AYODHYA Welcome stay
VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN
in New Delhi
The Supreme Court order staying the Allahabad High Court verdict opens up all possibilities in the Ayodhya title suit.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl2811/stories/20110603281109900.htm
PTI
Mohammed Hashim Ansari(right), the main plaintiff in the case on behalf of the Sunni Central Waqf Board, with Nirmohi Akhara president Mahant Bhaskar Das in Faizabad after the Allahabad High Court judgment in 2010. Both are against a division of the disputed land.
RIGHT from the day it was delivered on September 30, 2010, the Allahabad High Court judgment recommending trifurcation of the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya evoked widespread criticism over its violations and limitations in terms of established judicial practices. The Supreme Court in its order of May 9, 2011, which stayed the High Court verdict, upheld, in a sense, the spirit of this criticism.
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 of partition was not sought by the parties. It was not prayed by anyone. It has to be stayed. It's a strange order. How can a decree of partition be passed when none of the parties had prayed for it? Court has done something on its own. It's strange. Such kind of decrees cannot be allowed to be in operation.”
In the wake of the High Court judgment, it was pointed out in both judicial and political forums that the tools of jurisprudence employed by the three judges in formulating 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 in the arguments they advanced.
Several legal experts pointed out that issues relating to faith and belief were brought in in such a large measure by Justices Dharam Veer Sharma, Sudhir Agarwal and Sibghat 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 property dispute.
The Supreme Court stay order has not gone into an analysis of this perceived transgression of normal judicial practice, but several parties to the dispute and close observers of the Ayodhya case say this will happen anyway in the course of the hearing on the appeals that have come up before the apex court.
Talking to Frontline, Anupam Gupta, former counsel of the Justice Liberhan Commission, which was set up to bring out the truth behind the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992, said the Supreme Court stay order would enable a re-examination of all the premises and postulates of the Allahabad High Court order when the case progressed to the final hearing stage. He said:
“The use of the words ‘strange' and ‘surprising' is significant. The Supreme Court could have just stated that all parties involved in the dispute – the Sunni Central Waqf Board, which claimed to have had possession of the disputed structure and the land around it since the 16th century, the Nirmohi Akhara, which has staked its claim to the property since 1885 and ran a place of worship on the premises, and Lord Ram Lalla (infant Ram), represented by his Sakha (close friend) Triloki Nath Pandey – are against trifurcation and hence the verdict is stayed. But the Bench chose to observe that the Allahabad High Court verdict was strange and surprising.
“Undoubtedly, this observation has significance beyond its immediate context and should serve as a reminder to civil society in general and in particular to those sections that had persuaded it to believe that trifurcation was the best possible pragmatic solution to the Ayodhya dispute. These sections had argued that the long-standing problem had caused social and political fatigue in the population and that one should look for easy and practical justice. The Supreme Court stay underscores one important aspect that these sections of civil society chose to overlook: that no solution that does not stand up to proper judicial principles and scrutiny can be acceptable to a nation and its people.”
While Gupta did not name the sections of civil society, it is widely known that the two big mainstream political parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), had welcomed the trifurcation recommendation as a possible basis for a negotiated settlement of the Ayodhya dispute. The Supreme Court order has virtually quashed this expectation.
NAND KUMAR/PTI
ZAFARYAB JILANI, SENIOR counsel of the Sunni Central Waqf Board.
Interestingly, the BJP welcomed the Supreme Court stay too. The Congress maintained that the party, as a matter of principle, did not comment on judicial issues that were under process. Other secular political forces, including the Left parties, led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and the Samajwadi Party (S.P.), have welcomed 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 Sunni Central Waqf Board, told Frontline that none of the parties involved in the dispute wanted a division of the property. “The apex court order should serve as a lesson for all those involved in cheap politics over the issue,” Ansari said.
Mahant Bhaskar Das of the Nirmohi Akhara echoed Ansari's view. He said his organisation was against the division of the disputed land and added that the Supreme Court had justified the akhara's stand.
The third party, Triloki Nath Pandey, representing Ram Lalla, also welcomed the decision because he and all the devotees of Ram believe that all of Ayodhya is the property of the deity and it cannot be apportioned to other organisations or faiths. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the sword arm of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh-led Sangh Parivar and the strongest political associate of the third party, also welcomed the stay and advanced arguments similar to those of Pandey.
