RSS rubs it in, wants one and all

A prompt reaction came from Zafaryab Jilani, a member of the Muslim law board and convenor of the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee. ‘‘We reject this proposal outright,’’ he was quoted as having said. ‘‘We do not not want to build a mosque anywhere else. We do not not accept the panchkosi proposal. There are several mosques within the panchkosi. Will they shut them?’’

As for the law board, its spokesman Maulana Sajjad Nomani said the board would discuss how seriously it can take the Kanchi seer’s commitment ‘‘to ensure compliance of all the parties involved in the dispute.’’

Even as this debate raged, the RSS and the VHP clearly drew the battlelines today. Instead of reining in the VHP as the BJP expected, the RSS, in a two-page resolution, stridently demanded a ‘‘restoration’’ of the Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi sites to Hindus and called upon the Government to explore the ‘‘legislative option’’ to give them the disputed Ayodhya land. Such a stand directly contradicts the Muslim law board’s wish to extract a guarantee that the shrines at Kashi and Mathura are left untouched.

Although the Sangh resolution made no mention of the Shankaracharya’s formula, it welcomed the ‘‘efforts’’ underway to resolve the issue.

However, it underlined the need to accommodate the ‘‘views of the leaders of the Ramjanmabhoomi movement like the VHP and Hindu saints who have been in the forefront making countless sacrifices…’’

The Sangh, thus, distanced itself from the strategy of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to keep the VHP out of the loop obviously to settle scores with its leaders, who have not missed a single opportunity to target him, even repeatedly calling for his head.

In an apparent reference to this, the RSS resolution ‘‘takes note of the efforts by certain vested interests to create a rift in the HIndu movement by spreading untruths and half-truths and cautions all organisations to be wary of these elements.’’

Sangh spokesman Ram Madhav, according to agencies, parried persistent queries by reporters on whether the resolution alluded to any particular person. ‘‘No need to be elaborate on that, as you are intelligent persons,’’ he said.

The Shankaracharya, when asked during the interview if Muslims would agree to not building a mosque within the ‘‘panchkosi parikrama,’’ said, ‘‘Panchkosi is not the issue. The mosque should be built where it is required…The local residents do not require another mosque.”

To another question whether Muslims have a reason to build a mosque at the site, the Shankaracharya said ‘‘No. Muslims already have eight places of worship. What will happen with one more?’’