AYODHYA- Welcome stay
VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNANin New Delhi
The Supreme Court order staying the Allahabad High Court verdict opens upall possibilities in the Ayodhya title suit.PTI Mohammed Hashim Ansari(right), the main plaintiff in the case on behalf of theSunni Central Waqf Board, with Nirmohi Akhara president Mahant Bhaskar Dasin Faizabad after the Allahabad High Court judgment in 2010. Both are againsta division of the disputed land.RIGHT from the day it was delivered on September 30, 2010, the Allahabad HighCourt judgment recommending trifurcation of the disputed Babri Masjid-RamJanmabhoomi site in Ayodhya evoked widespread criticism over its violations andlimitations in terms of established judicial practices. The Supreme Court in its order ofMay 9, 2011, which stayed the High Court verdict, upheld, in a sense, the spirit of thiscriticism.The apex court observed that the three-way division in the High Court judgment was“strange” and “surprising”. The two-member Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R.M.Lodha stated thus: “A new dimension was given by the High Court as the decree ofpartition was not sought by the parties. It was not prayed by anyone. It has to bestayed. It's a strange order. How can a decree of partition be passed when none ofthe parties had prayed for it? Court has done something on its own. It's strange. Suchkind of decrees cannot be allowed to be in operation.”In the wake of the High Court judgment, it was pointed out in both judicial andpolitical forums that the tools of jurisprudence employed by the three judges informulating the verdict marked a significant departure from usual judicial practice.Central to this criticism was the judges' use of faith and belief as key components inthe arguments they advanced.Several legal experts pointed out that issues relating to faith and belief were broughtin in such a large measure by Justices Dharam Veer Sharma, Sudhir Agarwal andSibghat Ullah Khan in their individual judgments that they almost seemed to overlook
the fundamental fact that the case under jurisdiction related to a title suit in a propertydispute.The Supreme Court stay order has not gone into an analysis of this perceivedtransgression of normal judicial practice, but several parties to the dispute and closeobservers of the Ayodhya case say this will happen anyway in the course of thehearing on the appeals that have come up before the apex court.Talking to Frontline, Anupam Gupta, former counsel of the Justice LiberhanCommission, which was set up to bring out the truth behind the demolition of theBabri Masjid in December 1992, said the Supreme Court stay order would enable are-examination of all the premises and postulates of the Allahabad High Court orderwhen the case progressed to the final hearing stage. He said:“The use of the words ‘strange' and ‘surprising' is significant. The Supreme Courtcould have just stated that all parties involved in the dispute – the Sunni Central WaqfBoard, which claimed to have had possession of the disputed structure and the landaround it since the 16th century, the Nirmohi Akhara, which has staked its claim tothe property since 1885 and ran a place of worship on the premises, and Lord RamLalla (infant Ram), represented by his Sakha (close friend) Triloki Nath Pandey – areagainst trifurcation and hence the verdict is stayed. But the Bench chose to observethat the Allahabad High Court verdict was strange and surprising.“Undoubtedly, this observation has significance beyond its immediate context andshould serve as a reminder to civil society in general and in particular to thosesections that had persuaded it to believe that trifurcation was the best possiblepragmatic solution to the Ayodhya dispute. These sections had argued that the long-standing problem had caused social and political fatigue in the population and thatone should look for easy and practical justice. The Supreme Court stay underscoresone important aspect that these sections of civil society chose to overlook: that nosolution that does not stand up to proper judicial principles and scrutiny can beacceptable to a nation and its people.”While Gupta did not name the sections of civil society, it is widely known that the twobig mainstream political parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP),had welcomed the trifurcation recommendation as a possible basis for a negotiatedsettlement of the Ayodhya dispute. The Supreme Court order has virtually quashedthis
expectation.NAND KUMAR/PTI
ZAFARYAB JILANI, SENIOR counsel of the Sunni Central Waqf Board.Interestingly, the BJP welcomed the Supreme Court stay too. The Congressmaintained that the party, as a matter of principle, did not comment on judicial issuesthat were under process. Other secular political forces, including the Left parties, ledby the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and the Samajwadi Party (S.P.), havewelcomed the Supreme Court order as a step in the right direction.In Ayodhya itself, the parties to the dispute welcomed the apex court order.Mohammed Hashim Ansari, the main plaintiff in the case on behalf of the SunniCentral Waqf Board, told Frontline that none of the parties involved in the disputewanted a division of the property. “The apex court order should serve as a lesson forall those involved in cheap politics over the issue,” Ansari said.Mahant Bhaskar Das of the Nirmohi Akhara echoed Ansari's view. He said hisorganisation was against the division of the disputed land and added that theSupreme Court had justified the akhara's stand.The third party, Triloki