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