Debate goes on

Mahant Gyan das (second right), president of the Akhara Parishad; Mohammad Hashim Ansari (second left), one of the early litigants to the title suit; Ramvilas Vedanti (right); and Nirmohi Akhara representative Ramdas at a meeting in Ayodhya on October 8.-PTI Mahant Gyan das (second right), president of the Akhara Parishad; Mohammad Hashim Ansari (second left), one of the early litigants to the title suit; Ramvilas Vedanti (right); and Nirmohi Akhara representative Ramdas at a meeting in Ayodhya on October 8.

None of the three major parties involved in the Ayodhya title suit appears to be ready for negotiations.

LEGAL and political observers who had viewed the September 30 verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court suggesting a three-way split of the disputed site in Ayodhya as a significant step towards resolving the long-standing Hindu-Muslim stand-off over the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue had also called for speedy initiation of negotiations between the contending parties using the judgment as a starting point. Those who had questioned the rationale as well as the manner in which the majority judgment was arrived at had, on the other hand, pointed out that the dynamics of the verdict were such that it would be impossible to use it as a foundation for such deliberations. The debate between these two perspectives continues apace as more and more details of the 8,000-page document are coming out.

This debate, as a whole, has only added to the confusion over the impact of the verdict. However, it is clear that none of the three major parties involved in the 60-year-old title suit Ram Lalla Virajmaan, or infant Ram, represented by Triloki Nath Pandey, who took charge as Ram's sakha, or close friend, in 2010; the Nirmohi Akhara; and the Sunni Central Waqf Board is ready for immediate negotiations on the basis of the verdict. Representatives of all three entities have indicated that they are planning to take the legal battle to the Supreme Court in the coming days. All the major political parties, including the ruling Congress, the Hindutva-oriented opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party (S.P.), which have expressed reservations over the judgment, have taken a restrained stand in the days following the verdict.

Even those who have engaged with the idea of fresh negotiations and initiated tentative moves in this direction, such as the Ayodhya-based Mohammed Hashim Ansari, one of the early litigants in the title suit, are not prepared to go by the parameters of the majority judgment. Ansari has been holding negotiations essentially with Mahant Gyan Das, president of the Akhara Parishad, a collective of several Hindu akharas (groups consisting of sants and mahants). Gyan Das also heads the Hanumangarhi temple in Ayodhya. Significantly, the Akhara Parishad is not even remotely connected with the title suit. The details of the negotiations between Ansari and Gyan Das are yet to become public.

Ansari has stated that his side is trying to work out a formula acceptable to the Nirmohi Akhara. But this by itself does not signify any progress in negotiations, particularly because the Akhara Parishad, and, more importantly, Gyan Das, is not acceptable to the people representing Ram Lalla in the suit. It is also no secret that these people, who have the backing of Sangh Parivar outfits such as the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the BJP consider Gyan Das as a committed supporter of the Congress.

According to several leaders in the Sangh Parivar, such ill-conceived negotiations will not help make any progress. We do not want to oppose it publicly. But, if Ansari's move is to be seen in lenient terms, we would call it thoughtlessness. If you want us to react a little more sharply, we can only call it plain mischief, a senior Sangh Parivar leader based in Ayodhya told Frontline. On the other hand, the Sunni Central Waqf Board has already initiated steps to appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue.

A meeting of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) was held in New Delhi on October 9 to identify the issues on which the appeal could be filed. The board is expected to continue negotiations in this direction through November. By all indications, the point whether the legal recognition accorded even to the spot where the idol of Ram is kept is right or wrong would come up during these deliberations. The judgment ruled that even the place where the idol was kept was a juristic person. This is indeed open to debate, though a deity being considered a juridical person with property rights is a settled practice in Indian law. Both Ranjith Lal Verma, advocate for the Nirmohi Akhara, and Madan Mohan Pandey, one of the advocates representing the friends of Ram Lalla, said they were preparing to appeal against the verdict.