Nath Pandey, representing Ram Lalla, also welcomed thedecision because he and all the devotees of Ram believe that all of Ayodhya is theproperty of the deity and it cannot be apportioned to other organisations or faiths. TheVishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the sword arm of the Rashtriya SwayamsewakSangh-led Sangh Parivar and the strongest political associate of the third party, alsowelcomed the stay and advanced arguments similar to those of Pandey.Talking to Frontline from Lucknow, Zafaryab Jilani, main lawyer of the Sunni CentralWakf Board and a leader of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC), said theSupreme Court stay did indicate that the earlier sanctioned decree of the AllahabadHigh Court was not sound in law. “The order has once again opened up the Ayodhyacase for all possibilities and, of course, a long judicial process,” he said.Jilani and other legal experts associated with the three parties to the dispute were ofthe view that legal procedures in the Supreme Court would at least take another twoyears.However, representatives of all the parties told Frontline that they were open to
negotiations under a competent political authority, which could lead to an amicablesettlement. In fact, Mohammed Hashim Ansari had joined hands with Mahant GyanDas of the Hanuman Garhi temple in Ayodhya to initiate steps in this direction. But sofar the move has failed to gather momentum.Given the chequered history of the dispute and the efforts for a negotiatedsettlement, no political organisation has the credibility to take the lead in such anexercise.B L O G S / PRARTHNA GAHILOTEHashim Ansari -- A Long WaitAt 90, Hashim Ansari seems to be the voice of wisdom. "Masjid se pehley hummeyMulk dekhna hai (we have to look at the nation before the Mosque), he says. Manywould call it ironic. Others may even term it pretence. Considering MohammadHashim Ansari is the lone surviving petitioner in the Ayodhya title suit case -- filing acase in the court in 1961 for the restoration of the Babri Mosque. But for Ansari, it isneither. Ansari is unfazed. Even irritated, with the constant probing from the stream ofjournalists, visiting him the past few weeks."Phir aa gaye, (they have come again), is how Ansari greets us. He’s seen the entiremedia circus in Ayodhya in the last one decade, often even finding himself in thecentre of it all. But says he dreads that it is starting all over again.Just up from his afternoon siesta in his mostly bare house in Punji Tola, Ansari wantsto talk about everything else except the Friday verdict. "Jo hoga, dekha jayega. Courttaiy karega. Hum maneingey (we will see what happens. The Court will decide andwe will abide by it). Ask him what he expects and he just smiles. No answers for now.Instead, he wants to talk about old friends and camaraderie from the past. "Parsomain Gyan Das se milney gaya tha. Bahut der baithey. Baat ki (I went to meet GyanDas the day before. We sat together for a long time. Chatted).The mention of a meeting with Gyan Das may surprise one. At least now, with thejudgement, just days away. Gyan Das after all is the president of the Akhara Parishadand also the mahant of the famous Hanumangarhi temple in Ayodhya. Many mayeven think, perhaps the meeting between Ansari and Gyan Das was a last ditchattempt to find a solution. A formula, to settle the dispute and the ongoing battlebetween the two communities. Not for Ansari. He is far removed from theseconspiracy theories. Gyan Das is still a friend, he says. "The court case is a separateissue all together. We don’t let it come between us."There is a certain amount of passion in Ansari’s voice when he says that. Youwouldn’t doubt it for a minute. It’s also something that makes Ansari visibly happy andopen up. Almost as if shoving the court case aside, Ansari is eager to recount olddays. "There was never any bitterness. We were all friends when the case began andwe have remained friends through it," is how Ansari describes his relationship withthe other petitioners. Local residents who knew Ansari back then are full of stories.The most popular being, how Ansari and Ramchandra Paramahans Das, keeper of
the Digambar Akhara and also a petitioner in another suit filed in 1961 were regularcard players. Every evening Ansari would cycle to Paramhans’s place and then wouldbegin endless rounds of card playing.Ansari himself recalls, "Paramhans and I used to go the court together. I would cycleto court and Paramhans would ride pillion. I remember there was once when hedidn’t have documents to present in the court. I gave him my copy. On anotheroccasion, he stood witness for me in one of the hearings. We were also together injail once." He adds, "Koi maahol nahi bigda tab (the atmosphere didn’t get ruinedthen) But that was then.Today, four layers of barricading separates Ansari’s house from the disputed site, justacross the road, making it absolutely inaccessible for the likes of him. Looking at thebarricades from his door, Ansari recalls the last time he went to the Babri mosque todo namaz. "Isha ki namaz thi. Masjid gaye the namaz adaa karney. Sab kuchshaaant tha. Shehar mein koi gadbad nahi thi ( we had gone to the mosque to do thenamaz. The town was quiet. There was no sense of danger)." This was December,1949. Ansari along with other Muslims came back from the Mosque as usual. Late inthe night, he recalls, "Ram Dev Dubey who was the kotwal went to his neighbourZahir Abbas’s house. Dubey told Abbas that he sensed trouble. Together the twolocked the gates of the mosque for safety sake. Lot later Abhay Ram Das, a localsadhu