![]() Tuesday, Jul 08, 2003 |
| National | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | National
By Our Special Correspondent
The Kanchi Acharya has asserted that the substantive proposals are contained in his original letter of June 16, and the July 1 letter was in response to the Maulana's communication of June 23 seeking certain clarifications. Sri Jayendra Saraswati insists that the only significant change relates to the "donation of the land" instead of the `no-objection' statement sought earlier for the construction of the Ram mandir. This, according to him, was "necessitated" by the Supreme Court's ruling clubbing the disputed and undisputed land together for maintenance of the "status quo". Since any solution would have to address both the disputed and undisputed land, he was dealing with them together. And once an amicable solution was reached between the two communities, it could be presented to the court to obtain a "consent judgment." But what seemed to have irked the Muslim Personal Law Board was the reference to Kashi and Mathura, which were not part of the original proposals from the Acharya. The following is the full text of the two letters:
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|