While it is not clear what would be the line of argument of either side or what legal issues each would take up in the course of its appeal, there is little doubt that none of the sides perceives the three-way split as a viable solution. The Ayodhya-based leader of the Sangh Parivar said the suggestion of the majority judgment did not fit in with the logic of the verdict as a whole. He pointed out that two of the three judges had upheld the claim of Hindus, represented by Ram Lalla's friends, and rejected the claim of Muslims, represented by the Waqf Board.

ERRONEOUS REFERENCE

Another point highlighted by all the three litigants is that the three-way split would leave all the parties with not enough land to come up with any significant or meaningful piece of construction. Initially, a large number of legal and political commentators had said that the court's suggestion was to split a quantum of 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya. This was erroneous as the title suit pertained only to a piece of land that was approximately 130x80 square feet, that is, 10,660 sq. ft. A three-way split would leave each group with approximately 3,500 sq. ft of land.

The erroneous reference to the 2.77 acres of land had crept in, in all probability, on account of the fact that before the December 6, 1992, demolition of the Babri Masjid, this quantum of land figured continuously in public debate. The BJP government of Uttar Pradesh led by Kalyan Singh had acquired this quantum of land in October 1991 in the name of developing tourism and providing amenities to pilgrims. The 2.77 acres did not include the area where the Babri Masjid existed. However, parts of the 10,660 sq ft under dispute the portions formerly held by the Nirmohi Akhara, which included the Ram Chabutara (Ram platform) and Sita ki rasoi (Sita's kitchen), were included in this acquisition. Immediately after the acquisition, the BJP government virtually handed over the land to the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas (Ramjanmabhoomi Trust) controlled by the Sangh Parivar, and the Nyas announced the beginning of the construction of a grand Ram temple on the 2.77 acres of land. The idea floated by the Nyas at that time was that construction would start in the acquired and undisputed land and move on finally to the disputed site, where the Babri Masjid then stood.

The acquisition of the 2.77 acres was also questioned in the Supreme Court by several Muslim and Hindu organisations, and it was quashed by the Supreme Court on December 11, 1992, five days after the demolition of the Babri Masjid. In fact, Justice S.U. Khan, the presiding judge of the three-member Bench that gave the September 30 verdict, specifically referred to the acquisition of land and the later quashing of the same as follows:

State of U.P. acquired the premises in dispute along with some adjoining area (total area 2.77 acres) for development of tourism and providing amenities to pilgrims in Ayodhya' through notifications under 91 Sections 4 & 6 of Land Acquisition Act dated 07.10.1991 and 10.10.1991 respectively. Said acquisition was challenged through six writ petitions leading one being writ petition no.3540 (MB) of 1991 Mohd. Hashim vs State of U.P. and others. In the said writ petitions, interim order was passed in October 1991 staying the operation of the notifications. Ultimately, writ petitions were allowed by a full Bench on 11.12.1992 (after five days of the demolition of constructed portion of the premises in dispute) and notifications were quashed accepting the arguments of most of the petitioners that the purpose of notifications was destruction of the mosque and construction of a temple hence they were mala fide.

But those involved in the case are clear that this quantum of land (2.77 acres) is not available for distribution. Where is the question of division and where is the question of building a mosque or a mandir? asked Raja Ramachandra Acharya of the Nirmohi Akhara. Taking the argument further, the Sangh Parivar leader pointed out that the only course in a negotiated settlement would be for Muslims to give up all claims over the disputed site. That is what we have been saying all along. While Muslim organisations such as the Waqf Board and the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) are opposed to such surrender, the context created by the verdict has also witnessed the rise of some voices seeking some kind of a compromise solution. Arshad Madani, the Deoband-based Jamiatul Ulema Hind (JUH) leader, is credited with such a view, though the leader himself was not available for comments despite repeated attempts to contact him.

According to some supporters of the JUH, Justice Khan's judgment contains a suggestion for submission to the view of the majority community. The last portions of his judgment read as follows: An observation of Darwin is also worth quoting at this juncture: Only those species survived which collaborated and improvised. Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility peace friendship tolerance opportunity to impress others with the message opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not negligible minority. (Maximum number of Muslims in any country after Indonesia is in India.) In other countries either Muslims are in huge majority which makes them indifferent to the problem in question or in negligible minority which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are, therefore, in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand.

It is highly unlikely that this call will find widespread acceptance in the minority community.