jumped the walls of the mosque and kept an idol of Ram lalaa there."Ansari adds, "I filed a case in the court 12 years after all this happened. It was a localissue. The politicians jumped in much later. They changed the face of the dispute. Ifwe knew that politicians would milk our mosque for their own gains, we would havedone things differently." The politicians keep coming back to Ayodhya. Ansari callsthem fish and describes Ayodhya as their favourite pond. "How will the fish stay outof the pond?" he laughs.Outside Ansari’s house the town is quietly going about its business. PAC jawans dotthe bylanes. Many of them posted in Ayodhya, for over a month now, to maintain lawand order. Ansari seems to be untouched by the tension building in Ayodhya. Hecares little about the security forces pouring into the town, taking positions behind themany pickets that have now been put up. Even less, about the rumours regarding thejudgement. The September 17 surprise attempt of an `out-of-court-settlement’ didlittle for Ansari. "If it had to be decided out of court through mutual consent anddiscussion, we would have done it long back," he says, dismissing the attempt as agimmick.As the PAC keeps vigil from their pickets, Kuldip Singh, a jawan says, "it’s as quiethere as it has been for the last one month since we arrived. But things can be verydifferent after the verdict. Our job is to keep a watch. We are doing that." Keeping a watch, is also what Ansari is doing. "I am waiting for the 24th and I wantthis to finish. This has been dragging on for too long. Before 1947, Hindus andMuslims were called brothers. I want Hindus and Muslims to be called brothersagain. The 24thverdict should be the final word on the dispute," he says.I ask Ansari if he will go to the Supreme Court in case the verdict is against theMuslims and he shoots, "I will not. Let the politicians play more politics over it and goto the Supreme Court. I have lived with this for 49 years. I want it to be over." Ansari’s
fatigue is perhaps best reflected in the board outside his house. A faded shade ofgreen with the writing almost illegible, it says, `Mohmmad Hashim Ansari, Petitionersuit number 4/89’ The sides of the metal board are visibly rusted and the frame it wasmounted on, long gone.
ZAFARYAB JILANI, SENIOR counsel of the Sunni Central Waqf Board.Interestingly, the BJP welcomed the Supreme Court stay too. The Congressmaintained that the party, as a matter of principle, did not comment on judicial issuesthat were under process. Other secular political forces, including the Left parties, ledby the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and the Samajwadi Party (S.P.), havewelcomed the Supreme Court order as a step in the right direction.In Ayodhya itself, the parties to the dispute welcomed the apex court order.Mohammed Hashim Ansari, the main plaintiff in the case on behalf of the SunniCentral Waqf Board, told Frontline that none of the parties involved in the disputewanted a division of the property. “The apex court order should serve as a lesson forall those involved in cheap politics over the issue,” Ansari said.Mahant Bhaskar Das of the Nirmohi Akhara echoed Ansari's view. He said hisorganisation was against the division of the disputed land and added that theSupreme Court had justified the akhara's stand.The third party, Triloki Nath Pandey, representing Ram Lalla, also welcomed thedecision because he and all the devotees of Ram believe that all of Ayodhya is theproperty of the deity and it cannot be apportioned to other organisations or faiths. TheVishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the sword arm of the Rashtriya SwayamsewakSangh-led Sangh Parivar and the strongest political associate of the third party, alsowelcomed the stay and advanced arguments similar to those of Pandey.Talking to Frontline from Lucknow, Zafaryab Jilani, main lawyer of the Sunni CentralWakf Board and a leader of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC), said theSupreme Court stay did indicate that the earlier sanctioned decree of the AllahabadHigh Court was not sound in law. “The order has once again opened up the Ayodhyacase for all possibilities and, of course, a long judicial process,” he said.Jilani and other legal experts associated with the three parties to the dispute were ofthe view that legal procedures in the Supreme Court would at least take another twoyears.However, representatives of all the parties told Frontline that they were open to
negotiations under a competent political authority, which could lead to an amicablesettlement. In fact, Mohammed Hashim Ansari had joined hands with Mahant GyanDas of the Hanuman Garhi temple in Ayodhya to initiate steps in this direction. But sofar the move has failed to gather momentum.Given the chequered history of the dispute and the efforts for a negotiatedsettlement, no political organisation has the credibility to take the lead in such anexercise.B L O G S / PRARTHNA GAHILOTEHashim Ansari -- A Long WaitAt 90, Hashim Ansari seems to be the voice of wisdom. "Masjid se pehley hummeyMulk dekhna hai (we have to look at the nation before the Mosque), he says. Manywould call it ironic. Others may even term it pretence. Considering MohammadHashim Ansari is the lone surviving petitioner in the Ayodhya title suit case -- filing acase in the court in 1961 for the restoration of the Babri Mosque. But for Ansari, it isneither. Ansari is unfazed. Even irritated, with the constant probing from the stream ofjournalists, visiting him the past few weeks."Phir aa gaye, (they have come again), is how Ansari greets us. He’s