinarily precious necklace to Ram Lalla on a festival occasion, having made the journey largely on foot. They were assured the deity would be adorned with it during the ceremony.

Afterwards, when they enquired what had become of it, they were told nothing at first, and were later informed it had been sent to Bangalore, melted down, and refashioned into gold. This, too, is on record, with the family priest furnishing the full visual documentation of their journey and offering.

Did Acharya Vinod Mishra receive any receipt for the precious necklace donation?

They were given a receipt for a time, but were assured that the necklace itself would remain at the temple, that it would adorn the deity, and that photographs would be sent to them in due course. They kept watch for those photographs, but nothing further was heard.

Once they came forward, it emerged that the matter went beyond mere donations -- that ornaments and jewels, too, had gone missing. Layer upon layer kept surfacing.

Three quite distinct layers, then, kept peeling away.

Indeed -- first, theft from the donation collection; second, commission-taking during construction, even as the temple was being built; and third, the disappearance of jewels and ornaments.

In essence, you have exposed three separate scams...

Exactly so -- and a good many more besides.

I interviewed one of the accused Tinnu Yadav, presently in custody. He told me, on record and on camera, that a trustee was effectively trading in cash-handling arrangements.

My other source told me precisely the same about this trustee -- that a complaint about him had gone nowhere, and instead, it was the whistleblower (Mahipal Singh) who was shown the door.