Jobs @ MG
No takers for digging Babri Masjid site
|Both parties contesting the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi case in the Allahabad High Court have rejected the idea of excavating the disputed site as suggested by the court to ascertain whether any other place of worship existed beneath the Babri Masjid prior to its construction by Mir Baqi, a commander of Babar. The two contesting parties, the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee and the Ram Janambhoomi Nyas, have rejected the suggestion, though on different grounds.
The Ram Janambhoomi Nyas President Paramhans Ram Chandra Das and international general secretary of Vishwa Hindu Parishad Praveen Togadia summarily rejected the suggestion on the ground that it would be an infringement of fundamental rights of Hindus as the idol of Lord Ram has to be removed from its present position in the makeshift temple. The act would be against religion as once an idol is installed after pran pratishthan (sanctification) it cannot be removed. The High Court had suggested that in case the parties agreed for excavation, the idol of Lord Ram could be put on the chabootra (platform) inside the makeshift temple and the rituals could continue.
The firebrand Hindu leaders have threatened of dire consequences if any attempt is made by any authority to remove Ram Lalla idol from its present position.
In 1949, in a cold December night a Ram idol was mysteriously installed in the Babri Masjid. It is alleged that this act was performed by the then young Ram Chandra Das,. who with the passage of time became the Paramhans and is now the main leader of Ram Janambhomi movement. Several criminal cases have been registered against him in Ayodhya police station over the years, but the law has yet to catch up with him.
Convenor of the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee and the main counsel of UP Sunni Centrtal Waqf Board pleading the Babri Masjid case, Zafaryab Jeelani told MG that the idea of excavation would protract proceedings and would not serve any purpose. The Supreme Court in 1996 ordered that the status quo had to be maintained. For starting excavation permission has to be taken from the Supreme Court .This order was issued on an application of Sunni Waqf Board after the High Court reduced the distance for the darshan of Ram Lalla. According to Jeelani the excavation will involve years as the entire area of 80x40 metres has to be excavated. Moreover excavation has earlier been done twice, but it served no purpose and their reports have already been submitted to the court. Clarifying the legal position, Jeelani said that as per the main title suit the court has to decide the ownership of the mosque as prior to December 1949 it was used as a mosque and only after the illegal and clandestine installation of Ram idol the dispute arose. So where is the need for excavation", Jeelani asks. According to the law of the land, it belongs to Muslims as it has been in their possession for more than 400 years. Even if excavation proved that any other religious place existed prior to the construction of Babri Masjid it would only raise the issue of moral right and duty and will not affect Muslim claim over the land belonging to the Babri Masjid.
Mohd. Hashim Ansari of Ayodhya, the main litigant of the case, is also opposed to the idea of excavation. He said earlier carbon dating was conducted but its findings could not help in solving the dispute. The proposed excavation would serve no purpose.
However, the two contesting parties the Nirmohi Akharha and the Sunni Central waqf Board have not yet submitted their replies to the court which they will possibly do within a week. It is clear the court’s suggestion of excavation finds no takers.
In the meantime the special full bench hearing the Babri Masjid Ram Janambhoomi case settled the sequences of leading evidences by various parties of the four pending cases since the evidence of the plaintiff of the leading case No.4/89 (Sunni Waqf Board and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others) has already been closed.
The bench comprising Justice Sudhir Narain, Justice Rafat Alam and Justice Bhanwar Singh passed this order while disposing an application moved by Paramhans Ram Chandra Das in which permission to lead oral and documentary evidences was sought after the closure of plaintiffs’ evidences.
¯ Obaid Nasir in Lucknow