Talking to Frontline from Lucknow, Zafaryab Jilani, main lawyer of the Sunni Central Wakf Board and a leader of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC), said the Supreme Court stay did indicate that the earlier sanctioned decree of the Allahabad High Court was not sound in law. “The order has once again opened up the Ayodhya case 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 of the view that legal procedures in the Supreme Court would at least take another two years.
However, representatives of all the parties told Frontline that they were open to negotiations under a competent political authority, which could lead to an amicable settlement. In fact, Mohammed Hashim Ansari had joined hands with Mahant Gyan Das of the Hanuman Garhi temple in Ayodhya to initiate steps in this direction. But so far the move has failed to gather momentum.
Given the chequered history of the dispute and the efforts for a negotiated settlement, no political organisation has the credibility to take the lead in such an exercise.
BLOGS / PRARTHNA GAHILOTE
Hashim Ansari -- A Long Wait
At 90, Hashim Ansari seems to be the voice of wisdom. "Masjid se pehley hummey Mulk dekhna hai (we have to look at the nation before the Mosque), he says. Many would call it ironic. Others may even term it pretence. Considering Mohammad Hashim Ansari is the lone surviving petitioner in the Ayodhya title suit case -- filing a case in the court in 1961 for the restoration of the Babri Mosque. But for Ansari, it is neither. Ansari is unfazed. Even irritated, with the constant probing from the stream of journalists, visiting him the past few weeks.
"Phir aa gaye, (they have come again), is how Ansari greets us. He’s seen the entire media circus in Ayodhya in the last one decade, often even finding himself in the centre 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 wants to talk about everything else except the Friday verdict. "Jo hoga, dekha jayega. Court taiy karega. Hum maneingey (we will see what happens. The Court will decide and we 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. "Parso main Gyan Das se milney gaya tha. Bahut der baithey. Baat ki (I went to meet Gyan Das 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 the judgement, just days away. Gyan Das after all is the president of the Akhara Parishad and also the mahant of the famous Hanumangarhi temple in Ayodhya. Many may even think, perhaps the meeting between Ansari and Gyan Das was a last ditch attempt to find a solution. A formula, to settle the dispute and the ongoing battle between the two communities. Not for Ansari. He is far removed from these conspiracy theories. Gyan Das is still a friend, he says. "The court case is a separate issue 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. You wouldn’t doubt it for a minute. It’s also something that makes Ansari visibly happy and open up. Almost as if shoving the court case aside, Ansari is eager to recount old days. "There was never any bitterness. We were all friends when the case began and we have remained friends through it," is how Ansari describes his relationship with the 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 regular card players. Every evening Ansari would cycle to Paramhans’s place and then would begin endless rounds of card playing.
Ansari himself recalls, "Paramhans and I used to go the court together. I would cycle to court and Paramhans would ride pillion. I remember there was once when he didn’t have documents to present in the court. I gave him my copy. On another occasion, he stood witness for me in one of the hearings. We were also together in jail once." He adds, "Koi maahol nahi bigda tab (the atmosphere didn’t get ruined then) But that was then.
Today, four layers of barricading separates Ansari’s house from the disputed site, just across the road, making it absolutely inaccessible for the likes of him. Looking at the barricades from his door, Ansari recalls the last time he went to the Babri mosque to do namaz. "Isha ki namaz thi. Masjid gaye the namaz adaa karney. Sab kuch shaaant tha. Shehar mein koi gadbad nahi thi ( we had gone to the mosque to do the namaz. 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 in the night, he recalls, "Ram Dev Dubey who was the kotwal went to his neighbour Zahir Abbas’s house. Dubey told Abbas that he sensed trouble. Together the two locked the gates of the mosque for safety sake. Lot later Abhay Ram Das, a local sadhu 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 local issue. The politicians jumped in much later. They changed the face of the dispute. If we knew that politicians would milk our mosque for their own gains, we would have done things differently." The politicians keep coming back to Ayodhya. Ansari calls them fish and describes Ayodhya as their favourite pond. "How will the fish stay out of the pond?" he laughs.
Outside Ansari’s house the town is quietly going about its business. PAC jawans dot the bylanes. Many of them posted in Ayodhya, for over a month now, to maintain law and order. Ansari seems to be untouched by the tension building in Ayodhya. He cares little about the security forces pouring into the town, taking positions behind the many pickets that have now been put up. Even less, about the rumours regarding the judgement. The September 17 surprise attempt of an `out-of-court-settlement’ did little for Ansari. "If it had to be decided out of court through mutual consent and discussion, we would have done it long back," he says, dismissing the attempt as a gimmick.
