September 29, 2022 19:31 (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Ashok Gehlot in Delhi to meet Sonia Gandhi, key aide says he won't resign as Rajasthan CM | Calcutta HC declares Mamata govt's key doorstep ration scheme 'illegal' | Lt General Anil Chauhan (Retired) is new Chief of Defence Staff | S Jaishankar raises concerns about Ukraine conflict impacting global fuel price with US state secy | PM Modi attends late Japanese PM Shinzo Abe's funeral in Tokyo
My family descended from Lord Ram's son Khush: BJP MP Diya Kumari
Diya Kumari Twitter page

My family descended from Lord Ram's son Khush: BJP MP Diya Kumari

India Blooms News Service | @indiablooms | 12 Aug 2019, 04:06 am

New Delhi, Aug 12 (IBNS): BJP MP Diya Kumari has claimed that her family descended from Lord Ram's son Khush.

She made the claims just days after the Supreme Court asked if someone is still residing in Ayodhya who is belonging to the ''Raghuvansha''.

Kumari said descendants of Lord Ram are present all over the world.

"Yes, Descendants of Lord Ram are all over the world, including our family who descended from his son Kush," she tweeted.

Diya Kumari is a member of the erstwhile Jaipur royal family.

She is a BJP MP from Rajsamand. 

Supreme Court and Ayodhya Issue:

After the three-member mediation panel failed to resolve the politically-sensitive Ayodhya issue, the Supreme Court on Tuesday began its day-to-day hearing on the case pertaining to whether Ram temple can be built in the disputed land of Uttar Pradesh's Ayodhya where Babri Masjid stood till 1992.

Spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravishankar, senior lawyer Sriram Panchu and Justice FMI Kalifullah were named as the mediators by the top court.

What happened in Ayodhya and why the case is significant?

In 1992, the disputed Babri Masjid structure was brought down by several right-wing volunteers who believe Lord Ram was born on that site.

On September 27, the apex court had refused to re-visit its 1994 verdict which had stated mosque was not important for Muslims to offer prayers, paving way for the hearing of the Ayodhya case.