Dr S. Q. R. Ilyas analyzes the post-Babri Masjid landscape
text_fields
This exclusive interview with Madhyamam's Savad Rahman, Dr. S. Q. R. Ilyas Executive Committee member of the Babri Masjid Action Committee, and spokesperson of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board delve into the intricacies of the decades-long legal battle over the Babri Masjid and its aftermath. A prominent Muslim leader and one of the few living leaders involved in the Babri Masjid struggle from its inception, Dr. S. Q. R. Ilyas provides a comprehensive account of the multifaceted efforts undertaken to defend the historic mosque, employing legal, political, and dialogue-based strategies.
The interview explores the repercussions of the consecration ceremony of the Ram Mandir, analyzing its political dimensions and the extensive involvement of the ruling BJP. Dr. S. Q. R. Ilyas raises critical questions about the secular nature of the government's role in sponsoring the event and underscores the potential implications of such politicization.
As Ilyas reflects on the secular parties' decision to decline invitations to the function, the interview sheds light on the nuanced perspectives surrounding the Babri Masjid dispute and its aftermath.
Why was the fight to defend the Babri Masjid ineffective?
Ans: Is it incorrect to say that our fight to defend Babri Masjid was ineffective? We employed all democratic methods to defend the Babri Masjid issue - legal, political and even engaging in dialogue with different groups.
a) Legal Fight: A case was registered by Muslims in Faizabad court way back in 1961. When all the cases were transferred to the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court, we engaged three prominent community lawyers - Senior Advocate Abdul Mannan, Adv. Zafaryab Jilani and Adv Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui. They represented the case pro bono. Then we engaged a senior Supreme Court lawyer Advocate Sidharth Shankar Ray who came to Lucknow all the way from Delhi and argued the case. He too didn't charge a single penny. 6 prominent historians were deposed before the court as witnesses from our side, who argued that there is no evidence in history which supports the claim that Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a Mandir. Except one all of them were non-Muslims. When Archaeological Survey came out with the false claim that they found clear evidence of ruins of a temple, we brought 10 prominent and renowned archaeologists - Ms Shireen Mosvi and Ms Suparia Verma were among them - who deposed on our behalf and invalidated the claims of the Archaeological Survey of India. The very findings of the survey proved that a report confirms that whatever ruins were discovered beneath the Masjid were from an Eidgah. The construction materials used in both the structures are similar and the mortar used was not used in India before the Mughal period. A large number of animal bones were found and this proved that the people living here were non-vegetarians. Two graves found clearly indicated that those buried were Muslims. The land records, revenue records, the FIR lodged by a Hindu constable in 1949, when the idols were illegally and surreptitiously placed, and the affidavit filled in the court were all supporting our case. Some witnesses we produced in the court were those who performed namaz (Salah) in the mosque. Several documentary proofs were submitted from our side. Allahabad High Court in its judgment trifurcated the land and gave each part to all three claimants in December 2010. This was not acceptable to anyone. We challenged it in the Supreme Court. The Allahabad HC verdict was 8000 pages with 42000 pages of supporting documents. In the Supreme Court, our side was represented by 3 senior lawyers - Adv. Rajiv Dhavan, Adv. Shekhar Nafde and Adv Meenakshi Arora. Out of the entire argument placed by all the lawyers before the bench, 50% was done only by Rajiv Dhavan himself. Apart from this, we had a team of 6 advocates on record, with 15 junior lawyers. Most of the arguments were done by Senior Advocate Rajiv Dhavan. Our side was also represented by 6 advocates on records and 15 of their juniors. The entire legal team of the Muslim Personal Law Board was supervising the case. Dr. Rajiv Dhavan argued single-handedly from 10 am to 5 pm and he didn't charge a single penny from us. The case was argued for 44 days and the entire legal team sat in the court for all these days. Adv Zafaryab Jilani also argued on one issue. If we take a look at the result (the judgement), all the observations were in our favour but the final judgment went against us. The Court demolished the very claim of Hindus that a mosque was built by demolishing a mandir. The court said no evidence was found in support of this claim. Whatever small pieces of evidence produced by the Archaeological Survey were from 400 years prior to the construction of the Babri Mosque. Then the Court said placing idols inside the mosque in 1949 was a crime and was unconstitutional. Then the court observed that the prayers inside the mosque were going on till Dec. 1949. Supreme Court earlier in Ismail Farooqui case, way back in 1994, had clearly said that the demolition of the Mosque in 1992 was a criminal act and is unconstitutional. But the unfortunate part of this judgment was that the Court said that the Hindu side also has a claim on this land and it is a matter of their Aastha (faith) Therefore this site is allotted to them and by invoking special powers under Art 142 Court said the Muslims should be given 5 acres of land somewhere in Ayodhya for the construction of a mosque.
b). Dialogue with the other side: From the beginning, we thought that dialogue and negotiation would be the best option. We were ready to sit with the other side and if given any solid proof in support of their claims, we were ready to give up our claim. The basis of our stand was that a Mosque cannot be built on an illegally occupied land. Twice we sat with Vishwa Hindu Parishad Sant, but they were just repeating one thing - that it is our Aastha. Then we had a sitting with Kanchipuram Shankar Acharya Jayendra Saraswati but he also didn’t stick to his position. Finally, the Supreme Court also constituted a committee for Reconciliation but it too could not come out with any solution.
Muslims fought the case for almost 60 years. During this several riots broke out, and many Muslim men and women were killed. Properties worth crores of rupees were gutted. Even during the Advani Rath Yatra, several Muslims were martyred and their properties were looted. But not a single Muslim, from professors to rikshaw pullers, from Ulemas to politicians, were willing to accept the unjust demands.
2. Do you believe that justice was served to the Muslim community that complied with the SC ruling?
Ans. No, not at all. It was a great injustice to the Muslim community.
3. What would be the implications of such politicization of the temple consecration ceremony?
Ans. The entire Ram Mandir Movement from the beginning was a political movement with a clear political ambition. It was never religious - whether it was the placing of idols, opening of locks for the darshans of surreptitiously placed idols, Shilaniyas at the disputed site by the then Prime Minister Mr Rajiv Gandhi, starting of the parliament election campaign from Ayodhya by Rajiv Gandhi, the Rath Yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya by BJP leader Mr L K Advani, or the demolition of Babri Masjid by Karsevak in 1992 and erection of makeshift temple during President's rule (during Narasimha Rao's govt. at the Centre). Because of this movement, the BJP has raised its tally from 2 MPs in 1984 to 282 MPs in 2014. Now the entire Pran Partishta ceremony on 22nd January 2024 is completely hijacked by the BJP. Central and BJP state governments are completely sponsoring the event. Government resources are fully utilized. Out of five people who will enter the Santom Santorum on 22nd January, three of them are government functionaries. They are Mr Narendra Modi, the PM, Mr Yogi Adityanath, UP CM and Mrs Anandiben, the UP governor. The fourth person is RSS Sarsanchalak, Mr Mohan Bhagwat and 5th is a Pujari. All important politicians of different political parties were invited. The participation and sponsorship of the entire event by the secular government which has taken the oath on a secular constitution is totally illegal. This will open a Pandora's box.
4. To what extent does the nation find hope in the secular parties' decision to decline the invitation to the function?
Ans: Their refusal was not based on any principled stand. None of the party criticised the injustice done by the Supreme Court, rather all of them had praised and welcomed the SC verdict. Some of the Congress leaders have gone to the extent of taking the credit of Ram Mandir for their party. Unfortunately, all parties are opportunists. They don't have the courage to call a spade a spade. All the secular parties have failed on a constitutional parameter.