As the PAC keeps vigil from their pickets, Kuldip Singh, a jawan says, "it’s as quiet here as it has been for the last one month since we arrived. But things can be very different 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 want this to finish. This has been dragging on for too long. Before 1947, Hindus and Muslims were called brothers. I want Hindus and Muslims to be called brothers again. 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 the Muslims and he shoots, "I will not. Let the politicians play more politics over it and go to 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 of green with the writing almost illegible, it says, `Mohmmad Hashim Ansari, Petitioner suit number 4/89’ The sides of the metal board are visibly rusted and the frame it was mounted on, long gone.
Ayodhya verdict: Allahabad High Court says divide land in 3 ways
India | NDTV Correspondent |
Updated: October 01, 2010 00:31 IST
LUCKNOW: Sixty years after it first went to court, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has pronounced judgment in the Ayodhya title suit, saying Hindus and Muslims are joint title holders.
The three-judge bench - comprising Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma - ruled in a majority judgment 2:1, that there be a three-way division of the disputed land - one-third for the Sunni Waqf Board, one-third for the Nirmohi Akhara and one-third to the party for 'Ram Lalla'.
Each of the three judges gave a summary of his own.
Justice Khan pointed to the unprecedented nature of Hindus and Muslims worshipping together for centuries. (Read: Muslims, Hindus worshipped together, says Justice Khan)
And Justice Aggarwal observed that the inner courtyard of the building belonged to both Hindus and Muslims. (Read: Inner courtyard area belongs to Hindus & Muslims, says Justice Agarwal)
The Ayodhya judgment
In an order that runs into over 8,000 pages, the High Court has said that the portion below the central dome under which the idols of Lord Ram and other Gods are placed in a makeshift temple, belongs to Hindus. All three judges agreed that the portion under the central dome should be allotted to Hindus.
The Nirmohi Akhara, the judgment says, would get the Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi. (Read the judgement)
Ravi Shankar Prasad, BJP leader and senior advocate appearing for one of the litigants, emerged from court after the verdict to say, "this matter will be looked into in the next three months but the important part here is that court has taken a decision with the consent of the majority and that is that where Ram Lalla is (viraajman) is the birth place of Ram and that's what the Hindu's believe and even (Justice) SU Khan has also said that Ram Lalla will not be moved out from that place even when it will be divided into three."
Crucially, the court has said there shall be status quo at the site for three months.
There were two other majority findings, where one judge dissented and two agreed: that the disputed structure was a mosque and that a temple was demolished to build a mosque. Justice SU Khan held that no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque at the disputed structure. He said the mosque was constructed under orders of Babar over the ruins of temples lying in that state for a very long time. (Read: Ayodhya dispute timeline)
The judgment observed that the idols were placed beneath the central dome early on December 23, 1949.
The court dismissed two major claims to the land - one filed in 1989 on behalf Ram Lalla, or the infant Lord Ram, and the second by the Sunni Waqf Board filed in 1961. (Watch: Sunni Waqf Board's suit dismissed, says lawyer) | (Read: Sunni Waqf Board to appeal in Supreme Court)
The Sunni Waqf Board has said it does not agree with today's judgment and will appeal in the Supreme Court against it.
The chairman of the Sri Ram Janmbhoomi Trust, Nritya Gopal Das, too said they would challenge the decision to provide one-third of the disputed land to the Sunni Waqf Board in the Supreme Court. (Watch: The background to the Ayodhya dispute)
The dispute before the court was whether the 2.7 acres of disputed land on which the Babri Masjid stood before it was demolished on December 6, 1992, belongs to the Sunni Central Waqf Board or to the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.
It has been a protracted legal battle, and people across the country have spoken in one voice on the need to maintain peace and harmony.
PM appeals for peace
After a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on security, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh issued an appeal to "all sections of the people to maintain peace and tranquility and to show respect for all religions and religious beliefs in the highest traditions of Indian culture... Let me also state that Government on its part remains fully committed to upholding the rule of law and maintaining peace, order and harmony... It is my hope that the response of the people of India to the judgement will be respectful, dignified and do our country proud.
He said the "orders delivered by the three Honourable Judges need to be examined carefully." "The correct conclusion, at this stage, is that the status quo will be maintained until the cases are taken up by the Supreme Court," he said. (Read: PM appeals for peace after verdict)
Temple politics back?