seen the entiremedia circus in Ayodhya in the last one decade, often even finding himself in thecentre of it all. But says he dreads that it is starting all over again.Just up from his afternoon siesta in his mostly bare house in Punji Tola, Ansari wantsto talk about everything else except the Friday verdict. "Jo hoga, dekha jayega. Courttaiy karega. Hum maneingey (we will see what happens. The Court will decide andwe will abide by it). Ask him what he expects and he just smiles. No answers for now.Instead, he wants to talk about old friends and camaraderie from the past. "Parsomain Gyan Das se milney gaya tha. Bahut der baithey. Baat ki (I went to meet GyanDas the day before. We sat together for a long time. Chatted).The mention of a meeting with Gyan Das may surprise one. At least now, with thejudgement, just days away. Gyan Das after all is the president of the Akhara Parishadand also the mahant of the famous Hanumangarhi temple in Ayodhya. Many mayeven think, perhaps the meeting between Ansari and Gyan Das was a last ditchattempt to find a solution. A formula, to settle the dispute and the ongoing battlebetween the two communities. Not for Ansari. He is far removed from theseconspiracy theories. Gyan Das is still a friend, he says. "The court case is a separateissue all together. We don’t let it come between us."There is a certain amount of passion in Ansari’s voice when he says that. Youwouldn’t doubt it for a minute. It’s also something that makes Ansari visibly happy andopen up. Almost as if shoving the court case aside, Ansari is eager to recount olddays. "There was never any bitterness. We were all friends when the case began andwe have remained friends through it," is how Ansari describes his relationship withthe other petitioners. Local residents who knew Ansari back then are full of stories.The most popular being, how Ansari and Ramchandra Paramahans Das, keeper of
the Digambar Akhara and also a petitioner in another suit filed in 1961 were regularcard players. Every evening Ansari would cycle to Paramhans’s place and then wouldbegin endless rounds of card playing.Ansari himself recalls, "Paramhans and I used to go the court together. I would cycleto court and Paramhans would ride pillion. I remember there was once when hedidn’t have documents to present in the court. I gave him my copy. On anotheroccasion, he stood witness for me in one of the hearings. We were also together injail once." He adds, "Koi maahol nahi bigda tab (the atmosphere didn’t get ruinedthen) But that was then.Today, four layers of barricading separates Ansari’s house from the disputed site, justacross the road, making it absolutely inaccessible for the likes of him. Looking at thebarricades from his door, Ansari recalls the last time he went to the Babri mosque todo namaz. "Isha ki namaz thi. Masjid gaye the namaz adaa karney. Sab kuchshaaant tha. Shehar mein koi gadbad nahi thi ( we had gone to the mosque to do thenamaz. The town was quiet. There was no sense of danger)." This was December,1949. Ansari along with other Muslims came back from the Mosque as usual. Late inthe night, he recalls, "Ram Dev Dubey who was the kotwal went to his neighbourZahir Abbas’s house. Dubey told Abbas that he sensed trouble. Together the twolocked the gates of the mosque for safety sake. Lot later Abhay Ram Das, a localsadhu jumped the walls of the mosque and kept an idol of Ram lalaa there."Ansari adds, "I filed a case in the court 12 years after all this happened. It was a localissue. The politicians jumped in much later. They changed the face of the dispute. Ifwe knew that politicians would milk our mosque for their own gains, we would havedone things differently." The politicians keep coming back to Ayodhya. Ansari callsthem fish and describes Ayodhya as their favourite pond. "How will the fish stay outof the pond?" he laughs.Outside Ansari’s house the town is quietly going about its business. PAC jawans dotthe bylanes. Many of them posted in Ayodhya, for over a month now, to maintain lawand order. Ansari seems to be untouched by the tension building in Ayodhya. Hecares little about the security forces pouring into the town, taking positions behind themany pickets that have now been put up. Even less, about the rumours regarding thejudgement. The September 17 surprise attempt of an `out-of-court-settlement’ didlittle for Ansari. "If it had to be decided out of court through mutual consent anddiscussion, we would have done it long back," he says, dismissing the attempt as agimmick.As the PAC keeps vigil from their pickets, Kuldip Singh, a jawan says, "it’s as quiethere as it has been for the last one month since we arrived. But things can be verydifferent after the verdict. Our job is to keep a watch. We are doing that." Keeping a watch, is also what Ansari is doing. "I am waiting for the 24th and I wantthis to finish. This has been dragging on for too long. Before 1947, Hindus andMuslims were called brothers. I want Hindus and Muslims to be called brothersagain. The 24thverdict should be the final word on the dispute," he says.I ask Ansari if he will go to the Supreme Court in case the verdict is against theMuslims and he shoots, "I will not. Let the politicians play more politics over it and goto the Supreme Court. I have lived with this for 49 years. I want it to be over." Ansari’s
fatigue is perhaps best reflected in the board outside his house. A faded shade ofgreen with the writing almost illegible, it says, `Mohmmad Hashim Ansari, Petitionersuit number 4/89’ The sides of the metal board are visibly rusted and the frame it wasmounted on, long gone.
VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNANin New Delhi
The Supreme Court order staying the Allahabad High Court verdict opens upall possibilities in the Ayodhya title suit.PTI Mohammed Hashim Ansari(right), the main plaintiff in the case on behalf of theSunni Central Waqf Board, with Nirmohi Akhara president Mahant Bhaskar Dasin Faizabad after the Allahabad High Court judgment in 2010. Both are againsta division of the disputed land.RIGHT from the day it was delivered on September 30, 2010, the Allahabad HighCourt judgment recommending trifurcation of the disputed Babri Masjid-RamJanmabhoomi site in Ayodhya evoked widespread criticism over its violations andlimitations in terms of established judicial practices. The Supreme Court in its order ofMay 9, 2011, which stayed the High Court verdict, upheld, in a sense, the spirit of thiscriticism.The apex court observed that the three-way division in the High Court judgment was“strange” and “surprising”. The two-member Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R.M.Lodha stated thus: “A new dimension was given by the High Court as the decree ofpartition was not sought by the parties. It was not prayed by anyone. It has to bestayed. It's a strange order. How can a decree of partition be passed when none ofthe parties had prayed for it? Court has done something on its own. It's strange. Suchkind of decrees cannot be allowed to be in operation.”In the wake of the High Court judgment, it was pointed out in both judicial andpolitical forums that the tools of jurisprudence employed by the three judges informulating the verdict marked a significant departure from usual judicial practice.Central to this criticism was the judges' use of faith and belief as key components inthe arguments they advanced.Several legal experts pointed out that issues relating to faith and belief were broughtin in such a large measure by Justices Dharam Veer Sharma, Sudhir Agarwal andSibghat Ullah Khan in their individual judgments that they almost seemed to overlook
the fundamental fact that the case under jurisdiction related to a title suit in a propertydispute.The Supreme Court stay order has not gone into an analysis of this perceivedtransgression of normal judicial practice, but several parties to the dispute and closeobservers of the Ayodhya case say this will happen anyway in the course of thehearing on the appeals that have come up before the apex court.Talking to Frontline, Anupam Gupta, former counsel of the Justice LiberhanCommission, which was set up to bring out the truth behind the demolition of theBabri Masjid in December 1992, said the Supreme Court stay order would enable are-examination of all the premises and postulates of the Allahabad High Court orderwhen the case progressed to the final hearing stage. He said:“The use of the words ‘strange' and ‘surprising' is significant. The Supreme Courtcould have just stated that all parties involved in the dispute – the Sunni Central WaqfBoard, which claimed to have had possession of the disputed structure and the landaround it since the 16th century, the Nirmohi Akhara, which has staked its claim tothe property since 1885 and ran a place of worship on the premises, and Lord RamLalla (infant Ram), represented by his Sakha (close friend) Triloki Nath Pandey – areagainst trifurcation and hence the verdict is stayed. But the Bench chose to observethat the Allahabad High Court verdict was strange and surprising.“Undoubtedly, this observation has significance beyond its immediate context andshould serve as a reminder to civil society in general and in particular to thosesections that had persuaded it to believe that trifurcation was the best possiblepragmatic solution to the Ayodhya dispute. These sections had argued that the long-standing problem had caused social and political fatigue in the population and thatone should look for easy and practical justice. The Supreme Court stay underscoresone important aspect that these sections of civil society chose to overlook: that nosolution that does not stand up to proper judicial principles and scrutiny can beacceptable to a nation and its people.”While Gupta did not name the sections of civil society, it is widely known that the twobig mainstream political parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP),had welcomed the trifurcation recommendation as a possible basis for a negotiatedsettlement of the Ayodhya dispute. The Supreme Court order has virtually quashedthis
expectation.NAND KUMAR/PTI
ZAFARYAB JILANI, SENIOR counsel of the Sunni Central Waqf Board.Interestingly, the BJP welcomed the Supreme Court stay too. The Congressmaintained that the party, as a matter of principle, did not comment on judicial issuesthat were under process. Other secular political forces, including the Left parties, ledby the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and the Samajwadi Party (S.P.), havewelcomed the Supreme Court order as a step in the right direction.In Ayodhya itself, the parties to the dispute welcomed the apex court order.Mohammed Hashim Ansari, the main plaintiff in the case on behalf of the SunniCentral Waqf Board, told Frontline that none of the parties involved in the disputewanted a division of the property. “The apex court order should serve as a lesson forall those involved in cheap politics over the issue,” Ansari said.Mahant Bhaskar Das of the Nirmohi Akhara echoed Ansari's view. He said hisorganisation was against the division of the disputed land and added that theSupreme Court had justified the akhara's stand.The third party, Triloki Nath Pandey, representing