Minorities panel wants monuments re-opened to namaz,ASI worried

However,sources said,there are serious security concerns given that the Union Cabinet affirmed in 1991,1992 and as recently as at a 2009 meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security that revival of worship in protected monuments will not be permitted. Already,according to the ASI,there are nine mosques in Delhi where prayers are illegally offered.

The rules,officials explained,are quite clear that prayers would continue only in those religious structures where these practices were already happening at the time when they were declared protected monuments. When this rule was frozen,there were three such mosques in Delhi — Palam Mosque,Neeli Masjid and Sunehri Masjid. Prayers are still allowed here.

While there have been longstanding claims to make exceptions,the government has so far resisted this.

“All we have asked is to carry out a study. We will only take a decision after that. It’s then that we will look at the concerns as well. The ASI survey will tell us whether these monuments are being maintained properly. Based on that,we can consider whether to involve local communities,who would want to participate if prayers are allowed there. The ASI can,of course,set the standards,” NCM Chairman Wajahat Habibulllah said.

The ASI,however,feels that any such move is fraught with danger. “We have started the survey and will take another couple of months. But our biggest fear is that this may have a ripple effect. Also,maintaining live monuments (sites where worship is allowed) is far more difficult,” said ASI Director General Pravin Srivastava.

The NCM also wants the ASI to assess the upkeep in mosques where prayers are offered illegally,such as the ones in Kotla Ferozeshah,Safdarjung Tomb and Purana Qila. The NCM wants to know whether these have suffered any damage as opposed to those monuments where prayers are not held.

“We are told that all sorts of things happen in these monuments,with people getting drunk and abusing the sanctity of the place. That’s why such a study is important. Delhi is also unique because a lot of the Muslim population had to leave when the British took over the city and built new structures. So,many mosques feel into disuse,“ said Habibullah.

According to the ASI,under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act,once a structure has been declared a centrally protected monument,“no new practices” can be introduced. The department has also highlighted important moments in recent history when the Union Cabinet has reinforced this rule because of the sensitive implication of such decisions.

Most significant among these were the meetings of the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA) in the build-up to the Babri Masjid movement when there were several demands from Muslim groups for reviving prayers in mosques which were monuments.

The ASI has pointed out that on March 11,1991,and March 4,1992,the CCPA held that religious worship cannot be revived in protected monuments. This was reaffirmed by the Cabinet Committee on Security in 2009 when several attempts were made to start prayers in protected monuments across Delhi. Matters even grew tense when about 200 persons gathered to offer Friday prayers at Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque on the Qutab Minar premises. Such attempts were also made at the Mohammadi Wali Mosque near the Siri Fort Complex and other places.

The one exception about prayers not being allowed to start in monuments declared protected was made in the case of Safdarjung Tomb in March 1984. Under mounting pressure,then prime minister Indira Gandhi had deputed her then external affairs minister P V Narasimha

to find a way out through talks with agitating Muslim MPs.

It was amicably agreed that as a symbolic gesture,prayers would be allowed for one day on March 2,1984. However,once the practice started,authorities could not stop prayers from being held subsequently.

After that,an expert archaeological group was set up which came to the conclusion that revival of worship would not be allowed in the “interest of effective conservation”.