The Hindu : We never gave assurance on accepting a court verdict: VHP

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Mar 07, 2002

Front Page

Front Page

We never gave assurance on accepting a court verdict: VHP
By Neena Vyas

NEW DELHI, MARCH 6. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) today virtually undid whatever little progress had been achieved yesterday by publicly announcing that it had ``never given any assurance to anyone that it would abide by a judicial verdict in the Ayodhya case.'' In fact, it stated that under no circumstances would it allow or accept a mosque to be built at the disputed site.

Nevertheless, efforts by the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, and his men and the Sankaracharya of Kanchi, Jayendra Saraswati, to find a solution to the Ayodhya dispute continued.

The Acharya met Mr. Vajpayee again for two hours late last night. The Union Home Minister, L.K. Advani, the Defence Minister, George Fernandes, and the Law Minister, Arun Jaitley, were among those present. This morning, he conferred with the VHP leaders led by Ashok Singhal, and in the evening consulted legal luminaries, including Fali S. Nariman. He also met a delegation of Muslim Imams. Most of these meetings took place under the watchful eye of Sudhendra Kulkarni, an official in the Prime Minister's Office.

The Muslim Personal Law Board, which met him yesterday, has called a meeting of its executive committee on March 10 to discuss the proposal for a solution to the problem. It is learnt that the Board also wants the VHP to change its architectural plan for the temple to exclude the disputed site where the Babri Masjid had been demolished in 1992, and, of course, a commitment that in the event of a judgment favouring the Muslims, the VHP would not raise any hurdles in the way of its implementation. Meanwhile, the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, charged that the effort was ``nothing but a trap for the Muslim community'' and it was aimed at ``diverting attention'' from the mass murder of minorities in Gujarat.

Government sources admitted that no progress could be expected without a ``minimum'' commitment that the VHP would respect and accept a final court verdict in the dispute. ``Without this, the BJP cannot even approach its own allies, let alone the Opposition,'' was the comment of a PMO official.

It is also being conceded - and all political parties, barring the BJP, agree - that even if the VHP were to give a commitment to abide by the final judicial verdict, it was no concession at all, as all citizens were duty bound to accept the court judgment. The Government could not and should not allow any organisation to openly defy the law. And as for maintaining the status quo on the 67 acres of acquired land in Ayodhya (including the disputed site) the Government was bound by the Supreme Court to ensure this. One view was that no private settlement can be made without Court sanction.

Difference of opinion among the `sants' and the VHP leaders was seen as the main reason for the setback today. But that has not yet deterred the Government from trying to carry forward the process of finding a solution.

The VHP leader, Giriraj Kishore, made it crystal clear: kisi bhi halat mein wahan masjid nahin ban sakti (under no circumstance can a mosque be built on the disputed site). In fact, he added that within `panch kos' (roughly 12 km) of the site where the Babri Masjid was demolished no mosque would be allowed to come up.

``All that Ramchandra Paramhans, president of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, had given in writing to the Kanchi seer yesterday was that we were willing to maintain status quo on the disputed site till the final judicial verdict is given,'' Acharya Kishore elaborated, leaving no one in doubt that even if a final verdict went against the VHP and in favour of the Muslims, it would not be acceptable to the VHP. ``No court verdict can stop the uninterrupted `puja' of Ram Lalla (at the makeshift temple at the disputed spot),'' he added as if to drive home the point. ``And there was no question of changing the temple's (architectural) plan.''

The VHP was asking for permission to hold its `shila pujan' at the `shilanyas' site on the acquired land in Ayodhya. If the Government were to physically prevent them from doing so, the VHP cadre would offer `satyagraha', he said.

Centre moves HC

LUCKNOW, MARCH 6. The Centre today approached the Allahabad High Court seeking a day-to-day hearing of the case relating to the Ayodhya dispute. A petition was filed by the Centre before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court, comprising Justices Sudhir Narayan, Rafat Alam and Bhanwar Singh, praying for a direction that the hearing of the case be taken up on a day-to-day basis. The court granted time till March 18 to the parties for filing replies to the application while posting further hearing on it to March 19.

The application was filed before the full Bench through the Additional Solicitor-General, R.N. Trivedi.

Mr. Trivedi impressed on the court that under the Acquisition Act of 1993, the Union of India was the statutory receiver with the obligation to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suits. It was spending about Rs. 30 crore annually in this regard. It was submitted that in view of the sensitive issues involved, it would be appropriate if the disputes were resolved as early as possible.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page

Stories in this Section

SP MLA shot in front of U.P. Raj Bhavan

Governor recommends President's Rule in U.P.

We never gave assurance on accepting a court verdict: VHP

Muslim board threatens to pull out

Arundathi Roy jailed for contempt of court

Sonia to lead Opposition dharna in Parliament today

U.S. curbs on steel imports

`Omar Sheikh was seen with Pearl'

Bihar stops RSS meet

Probe panel appointed

PDS prices to be cut