Ram Lalla, also welcomed thedecision because he and all the devotees of Ram believe that all of Ayodhya is theproperty of the deity and it cannot be apportioned to other organisations or faiths. TheVishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the sword arm of the Rashtriya SwayamsewakSangh-led Sangh Parivar and the strongest political associate of the third party, alsowelcomed the stay and advanced arguments similar to those of Pandey.Talking to Frontline from Lucknow, Zafaryab Jilani, main lawyer of the Sunni CentralWakf Board and a leader of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC), said theSupreme Court stay did indicate that the earlier sanctioned decree of the AllahabadHigh Court was not sound in law. “The order has once again opened up the Ayodhyacase for all possibilities and, of course, a long judicial process,” he said.Jilani and other legal experts associated with the three parties to the dispute were ofthe view that legal procedures in the Supreme Court would at least take another twoyears.However, representatives of all the parties told Frontline that they were open to
negotiations under a competent political authority, which could lead to an amicablesettlement. In fact, Mohammed Hashim Ansari had joined hands with Mahant GyanDas of the Hanuman Garhi temple in Ayodhya to initiate steps in this direction. But sofar the move has failed to gather momentum.Given the chequered history of the dispute and the efforts for a negotiatedsettlement, no political organisation has the credibility to take the lead in such anexercise.B L O G S / PRARTHNA GAHILOTEHashim Ansari -- A Long WaitAt 90, Hashim Ansari seems to be the voice of wisdom. "Masjid se pehley hummeyMulk dekhna hai (we have to look at the nation before the Mosque), he says. Manywould call it ironic. Others may even term it pretence. Considering MohammadHashim Ansari is the lone surviving petitioner in the Ayodhya title suit case -- filing acase in the court in 1961 for the restoration of the Babri Mosque. But for Ansari, it isneither. Ansari is unfazed. Even irritated, with the constant probing from the stream ofjournalists, visiting him the past few weeks."Phir aa gaye, (they have come again), is how Ansari greets us. He’s seen the entiremedia circus in Ayodhya in the last one decade, often even finding himself in thecentre of it all. But says he dreads that it is starting all over again.Just up from his afternoon siesta in his mostly bare house in Punji Tola, Ansari wantsto talk about everything else except the Friday verdict. "Jo hoga, dekha jayega. Courttaiy karega. Hum maneingey (we will see what happens. The Court will decide andwe will abide by it). Ask him what he expects and he just smiles. No answers for now.Instead, he wants to talk about old friends and camaraderie from the past. "Parsomain Gyan Das se milney gaya tha. Bahut der baithey. Baat ki (I went to meet GyanDas the day before. We sat together for a long time. Chatted).The mention of a meeting with Gyan Das may surprise one. At least now, with thejudgement, just days away. Gyan Das after all is the president of the Akhara Parishadand also the mahant of the famous Hanumangarhi temple in Ayodhya. Many mayeven think, perhaps the meeting between Ansari and Gyan Das was a last ditchattempt to find a solution. A formula, to settle the dispute and the ongoing battlebetween the two communities. Not for Ansari. He is far removed from theseconspiracy theories. Gyan Das is still a friend, he says. "The court case is a separateissue all together. We don’t let it come between us."There is a certain amount of passion in Ansari’s voice when he says that. Youwouldn’t doubt it for a minute. It’s also something that makes Ansari visibly happy andopen up. Almost as if shoving the court case aside, Ansari is eager to recount olddays. "There was never any bitterness. We were all friends when the case began andwe have remained friends through it," is how Ansari describes his relationship withthe other petitioners. Local residents who knew Ansari back then are full of stories.The most popular being, how Ansari and Ramchandra Paramahans Das, keeper of
the Digambar Akhara and also a petitioner in another suit filed in 1961 were regularcard players. Every evening Ansari would cycle to Paramhans’s place and then wouldbegin endless rounds of card playing.Ansari himself recalls, "Paramhans and I used to go the court together. I would cycleto court and Paramhans would ride pillion. I remember there was once when hedidn’t have documents to present in the court. I gave him my copy. On anotheroccasion, he stood witness for me in one of the hearings. We were also together injail once." He adds, "Koi maahol nahi bigda tab (the atmosphere didn’t get ruinedthen) But that was then.Today, four layers of barricading separates Ansari’s house from the disputed site, justacross the road, making it absolutely inaccessible for the likes of him. Looking at thebarricades from his door, Ansari recalls the last time he went to the Babri mosque todo namaz. "Isha ki namaz thi. Masjid gaye the namaz adaa karney. Sab kuchshaaant tha. Shehar mein koi gadbad nahi thi ( we had gone to the mosque to do thenamaz. The town was quiet. There was no sense of danger)." This was December,1949. Ansari along with other Muslims came back from the Mosque as usual. Late inthe night, he recalls, "Ram Dev Dubey who was the kotwal went to his neighbourZahir Abbas’s house. Dubey told Abbas that he sensed trouble. Together the twolocked the gates of the mosque for safety sake. Lot later Abhay Ram Das, a localsadhu jumped the walls of the