The Hindu : Distress over Acharya's `change of stand'

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

National

National

Distress over Acharya's `change of stand'

By J.P. Shukla

LUCKNOW JULY 7. A section of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board — whose first reaction to the negotiations initiated by the Kanchi Sankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswati, to resolve the Ayodhya deadlock was that they were prepared to consider his original proposals with an open mind — have "felt distressed" at the way the seer had "changed his stand" while giving clarifications in his second letter dated July 1.

"The Sankaracharya seems to have developed second thoughts on his own proposals after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad decided to corner him on the issue. His clarifications were nothing but a reiteration of what the Sangh Parivar had been advocating all these years," a senior Board member said today.

The original proposals of the Acharya dated June 16 demanded only a "no-objection statement from the Board" regarding construction of a Ram temple upon the undisputed/acquired land. He suggested a discussion on the disputed area after some time hoping that an amicable settlement might be given to the court and the latter could give a verdict based on this settlement. The seer did not say anything on the construction of a Ram temple on the disputed land in his first letter.

The Board, however, noted a "complete change in the tone and tenor" of the Sankaracharya in his letter dated July 1 in response to the clarifications sought by the Board president. The latter said in his letter the Acharya was silent on the point that both the communities would abide by the court verdict in the Ayodhya dispute — something he had assured as early as March 10, 2002. The Board wanted to know if the assurances were still valid and binding and, if it was so, what practical or legal measures were being contemplated to implement the assurances.

Even in 2002, the VHP had rejected the Acharya's proposal to abide by the court order with regard to the disputed site. The VHP leaders had consistently taken the view that it was beyond the purview of the court to decide the birthplace of Lord Rama.

The Board saw the Acharya's clarifications as a "reflection of the VHP case".

In his July 1 letter he wrote that "the disputed area in Ayodhya is a place which is highly revered by the Hindus.

``It was a historical fact that Babar the great constructed a building at that place in commemoration of his victory. At present, due to some unavoidable reasons, there is no building in that place. The status quo position is that Rama is sitting over there..."

The Acharya further felt that under the present circumstances, if the judgment went in favour of one community or even in favour of both the communities, "we cannot expect communal harmony".

The Board members found it "shocking" that the Sankaracharya had described the Babri structure as a "building" and not as the Babri mosque.

While pleading that Muslims should donate the disputed area to Hindus, the Acharya said that generally if daily prayers were being offered in any mosque, asking for that place was not justifiable.

In view of the fact that at present the area was "without any building (empty) and an idol of Rama was placed there, it would not be right or possible to remove Rama from that place and construct a mosque over there in the interest of communal harmony".

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

National