Tuesday, Jul 01, 2003
Front Page |
Southern States |
Other States |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |
By Our Special Correspondent
The committee members met on June 28 but expressed their views in a public statement today, a week ahead of the July 6 working committee meeting of the AIMPLB in Lucknow to consider the proposal of the Kanchi Sankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswati.
What is significant is that some members of the BMMCC, including the convener, Syed Shahbuddin, are also on the AIMPLB working committee. During the earlier attempt made by the Kanchi seer to resolve the Ayodhya dispute, the Board had adopted resolutions to the effect that it would abide by a judicial verdict and negotiations, if any, would be held only with the Government if it were to present a concrete proposal. At that time, its stance was that it would not talk to or negotiate with forces responsible for the demolition of the Babri structure.
The BMMCC has categorically said that the "masjid site is not negotiable, it is not on auction". It was a response to reports that something else would be offered to Muslims putting a lid on potential `mandir-masjid' disputes in Kashi and Mathura and opening up of mosques within protected monuments for offering of prayers (`namaaz') if they were to agree to give up their claim on the disputed Ayodhya site.
According to the statement, if any compromise was to be reached even for construction of a temple on the Central Government-acquired land outside the disputed site, this could be considered "provided the site plan (of the proposed Ram temple) is revised to exclude the Babri Masjid site" and that the "other side agrees to withdraw its claim to the Babri site and to remove the idols and to demolish the makeshift temple".
Mr. Shahbuddin told The Hindu that the Muslim community could have no objection to a Ram temple coming up on the undisputed land, "but the temple architectural plan would have to be altered to ensure that no part of the temple would come up on disputed land".
In a separate statement, the Inter-Community Peace Initiative convener, Iqbal Ansari, welcomed the Kanchi seer's efforts and in a letter addressed to the Sankaracharya said that any solution must keep in mind the much larger issue of the rule of law and the "sanctity of human life". His charge was that "the larger agenda of the VHP for Hindu Talibanisation" had prevented an amicable Ayodhya settlement. It was the RSS-VHP's "determined agenda of Hindu Rashtra" that would not allow communal peace and harmony "even if the location of a mandir and masjid was amicably resolved".
Dr. Ansari suggested that at the July 6 meeting the AIMPLB should not only consider a formula for resolving the Ayodhya dispute but also pay attention to an institutional mechanism to establish the rule of law for implementation of constitutional guarantees of protection of life, dignity and the maintenance of the status quo of places of worship. He also said that non-Hindus should voluntarily offer not to slaughter cows and evolve a consensus on issues such as a uniform civil code.
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