mosque and kept an idol of Ram lalaa there."Ansari adds, "I filed a case in the court 12 years after all this happened. It was a localissue. The politicians jumped in much later. They changed the face of the dispute. Ifwe knew that politicians would milk our mosque for their own gains, we would havedone things differently." The politicians keep coming back to Ayodhya. Ansari callsthem fish and describes Ayodhya as their favourite pond. "How will the fish stay outof the pond?" he laughs.Outside Ansari’s house the town is quietly going about its business. PAC jawans dotthe bylanes. Many of them posted in Ayodhya, for over a month now, to maintain lawand order. Ansari seems to be untouched by the tension building in Ayodhya. Hecares little about the security forces pouring into the town, taking positions behind themany pickets that have now been put up. Even less, about the rumours regarding thejudgement. The September 17 surprise attempt of an `out-of-court-settlement’ didlittle for Ansari. "If it had to be decided out of court through mutual consent anddiscussion, we would have done it long back," he says, dismissing the attempt as agimmick.As the PAC keeps vigil from their pickets, Kuldip Singh, a jawan says, "it’s as quiethere as it has been for the last one month since we arrived. But things can be verydifferent after the verdict. Our job is to keep a watch. We are doing that." Keeping a watch, is also what Ansari is doing. "I am waiting for the 24th and I wantthis to finish. This has been dragging on for too long. Before 1947, Hindus andMuslims were called brothers. I want Hindus and Muslims to be called brothersagain. The 24thverdict should be the final word on the dispute," he says.I ask Ansari if he will go to the Supreme Court in case the verdict is against theMuslims and he shoots, "I will not. Let the politicians play more politics over it and goto the Supreme Court. I have lived with this for 49 years. I want it to be over." Ansari’s
fatigue is perhaps best reflected in the board outside his house. A faded shade ofgreen with the writing almost illegible, it says, `Mohmmad Hashim Ansari, Petitionersuit number 4/89’ The sides of the metal board are visibly rusted and the frame it wasmounted on, long gone.
ZAFARYAB JILANI, SENIOR counsel of the Sunni Central Waqf Board.Interestingly, the BJP welcomed the Supreme Court stay too. The Congressmaintained that the party, as a matter of principle, did not comment on judicial issuesthat were under process. Other secular political forces, including the Left parties, ledby the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and the Samajwadi Party (S.P.), havewelcomed the Supreme Court order as a step in the right direction.In Ayodhya itself, the parties to the dispute welcomed the apex court order.Mohammed Hashim Ansari, the main plaintiff in the case on behalf of the SunniCentral Waqf Board, told Frontline that none of the parties involved in the disputewanted a division of the property. “The apex court order should serve as a lesson forall those involved in cheap politics over the issue,” Ansari said.Mahant Bhaskar Das of the Nirmohi Akhara echoed Ansari's view. He said hisorganisation was against the division of the disputed land and added that theSupreme Court had justified the akhara's stand.The third party, Triloki Nath Pandey, representing Ram Lalla, also welcomed thedecision because he and all the devotees of Ram believe that all of Ayodhya is theproperty of the deity and it cannot be apportioned to other organisations or faiths. TheVishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the sword arm of the Rashtriya SwayamsewakSangh-led Sangh Parivar and the strongest political associate of the third party, alsowelcomed the stay and advanced arguments similar to those of Pandey.Talking to Frontline from Lucknow, Zafaryab Jilani, main lawyer of the Sunni CentralWakf Board and a leader of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC), said theSupreme Court stay did indicate that the earlier sanctioned decree of the AllahabadHigh Court was not sound in law. “The order has once again opened up the Ayodhyacase for all possibilities and, of course, a long judicial process,” he said.Jilani and other legal experts associated with the three parties to the dispute were ofthe view that legal procedures in the Supreme Court would at least take another twoyears.However, representatives of all the parties told Frontline that they were open to
negotiations under a competent political authority, which could lead to an amicablesettlement. In fact, Mohammed Hashim Ansari had joined hands with Mahant GyanDas of the Hanuman Garhi temple in Ayodhya to initiate steps in this direction. But sofar the move has failed to gather momentum.Given the chequered history of the dispute and the efforts for a negotiatedsettlement, no political organisation has the credibility to take the lead in such anexercise.B L O G S / PRARTHNA GAHILOTEHashim Ansari -- A Long WaitAt 90, Hashim Ansari seems to be the voice of wisdom. "Masjid se pehley hummeyMulk dekhna hai (we have to look at the nation before the Mosque), he says. Manywould call it ironic. Others may even term it pretence. Considering MohammadHashim Ansari is the lone surviving petitioner in the Ayodhya title suit case -- filing acase in the court in 1961 for the restoration of the Babri Mosque. But for Ansari, it isneither. Ansari is unfazed. Even irritated, with the constant probing from the stream ofjournalists, visiting him the past few weeks."Phir aa gaye, (they have come again), is how Ansari greets us. He’s seen the entiremedia