Only a few hours after the Ayodhya verdict, top leaders of the BJP met at party patriarch LK Advani's residence in New Delhi. After the meeting, Advani said, "In so far as the judgement upholds the right of the Hindus to construct a temple, it is a significant step forward toward the construction of a grand temple of the birthplace of Lord Ram." (Watch: Advani, Modi, others react to verdict)
Advani said the BJP believed the verdict opened a new chapter for national integration and a new era of inter-community relations and added that the party "is gratified that the nation has received the verdict with maturity." (Read: A new chapter of national integration, says Advani)
No politics, please, said the Congress. Senior leader in charge of UP Digvijaya Singh said, "no politics at this point." (Watch: Ayodhya verdict- Temple politics back?)
Political parties appeal for calm
RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat said the "judgement has paved the way for theconstruction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya. The judgement is not a winor loss for anybody. We invite everybody, including Muslims, to helpbuild the temple." (Watch: Nobody's victory or loss, says RSS)
Bhagwat also said "joy and happiness over the verdict" should findexpression in a "controlled and peaceful manner" within the limits oflaw and constitution. "Uncalled for provocation must be avoided," headded, saying the movement for a Ram temple was "not a reactionary one,nor it is against any particular community."
Zafaryab Jilani, convenor of the All-India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC), too said, "We hope peace and tranquillity will be maintained." Jilani said the "majority judgment is that mosque and temple must coexist."
The Congress welcomed the Ayodhya judgment saying everyone shouldaccept it and no one should treat it as a victory or defeat. "Congresshas held that the controversy should either be solved through talks orthe verdict of the court should be accepted. The court has given theverdict. We should all welcome the judgement," party general secretaryJanardhan Dwivedi told reporters. (Watch: Everyone should welcome Ayodhya judgement, says Congress)
Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi said, "I welcome the court'sdecision and appeal to all to maintain peace. We should all worktowards harmony. I am happy that the judgement now paves the way forbuilding a Ram temple in Ayodhya. This judgement will work as acatalyst for the country's unity." Modi's views were also echoed bysenior BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi. (Watch: Narendra Modi on Ayodhya verdict)
CPM's Sitaram Yechury asked the people of India to maintain peace andnot fall prey to any provocation. "This judgement requires to be fullystudied. There may be questions on the nature of the verdict," the CPMPolitburo said in a statement.
UP Chief Minister Mayawati threw the ball in the Centre's court overthe implementation of the verdict and ensuring peace and harmony in thestate. She alleged that the Centre had not provided enough paramilitaryforces for security. (Watch: Upto the Centre to ensure compliance, says Mayawati)
Oldest plaintiff in Ayodhya case Hashim Ansari says he is disgusted with the politics
The statement of 93-year-old Hashim Ansari, who is pursuing the case since 1949, has come just ahead of the 22nd anniversary of the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.
Piyush Srivastava
Lucknow, December 4, 2014 | UPDATED 10:47 IST
A +A -
Oldest plaintiff in Ayodhya case Hashim Ansari says he is disgusted with the politics
The oldest surviving plaintiff in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case has created a flutter by declaring that he wants to see Ram Lalla free from the clutches of the "contractors of religion". The statement of 93-year-old Hashim Ansari, who is pursuing the case since 1949, has come just ahead of the 22nd anniversary of the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.
Exasperation
Kar Sevaks throng the dome of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, the day it was demolished.
"I have seen many ups and downs in the case. I was a poor man when I had taken the initiative in this issue when I was barely 30. I was against any conflict between the Hindus and the Muslims who had nothing to eat and were still fighting with each other for masjid and temple. I was always in favour of the status quo and wanted to protect the Babri Masjid. I also became a plaintiff in the case in 1949 because it was need of the time. But since then many people who were pursuing the case on the Muslim or the Hindu side have become millionaires by playing the hate game," Ansari said in Ayodhya on Wednesday.
He said he has realised over the years that there were people on both the sides who were not in favour of any solution. "It is their business now. They are flourishing because of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. The Muslims must realise that Babri was demolished 22 years ago. We need to give our children and grandchildren an atmosphere where there is no Hindu-Muslim conflict on an issue which would have died its own death if the contractors of Hinduism and Islam had not played a game to keep dragging the country behind," Ansari said.
To 'liberate' Ram
Hashim Ansari
"Now I want Ram Lalla (newborn Lord Ram) to be liberated so that this dispute is settled forever. I had feared that soon after taking over as Prime Minister, Narendra Modi would do something autocratic for construction of the Ram temple. But he is acting as a mature leader. It was only on Tuesday that he forced minister Niranjan Jyoti to apologise for her hate speech. So now is the time for me to take initiative to let there be a Ram temple in Ayodhya," Ansari further said.
