Feedback/responses
to the Proposal for Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid Tussle

(Responses arranged chronologically - earliest at the top)

================================

zafar anjum <zafaranjum@hotmail.com> wrote
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:24:22 +0000

Dear Yusuf,

Thanks for sending me the document's url. It is indeed well drafted and very sensical (as opposed to non-sensical). However, I am not sure if VHP would agree to concede to the four conditions that you have mentioned. 
Agreeing to your agenda would mean the end of the RSS/VHP brand of communal politics. Therefore, your idea seems to be utopian to me. If it were a Congress govt. I guess they have implemented your agenda. But the present lot of politicians in power would not allow this kind of a sensible thing to happen.

I guess your document can be entered as a PIL in the Supreme Court. It has much chances of getting accepted there.

I wish you all the best in your rational and secular endeavours and am with you on this issue.

Regards,

Zafar

================================

akhan@vsnl.com
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:14:43 +0530 (IST)

Yousuf - I have commented on your proposal, and given a lawful, constitutional alternative.

Foreword - Indian muslims never had a claim to the Babri mosque - like with all mosques, the only stake holders are people who live in the hinterland, in this case, those muslims who lived in Ayodhya. It is the masjid committee there which has a stake and a claim.

My comments on the proposal in the same sequence as issues Yousuf has raised.

Assumptions

1. In such mindless situations, there cannot be a win win situation, for what constitutes a win here is itself not clear. Will muslims (those few who live there) win if they get back the mosque? Will the Sangh parivar win if it gets the land and builds a temple there (paradoxically it loses out on its biggest slogan)?
2. In the absence of everything else, secular citizens will have no choice but to go by archaeological findings... which might very well discover a Buddhist monastery there.
3. In any society that believes in the rule of law, the courts are paramount and their decisions must be enforced, even if it means using the police to do so.
4 and 5, I completely agree with and have nothing further to say.

The four conditions:

1. The status quo has already been declared - the act passed in 1993 by the Parliament forbids any claims on any other monument and makes an exception only for Babri masjid where it asks the court to decide. But this entire problem arises because the rabble rouser hardly cares for the law.
2. Again such a ban already exists. The IPC makes such acts illegal and the Election laws forbid the same. So what???? Thackeray, Modi and their ilk can hardly be bothered with such trivia.
3. Modi has declared that he has rehabilitated everyone and the situation is normal. And so does every chief minister and home minister who claims to have brought situations under control within hours each time riots break out.
4. The suggestion (a) in this point is superb. (b) has a problem - you can either be secular and say that research and the quest for truth must go on, or be communal and fundamentalist and say we shall freeze knowledge in a warp.

I personally think that the only option is for the courts to declare that this is a local dispute. Outside and vested interests will not be tolerated. Then the local chaps sit down together and negotiate. And if the local temple committee agrees to buy out the land, the Muslims sell it (and they will get a huge price if they bargain well) and open a school, a mosque, a film club, children's park and an old age centre somewhere close by - there is enough land in Faizabad and it is cheap.

This is not without precedent - a number of temple lands have been sold, mosques given away, churches given on rent..... This is a win win situation - however, the administration has to be tight and throw into jail any outsider seen loitering around with intent to create harm.

Amir Ullah Khan

==============================

"AIMMM" <muslim@del3.vsnl.net.in>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:13:16 +0530
Subject: Re: [peace_initiative] a proposal for mandir-masjid tussle

28 March, 2003
Yousuf,
Your proposal is one-sided, ignores law and justice, rewards the aggressor, fails to comprehend the long-term objectives of the organizations which believe in Hindutva ideology and assess the certainty of non-fulfillment of
the conditions in practice.
As compared to yours, the Ayodhya proposal is more balanced despite some flaws.
I would be glad to discuss your proposal in detail with you. In the meantime, I do NOT endorse your proposal.

Syed Shahabuddin

==============================

Give your feedback/suggestions here       Go back to the proposal