The Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board told the Supreme Court that the 15th century Babri Masjid was a Shia waqf (endowment) and their Sunni counterpart, who have been at the frontline of the 70-year-old Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute, were mere interlopers led by “hardliners, fanatics and non-believers” who do not want an amicable settlement with the Hindu sects involved.
Tracing the lineage of the masjid, which was razed by karsevaks on December 6, 1992, to Mir Baqi, a Shia noble in Babur’s court, the Shia Board said that, unlike the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board chiefs, they wanted a peaceful co-existence with the Hindu community.
‘Recipe for acrimony’ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
In an affidavit filed on Tuesday before the court, they acknowledged that it would be a recipe for communal acrimony if a mosque and a mandir stood too close, in fact, so close that even their loudspeakers would disturb each other’s prayers.
‘In true Islamic spirit’
Instead, the Shia Board said that in the true spirit of Islamic tenets of living in peace and harmony and to bring a “quietus” to the decades-old tug-of-war between the two religious communities, they would settle for a masjid located in a “Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the most revered place of birth of Maryada Purushottam Sri Ram.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The 13-page affidavit neither specifies the location of such a “Muslim-dominated area” nor the “reasonable distance” they have in mind.
The affidavit has been filed at a crucial juncture. The cross-appeals challenging the September 2010 judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the title dispute is coming up for hearing, after a seven-year hiatus, before a Special Bench of Justices Dipak Misra, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer on August 11.
The Shia board suggested that the court set up a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and comprising two retired Allahabad High Court judges, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath or his nominee, a nominee of the Prime Minister, before which a representative each of the Shia Central Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akara and a Hindu sect shall make suggestions and proposals for an amicable settlement keeping in mind the “larger public interest.” It pointed out that there had unfortunately been no talks during the seven years the appeals were pending before the SC.
The board proposed that the apex court give a time frame for the committee to submit its report besides scheduling its first meeting and venue.
“It is submitted that the Sunni Central Waqf Board U.P. is under the dominant control of Sunni hardliners, the fanatics and non-believers in peaceful co-existence, who have no stake in the present case… since Babri Masjid was a Shia waqf, it is the Shia Central Waqf Board U.P. alone which is entitled to negotiate and arrive at a peaceful settlement with the other remaining stakeholders,” the affidavit, filed by Shia Waqf Board chairman Syed Waseem Rizvi, said.
Subjected to threats
Mr. Rizvi said the “other sect of the Muslim community” has subjected him to threats on learning about the views of the Shia board. He said he had informed the U.P. government, which is taking steps for his security. According to him, the efforts of the Shia board for an amicable settlement would “usher in a new era for both the larger denominations to live in peace and harmony.”
He said the High Court while portioning out one-third share in the area of the (demolished) Babri masjid to “Muslims” in its September 30, 2010 judgment had expressed hopes of an amicable settlement. The same view had also been expressed by the Supreme Court later on.