He also declared that he wouldn't observe "yaum-e-ghum" (mourning day) on Saturday, December 6. "I have been observing yaum-e-ghum since Babri was brought down. But now I believe that there is no point shedding tears on something which is hardly connected to the future of our children," he said.
He also said that there were many people in the Sunni Central Waqf Board, a party in the case, and the Babri Masjid Action Committee, which is pursuing the legal battle with Ansari as its plaintiff, would dislike him because of his statement.
"I am ready to withdraw myself from the case if they don't agree with me. But how can I dissociate myself with my 60 years which has been exhausted in this dispute?" he asked.
He also reminded that the judges who were associated with the case in the past had tried their best to keep the issue away from politics. Meanwhile, Zafaryab Jilani, convener of Babri Masjid Action Committee, who has been arguing the case in court said, "I don't think that there will be any problem if Ansari withdraws from the case. May be that he is unhappy on certain issues. But we will sit together and try to sort out the problems."
But Gyan Das, the head of All-India Akhara Parishad and Mahant of Ayodhya's Hanuman Garhi said, "Ansari is not only annoyed with the wrong set of people on the Muslim side but he is also disappointed with the leaders of Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). I have discussed with him in details the possibility of an outof-court settlement. I have found that he is suspicious of VHP. He says that VHP men don't want a solution and they can ditch the nation any time."
Legal war continued but Ansari and Paramhans were friends off the field
TNN | Dec 7, 2016, 01.08 AM IST
Administration allowed Paramhans to travel with the stones in a huge procession but he was asked to hand over the stones to the officials ahead of the disputed boundary.
Like Paramhans, Hashim Ansari was among those arrested for breaching peace after idols of Lord Rama were put in the masjid.
In 1952, he was sentenced to two years jail by a Faizabad court for giving azaan (namaz call) from the disputed site. Ansari was the first to file the suit in the court of civil judge of Faizabad against the "illegal encroachment" of the masjid by the Hindu Mahasabha led by Ramchandra Paramhans.Ayodhya-born Ansari's father was a tailor who owned a shop in the Shringar Haat area. Ansari followed his father's traditional business till the Emergency—during which he spent a few months in Bareilly jail. He then shifted to repairing bicycles for a few years.
In 1961, along with six others, he became the main plaintiff in the 'Ayodhya title suit' filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board in the court of Faizabad civil judge. He was the lone surviving litigant and considered the main and strong voice from the Muslim-end before he died on July 20, 2016. His son Iqbal Ansari has replaced him as plaintiff. Though the legal war of attrition between Ansari and Paramhans continued for more than four decades, off the battlefield they were the best of friends. Both Paramhans and Ansari had numerous discussions over a cup of tea whenever they got time.
Paramhans too had filed a court case staking a claim to the land in the name of the deity. He fought the case for years before withdrawing it in the early 1980s.
By that time, the issue had caught the imagination of a growing Hindu nationalist movement and in 1984, Hindus led by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad Party formed a committee to "liberate" the site from its Muslim occupants. That was the time VHP president Ashok Singhal hogged the limelight. Singhal, who was one of the key architects of the mass campaign that led to the razing of the Babri Masjid in 1992 died in Gurgoan on November 17, 2015 at the age of 89.
A passionate votary of Hindutva, Agra-born Singhal, son of a government official, joined the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1942. He worked mainly in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Haryana before the RSS deputed him to one of its then lesser known affiliates, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), in 1980. Singhal became its working president in 1984, the year the VHP organised a "Dharam Sansad" (religious parliament) which sowed the seeds for the emotive campaign to destroy the 16th century Babri Masjid. Singhal led a massive crowd during the first assault on the Babri Masjid on October 30, 1990. The attempt was foiled by security forces.
Unrelenting, the Karsevaks led by VHP leaders razed the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992. Unlike many BJP leaders who distanced themselves from the act, Singhal remained proud of it to the extent that critics dubbed him India's Ayatollah Khomeini. Singhal, who had a bachelor's degree in metallurgical engineering from the Banaras Hindu University Institute of Technology was respected for his mastery over ancient Hindu scriptures.
He was unhappy over BJP leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee's refusal to embrace the Hindutva ideology after becoming prime minister and expressed joy when Narendra Modi became prime minister in 2014. On Tuesday, the 24th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition would be the second time without Singhal and first without the three key players.
The Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas is now chaired by Mahant Nritya Gyan Das.
