The Hindu : `Will not solve legal issue of ownership'

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Mar 06, 2003

National

National

`Will not solve legal issue of ownership'

By Neena Vyas

NEW DELHI MARCH 5. Two views have emerged on the order of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on excavation of the Ayodhya site to determine whether there was a temple there before the Babri Masjid was built in 1528 A.D. One perception is that it would not help solve the legal issue of ownership at the time of the installation of the Ram Lalla idol inside the Babri Masjid in December 1949, while the other is that it could help resolve the Ayodhya dispute and should, therefore, be welcomed.

The Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson, Vijay Kumar Malhotra, welcomed the court order and said a resolution of the "300-year-old dispute" was in sight. His view was that several prominent Muslim bodies had themselves stated that if it were proved beyond doubt that the Babri Masjid had been built after demolishing a Ram temple, they would be willing to concede the site to Hindus. He said the case was proceeding at a fast pace in the court and "everyone should welcome the court effort at establishing the facts".

On the other hand, the Congress spokesperson and lawyer, Abhishek Singhvi, pointed out that it was only "one judicial order in an ongoing legal proceeding. The order does not decide anything but seeks to find out more for a comprehensive and informed decision." He felt that one should "wait a little longer to see the final outcome". The CPI (M) leader, Somnath Chatterjee, feared that this could be used by "some people" to whip up passions and added that "even among archaeologists there could be a difference of opinion" which would then again leave the matter unresolved. He said he would like to read the court order before making any further comment, even while he reiterated his party's commitment towards resolution of the Ayodhya conflict through the judicial process.Apparently, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad was not too pleased with this development — its leading light in the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, Paramhans Ramchandra Das, had opposed excavation, insisting that the VHP had already given adequate proof of existence of a temple at the site. The VHP leaders have been repeatedly saying that it was a "matter of faith" and not a matter of fact for them. Apprehensions were also articulated by some Muslim personalities. The former MP, Syed Shahbuddin, who has been in the forefront of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, insisted that the main legal issue before the courts was the question of "title on December 1949 when the Ram idol was placed inside the Babri mosque." The ordering of excavation to determine what was beneath a structure 500 years ago in order to determine ownership or title of the land was "unprecedented" and had "no legal relevance". In a country with as old a civilisation as India, "you can dig beneath any `tila' and always find signs of earlier habitation and older structures", he said.

Mr. Shahbuddin also warned that the VHP had talked of 30,000 mosques which they claim were temples at one time. "Are they going to be allowed to dig up 30,000 mosques,'' he asked.

Some legal luminaries also feel that the High Court order "may" itself be in conflict with the Supreme Court order reinforced through its judgment of 1994 making it the duty of the Centre to maintain the status quo on all of the 67 acres of land acquired by it in and around the disputed site. They say that this order was reinforced again last year when the apex court did not allow any kind of activity to take place on that land, forcing the VHP to cancel its `shila pujan' programme.With the Supreme Court hearing on the Central Government's plea for vacating the stay on activities on the land being heard tomorrow, it has to be seen whether this new development will also be brought to the notice of the apex courtThe All-India Muslim Personal Law Board chairman, S.Q.R. Ilyas, said the Board had not yet taken any decision on challenging the H.C order. .

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National