NEW DELHI: A delegation of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which met the Prime Minister, P.V.Narasimha Rao, for nearly 45 minutes, categorically and with finality rejected the limited Presidential reference of the Ayodhya dispute to the Supreme Court under Article 143.
It instead appealed to Rao, to reconsider the Government’s policies on the Ayodhya issue and “squarely deal with the menace of Hindu chauvinism which striking at the very roots of our democratic secular polity.
The Board felt that only a just, equitable and firm stand by the Government could restore democracy, secularism and rule of law which had been reduced to meaningless jargons on December 6, when the 450year old Babri mosque was razed to the ground.
It was on that dark day that the Constitution lost its prestige, the law and the judiciary was dishonored, the Muslims and all justice. Loving antifascist citizens were betrayed and the people lost faith in the executive and the administration, the strongly worded memorandum said.
The delegation pointed out that the reference made the Supreme Court in fact goes far beyond and is wider than the false contention of the Sangh Parivar which alleges that. A Rama temple was demolished to construct Babri Masjid. It was emphasized that the reference was either restricted to the existence of neither a Rama temple nor does it confine itself to the immediate past before the construction of the Baba monument in 1528 A.D.
The Board clearly told the Prime Minister that either the cases in the Allahabad High Court should be expedited or they should be consolidated for a final verdict from the Supreme Court. The bid to deny the Muslims their title to the disputed spot was denial of justice and contrary to the law of the land.
Without mincing words, the memorandum pointed out that the reference as it stood now was a ploy to lend credence to the allegations of the RSSVHPBJP combine which they are unable to substantiate.
The Board has asked the Government (o abandons all efforts to construct a mosque at an ultimate site and has given a virtual warning that such a mosque would not be acceptable to any Muslim. It has justified its stand by pointing. Out that its demands are firmly rooted in law. All that the Muslims were demanding was a speedy verdict in the cases related to the Ayodhya dispute that had been pending for over 40 years.
The Board reiterated that a mosque does not cease to be one because of an illegal installation of an idol in it or because no namaz has been said in it for some time.
Article extracted from this publication >> April 9, 1993
