The Hindu : My second letter contained `mostly' clarifications: Kanchi Acharya

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jul 08, 2003

National

National

My second letter contained `mostly' clarifications: Kanchi Acharya

By V. Jayanth

KANCHEEPURAM July 7. The Sankaracharya of Kanchi, Sri Jayendra Saraswati, maintains that his letter to the president of the All-India Muslim Personal Board contained "mostly" clarifications, which the latter had sought in a letter dated June 23. According to him, there was "essentially" only one departure from the original proposals and that too was dictated by the ruling of the Supreme Court on the Ayodhya issue.

Talking to The Hindu here today, the Acharya said that in the place of the "No Objection" statement that he had suggested to enable the construction of a Ram temple on the undisputed/acquired area, he later proposed: "Though the disputed area may belong to the Wakf Board and is a place of faith to Muslims as well, since the place is of great faith and reverence to Hindus, the Muslim community and the Wakf Board may mentally think that they donate the said area to Hindus".

The Acharya explained that the Supreme Court had ruled that the disputed and undisputed land would have to be dealt with together and that the status quo applied to both of them. He had, therefore, appealed to the Muslim Personal Law Board: "If daily prayers are being offered in any mosque, asking for that place is not justifiable. In view of the fact that at present the area is without any building and an idol of Ram is placed there, it will not be right or possible to remove Ram from that place and construct a mosque over there in the interest of communal harmony. Local Muslims are already offering prayers in their mosques, that the idol of Ram is being worshipped, that the area is disputed, and keeping in view the larger interests of the nation and the communal harmony in particular, the Muslim community and the Wakf Board can decide to donate that area, which is a place of matter of faith and belief to the Hindus of the country. By doing so and presenting it before the court, we may be able to obtain a court judgment faster and earlier."

Asked specifically about the Muslim Law Board's view that the reference to Kashi and Mathura in his July 1 letter amounted to a "veiled threat", the Acharya said, "This is again only a clarification and not my proposal. I only drew their attention to these issues. Kashi and Mathura are not on my proposals. I have confined myself to the Ram mandir at Ayodhya".

In the light of the rejection of his proposals by the Board at its Lucknow meeting yesterday, would he "withdraw" his initiative? The Sankaracharya replied that, "I did not enter it on my own, nor do I have to withdraw on my own.

``They asked me during the Bhoomi puja at Ayodhya to work for a compromise solution and so I held extensive talks. Now, when I went for the Sindhu Darshan festival, they told me that it was time to revive the initiative, which I did. It came on its own, it may go for now, but will come back on its own. One thing is clear, there can be a permanent and peaceful solution only through talks. A court ruling may not satisfy any community, or may even favour both.

``But we must ensure there is communal harmony, which can be achieved only through talks. If they succeed, that will be ideal for the nation. Without talks there can be no solution; only passion and tension will rise."

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

National