Why is the Hindu media, newspapers and news channels so gung-ho over All India Muslim Personal Law Board ( AIMPLB)-the prime most Muslim body in the nation, deciding to file Review in the judgement of Ramjamanbhumi/Babri Masjid, Ayodhya, Faizabad, UP case of Nov 9, in which the site where Babri Masjid existed has been given to Hindus and a land of five-acres has been given to Muslims to build a mosque on it in Ayodhya, after exercising Article 142 of Constitution which ‘states that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter’ . All happened as if everything was in anticipation. The entire RSS/BJP/VHP/Shiv-Sena/Bajrang Dal leadership went into a joyous spree and the Muslim side, which had its last hopes pinned on SC left snubbed high and dry.
AIMPLB came into picture (in context to Babri Masjid) in 1993, after the demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, when it decided to look into the expenses into fighting the case of Babri Masjid, or else prior to it, Babri Masjid Action Committee was the organisation championing the cause of Babri Masjid. AIMPLB was established after 1971 Indo-Pak war in which Bangladesh was created. Firstly, Tahuzzaf-e-Shariat Conference was organised in Bombay by the fall of 1971 and in early 1972 came AIMPLB into origin, and is given to the cause ceaselessly towards Muslims and their upliftment and emancipation. BMAC and quite understandably AIMPLB have been baffled by the judgement of November 9, which arguably if can be surmised into one breath it would be Muslims won the case but lost the Land.
Let it be known to the nation where there is a storm brewing against AIMPLB, from nearly every quarter, including the discarded faction of Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind led by Mehmood Madani, along with betrayer SCWB chairman Zufar Farooqui and Iqbal Ansari, son of Hasim Ansari, Babri Masjid litigant, that Muslim should desist from filing the Review, AIMPLB had in its meeting held on October 12 in Lucknow, made it clear that it would comply by the SC last verdict and would probe for its legal redressal if the judgement goes against Muslims. SC last verdict is yet to come as the provisions of Review and Curative petition are still to be exhausted.
AIMPLB as a part of its earlier stand, befuddled, battered and bewildered organised its meeting on November 17, in Lucknow where it expressed its utmost surprise on the judgement and found it quite necessary to deliberate on certain of its ingredients where it was accepted (SC order) that Babri Masjid was built by Babar commander Mir Baqi in 1528, something which has also been accepted by Suit No. 5 of 1989 filed by Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman first friend DN Agarwal and that the proofs provided by the Muslim side made SC to agree that the three-domed structure and Masjid and its inner courtyard had been in possession and use of Muslims between 1857-1949 and Muslims had prayed in it until December 16, 1949 and that on Dec 22/23 1949 Lord Rama idols were unconstitutionally placed inside Babri Masjid. Very Importantly, SC also said that the birth spot of Lord Rama inside the Central Dome of Babri Masjid aka sanctum sanctorum, and its worship could not be proved, thus, nullifying the claim of Deity as plaintiff No. 2 of Suit No. 5 of 1989. The Muslim side had a further shot in its arm as SC has upheld Suit No. 4 on the question of limitation. Suit No. 4 of 1989, Regular Suit No.12 of 1961, which is referred to as Suit No. 4, was filed by UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and nine individual Muslims from Ayodhya, most of them have passed and some substituted therewith.
SC has accepted that the demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 was against our secular-constitution and despite this all SC has decreed that since Hindus have been praying for hundreds of years inside disputed-structure, therefore, the entire disputed-structure land is given to Suit. No 5 of 1989 Plaintiff No. 1 (Lord Rama), and that since, the disputed-land is given to Hindus, hence, Muslims be given 5 Acres of land by the central-government, either from the acquired land of 1993 ( by central-government) or the state-government (UP) give a prominent place in Ayodhya where Muslims can build their mosque. This came as a conclusion after the exercise of Article 142 of Constitution, through which SCWB has been entitled to 5 Acres of land. Ironically, ASI report, the main plank on which the claim of ‘belief’ has been built by Hindus, SC has accepted that temple was not destroyed to build a mosque on it!
What has perplexed the Muslims is that despite it having been accepted by DM and SP Faizabad, in their replies to UP government in 1949, that Lord Rama idols were surreptitiously and stealthily kept inside Babri Masjid on December 22/23, 1949 (as per FIR) and also through Sep 30, 2010 judgement from the Lucknow bench of Allahabad HC, the concerned idols not conferred as ‘Deity’. There is a glaring conflict in the SC order now, to an extent that it goes beyond comprehension and therefore certainly qualifies to be as non-proper; as to how the idols which were unconstitutionally put have been concurred as Deity? When Muslims possession and prayer has been accepted from 1857-1949 how come the land of Masjid given to Lord Rama (Suit No. 5 of 1989 Plaintiff No. 1)?
AIMPLB also found it failing to understand as to why the SC did not deliberate on Waqf Act 1995 Section 104-A which prohibits any exchange or transfer of a mosque, and hence, it is incomprehensible, as to why SC went against this statute in its exercise of Article 142 of Constitution, whereas the fact is that Article 142 of Constitution stipulates limitless powers to SC, which ultimately has forced AIMPLB to consider filing the Review, and lastly, it may again be reiterated, that Muslims, had knocked the SC, after the Sep 30, 2010 order, for the sake of Babri Masjid land and not for any exchange of land, which Muslims can never accept, as per Shariat, and hence, for the ultimate ends of justice SC bestow Babri Masjid land to Muslims.
Those going ahead with Review are Misbah-ud-Din, Muhammed Umar (both residents of Ayodhya), Arshad Rashidi in place of Hafiz Siddiq, resident of Muradabad and Mehfooz-ur-Rehman of Ambedkarnagar. Renegades like Zufar Farooqui and Iqbal Ansari have opted out.
The writer is a lawyer, journalist and former UP State Information Commissioner.