circus in Ayodhya in the last one decade, often even finding himself in thecentre of it all. But says he dreads that it is starting all over again.Just up from his afternoon siesta in his mostly bare house in Punji Tola, Ansari wantsto talk about everything else except the Friday verdict. "Jo hoga, dekha jayega. Courttaiy karega. Hum maneingey (we will see what happens. The Court will decide andwe will abide by it). Ask him what he expects and he just smiles. No answers for now.Instead, he wants to talk about old friends and camaraderie from the past. "Parsomain Gyan Das se milney gaya tha. Bahut der baithey. Baat ki (I went to meet GyanDas the day before. We sat together for a long time. Chatted).The mention of a meeting with Gyan Das may surprise one. At least now, with thejudgement, just days away. Gyan Das after all is the president of the Akhara Parishadand also the mahant of the famous Hanumangarhi temple in Ayodhya. Many mayeven think, perhaps the meeting between Ansari and Gyan Das was a last ditchattempt to find a solution. A formula, to settle the dispute and the ongoing battlebetween the two communities. Not for Ansari. He is far removed from theseconspiracy theories. Gyan Das is still a friend, he says. "The court case is a separateissue all together. We don’t let it come between us."There is a certain amount of passion in Ansari’s voice when he says that. Youwouldn’t doubt it for a minute. It’s also something that makes Ansari visibly happy andopen up. Almost as if shoving the court case aside, Ansari is eager to recount olddays. "There was never any bitterness. We were all friends when the case began andwe have remained friends through it," is how Ansari describes his relationship withthe other petitioners. Local residents who knew Ansari back then are full of stories.The most popular being, how Ansari and Ramchandra Paramahans Das, keeper of
the Digambar Akhara and also a petitioner in another suit filed in 1961 were regularcard players. Every evening Ansari would cycle to Paramhans’s place and then wouldbegin endless rounds of card playing.Ansari himself recalls, "Paramhans and I used to go the court together. I would cycleto court and Paramhans would ride pillion. I remember there was once when hedidn’t have documents to present in the court. I gave him my copy. On anotheroccasion, he stood witness for me in one of the hearings. We were also together injail once." He adds, "Koi maahol nahi bigda tab (the atmosphere didn’t get ruinedthen) But that was then.Today, four layers of barricading separates Ansari’s house from the disputed site, justacross the road, making it absolutely inaccessible for the likes of him. Looking at thebarricades from his door, Ansari recalls the last time he went to the Babri mosque todo namaz. "Isha ki namaz thi. Masjid gaye the namaz adaa karney. Sab kuchshaaant tha. Shehar mein koi gadbad nahi thi ( we had gone to the mosque to do thenamaz. The town was quiet. There was no sense of danger)." This was December,1949. Ansari along with other Muslims came back from the Mosque as usual. Late inthe night, he recalls, "Ram Dev Dubey who was the kotwal went to his neighbourZahir Abbas’s house. Dubey told Abbas that he sensed trouble. Together the twolocked the gates of the mosque for safety sake. Lot later Abhay Ram Das, a localsadhu jumped the walls of the mosque and kept an idol of Ram lalaa there."Ansari adds, "I filed a case in the court 12 years after all this happened. It was a localissue. The politicians jumped in much later. They changed the face of the dispute. Ifwe knew that politicians would milk our mosque for their own gains, we would havedone things differently." The politicians keep coming back to Ayodhya. Ansari callsthem fish and describes Ayodhya as their favourite pond. "How will the fish stay outof the pond?" he laughs.Outside Ansari’s house the town is quietly going about its business. PAC jawans dotthe bylanes. Many of them posted in Ayodhya, for over a month now, to maintain lawand order. Ansari seems to be untouched by the tension building in Ayodhya. Hecares little about the security forces pouring into the town, taking positions behind themany pickets that have now been put up. Even less, about the rumours regarding thejudgement. The September 17 surprise attempt of an `out-of-court-settlement’ didlittle for Ansari. "If it had to be decided out of court through mutual consent anddiscussion, we would have done it long back," he says, dismissing the attempt as agimmick.As the PAC keeps vigil from their pickets, Kuldip Singh, a jawan says, "it’s as quiethere as it has been for the last one month since we arrived. But things can be verydifferent after the verdict. Our job is to keep a watch. We are doing that." Keeping a watch, is also what Ansari is doing. "I am waiting for the 24th and I wantthis to finish. This has been dragging on for too long. Before 1947, Hindus andMuslims were called brothers. I want Hindus and Muslims to be called brothersagain. The 24thverdict should be the final word on the dispute," he says.I ask Ansari if he will go to the Supreme Court in case the verdict is against theMuslims and he shoots, "I will not. Let the politicians play more politics over it and goto the Supreme Court. I have lived with this for 49 years. I want it to be over." Ansari’s
fatigue is perhaps best reflected in the board outside his house. A faded shade ofgreen with the writing almost illegible, it says, `Mohmmad Hashim Ansari, Petitionersuit number 4/89’ The sides of the metal board are visibly rusted and the frame it wasmounted on, long gone.
No comments:
Post a Comment