Sunday, 20 October 2019

Foes who were friends - Ayodhya remembers two Babri litigants


Foes who were friends - Ayodhya remembers two Babri litigants

THE ASIAN AGE. | AMITA VERMA Published : Dec 7, 2017, 2:30 am IST Updated : Dec 7, 2017, 2:36 am IST


Today, things have changed and the litigants arrive in a ring of security and the bonhomie is missing.

Mahant Ramchandra Paramhans, the chief trustee of the Ram Janambhoomi Nyas, died in 2003 while Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant in the case, died in 2016.

 Mahant Ramchandra Paramhans, the chief trustee of the Ram Janambhoomi Nyas, died in 2003 while Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant in the case, died in 2016.

Ayodhya: Even as the entire country debates on the Ram temple and the case in Supreme Court, Ayodhya, on the 25th anniversary of the Babri demolition, remembers the duo who were enemies in court and friends outside it.

The two litigants in the Babri case — Hashim Ansari and Mahant Ramchandra Paramhans — bitterly fought the case in court, but the moment they stepped out, they became thick friends.

Mahant Ramchandra Paramhans, the chief trustee of the Ram Janambhoomi Nyas, died in 2003 while Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant in the case, died in 2016.

“They would travel together in a rickshaw to the court. Their counsels would bitterly contest the case and after the hearing, they would both return together in one rickshaw. Everyone used to be astounded by this unique relationship. They lived as friends and Hashim Ansari wept bitterly when Mahant Paramhans died in 2003,” says mahant Dharam Das who has succeeded him in the Nyas.

Today, things have changed and the litigants arrive in a ring of security and the bonhomie is missing.

Ansari was among those arrested in 1949 when the idols allegedly emerged in the mosque. He was the main plaintiff when the Sunni Waqf Board filed the Ayodhya title suit in 1961. He repaired cycles for a living.

Paramhans, one of the pioneers of the Ayodhya movement, had filed a petition in Faizabad court in March 1950 seeking the right to protect the idol.

Vivek Kumar Srivastava, a senior lawyer in Faizabad court, recalls, “My father, also a lawyer, used to cite the example of these two when it came to friendship. He used to tell us that Ansari and Paramhans would even share a cup of tea in the court premises if the hearing was delayed. Other people in the court premises used to be shocked to see their camaraderie — more so, because of the case they were contesting”.

After the court hearing, they would come to Dant Dhawan Kund and chat while playing cards.

Senior citizens in Ayodhya say that their friendship lasted over six decades. “There was never any bitterness between the two even when there were riots on communal lines in the country on the Ayodhya issue. Both used to criticise the violence and continue to chat with each other. Hashim Ansari was provided security after the Babri demolition when he was attacked by Hindus but he did not like the fact that four policemen sat outside his tiny house all the time,” says Mahendra Nath, a retired government employee who used to visit Ansari to get his cycle repaired.

His associates say that Hashim “despised” the VHP and RSS and other political outfits for “politicising the Ram temple issue”.

“He would even tell Mahant Ramchandra Paramhans about his views on this but the Mahant never snubbed him, He would listen to him patiently and offer him tea after the outburst,” says Raju , a worker in the Digambar Akhara.“On the 25th anniversary of the demolition, we recall the relationship that these two men shared. When the Mahant died, Hashim wept bitterly at the loss of a friend and remained by his side till the last rites were performed. The tears were genuine – just like their friendship. I am sure the two must have come together in the skies above,” says Acharya Pradeep Tiwari, a local priest.



AYODHYA- Welcome stay

VENKITESH   RAMAKRISHNANin New Delhi

The Supreme Court order staying the Allahabad High Court verdict opens up all possibilities in the Ayodhya title suit. (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 Dasin 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 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