Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) has rejected the suggestion of Supreme Court for an out-of-court settlement between the contesting groups in the vexed Ayodhya dispute. The Supreme Court made the observation on Tuesday for a negotiated settlement on a petition filed by BJP Rajya Sabha member Subramanium Swami.
Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, however, welcomed the observation of the Supreme Court saying, “We welcome the suggestion of the apex court. There should be a negotiated settlement of the dispute and the State Government will extend all possible cooperation.’’
Responding to the apex court’s observation, BMAC convener and All India Muslim Personal law Board (AIMPlB) Zafaryab Jilani said in lucknow, “We welcome the observation of the court but we wish to inform that private negotiations were not possible. For the last 31 years, we have been trying out-of-court settlement but in vain. If the apex court issues a direction, then the AIMPlB executive committee could consider it.’’
The BMAC chief questioned, “How can we trust BJP MP Subramanium Swami, who is not a party in the dispute and neither the original party is involved in the petition being heard by the Supreme Court. Nirmohi Akhada and UP Sunni Central Waqf Board are the two parties in the dispute which is not about the temple or mosque. It’s about the title of ownership of the land where Babri mosque stood till December 6 1992.’’
“Past attempts for negotiated settlement yielded no results. Shankaracharya of Kanchi Koti Peetham Swami Jayendra Saraswati had met late Maulana Ali Miyan and later with the present Chairman of AIMPlB Maulana Rabe Hasan Nadvi. During the talks, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad always asked us to withdraw our claim on the Babri mosque, which we will never do,’’ asserted Jilani.
Counsel for Ram lalla in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute Ranjana Agnihotri said, “Even the question of negotiations do not arise. Only a verdict in favour of one party or promulgation of an ordinance by the President of India could solve the dispute.”
A three-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar, observed that the issues be sorted out through negotiations which would be agreed upon by all the petitioners and respondents. The apex court also made it clear that if the negotiations fail, then the court may intervene and appoint a moderator to resolve all the issues. “Ram temple in Ayodhya is a sensitive issue and should be sorted out outside the court through negotiations,’’ the court observed.
Imam of lucknow Idgah Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangi Mahli targeted political parties saying, “Muslims were never against a Ram temple in Ayodhya. It’s the political parties who vitiate the atmosphere whenever an attempt is made for settlement of the dispute. It’s the earnest desire of the people to settle the dispute and I wish that the Supreme Court itself decided this issue.’’
The BJP in its election manifesto for UP Assembly elections had mentioned that it was committed to exploring all Constitutional options to ensure that temple was built in Ayodhya.
BJP president Amit Shah had said that there was no contradiction between the temple issue and development and they can co-exist.
The makeshift temple in Ayodhya came up after the disputed structure or the Babri mosque was demolished by Karsewaks on December 6, 1992, said to have been built during Mughal emperor Babar’s regime.