Ram mandir: Taken aback, parties to dispute are cold to CJI Khehar’s offer, ask why talk again
Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute: “If it comes to that, we will also get our learned people, people concerned with the matter and try and do the needful. But any decision cannot be ek-tarafa or one-sided.”
Babri Masjid Express archive photo
Chief Justice of India Justice J S Khehar’s proposal to mediate an out-of-court settlement to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute has been welcomed by the BJP and some Union Ministers but has met with a lukewarm, if not cold, response from those arguing the matter for decades now.
Expressing reservations, those who have been party to the case said that they were taken aback by the manner in which the matter was raised in the court today at the urging of Subramanian Swamy who they said wasn’t even a party to the dispute. Ayodhya-based Hashim Ansari, the original litigant, died last year, but his son, Iqbal Ansari, who has picked up the matter told The Indian Express: “If it comes to that, we will also get our learned people, people concerned with the matter and try and do the needful. But any decision cannot be ek-tarafa or one-sided.”
His lawyer, M R Shamshad, questioned the manner in which this suggestion came about. “The person (Swamy) who went to court is not even an original party to the matter. How did this appearance in the Chief Justice’s court and the comments come about? No one can deny that in a civil matter, there is always room for discussion and settlement but, in this case, any mediation or discussion outside the court can happen if we are on an equal footing. But if the basic premise is that one party is being asked to get out, then our response would be different. What is the proposal that the person who went into court today has in mind? We don’t even know that.”
Lucknow-based Madan Mohan Pandey, who argues for Ram Lalla, has serious reservations. “The proposal to have regular hearings is welcome but what happened today was not part of any formal hearing nor an order. This was a third party arguing. How is that in any way relevant to what is being discussed?”
Referring to attempts by a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Pulok Basu, to try and settle the dispute, Pandey said: “The matter is sub-judice. He, too, set about it talking to all except those who are litigants. He did not even approach us. All these proposals are meaningless until there is a concrete proposal.”
Said Ranjit Lal Verma, advocate for the Nirmohi Akhara, an original litigant in the matter; “We are a panchayati Math, in existence and here since 1885, and our methods are panchayat-like. We can consider an out-of-court settlement only if the other (Muslim) side proposes a surrender. But no such proposal is there. So the Court should continue to hear all sides and then decide. Where is the need or the question of an out-of-court hearing and settlement?”
The Hindu Mahasabha that is also a petitioner in the case summarily rejected the idea. “No out-of-court settlement is acceptable. Before approaching us, Subramanian Swamy should make sure that the other side is ready to give its claim. We can’t play with the sentiment of Hindu community, no compromise is possible on this issue. We will not give even an inch of land. Like the Babri Masjid Action Committee, we too are not ready to relent. SC should go ahead with speedy trial in the case,” said Harishankar Jain, advocate for Hindu Mahasabha.
Lawyer for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board which has been associated with this dispute since the mid-80s, Zafaryab Jilani said: “Perhaps, they have forgotten the number of times that attempts have been made to settle this out of Court. There have been five attempts with different governments at the helm. First in 1986 when Rajiv Gandhi was the PM, then in 1990-1991 during Chandrashekhar’s Premiership, then under PV Narasimha Rao, followed by a bid in 2002 and then finally in 2003, both times when the NDA was in power. We did agree at several points for a settlement but, finally, in 2003 when we were told that three mosques (Ayodhya, Varanasi and Mathura) should be surrendered, the Board held a meeting and rejected the proposal. After that, it has been a consistent stand that we need the law to decide this.”
The Places of Worship Act which froze all places of worship to their status at the time of independence, excludes the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid from its purview. Jilani added: “The Chief Justice of India has the full faith of all of India, including Muslims, on his ability to deliver justice according to the Constitution and the law of the land. So, if we are also called to state our case we would welcome that and try and take the matter forward. But Subramanian Swamy is not a party to the matter, so how is his view getting so much attention?”
Those in the BJP, however, were enthused. Said Union Minister Uma Bharti, among the original band of BJP leaders who had overseen the demolition of the Babri Masjid: “It is a welcome step by the Supreme Court, the matter I believe can be resolved out of court. The question of whether Lord Ram was born there or not, was settled by the three-judge bench of Allahabad High Court. Now it is a question of who owns the land. When the SC is asking for an out-of-court settlement, there will be a way. There was a way out for Somnath Temple. Can’t say when it will be completed, but building can start any time.” Newly appointed Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said: “We welcome the SC observation; both sides must sit down and find a solution.”
His views were echoed by Culture Minister Mahesh Sharma and MoS (Law and Justice) P P Chaudhary. “CJI Khehar’s offer to mediate in the Ayodhya case for an out-of-court settlement is a welcome move. It was in the national interest. We have always stood for Ram Mandir through Constitutional means and the court’s suggestion is welcome,” Sharma said. “This is a very good step by the apex court. Even the BJP has been encouraging solving the issue through negotiations. It is a very good step to solve the issue by sitting together and negotiating,” said Chaudhary.
Share
