M A I N   N E W S

Others feel restive
Aditi Tandon writes from Ayodhya

In the Muslim pockets of Ayodhya, the mood turned sombre as news came in that the High Court had dismissed the community’s claim to the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid site.

The grant of 33 per cent share in the 77-acre land had the radicals fuming with the main Muslim petitioner in the Babri Masjid demolition case, Haji Mehboob, telling The Tribune that the Muslims “did not want a lollypop and would fight for their rights”.

Outside Haji’s house, located opposite the Ram Janmabhoomi police station, scores of Muslims leaders gathered late evening to debate the implications of a judgment they termed as “weak and one that sought to keep the status quo”. “What can I say about the order? It hardly addresses the moot point. Instead, it creates further divisions of land. When we are the original owners of the disputed site, why should we settle for one-third of the area,” argued Mehboob.

He was accompanied by two top Muslim clerics - Imam Hafiz Aslam of Jamia Masjid, Tehri Bazaar, and Maulana Jalal Akhtar. They were disappointed over the setting aside of the Muslim claim on the disputed site.

Already the community is gearing to move the Supreme Court, as indicated by the lawyer for the Wakf Board, Zafaryab Geelani.

Back in Ayodhya, except for the oldest Muslim petitioner in the matter, Hashim Ansari, the other two, including Mehboob, raised a war cry, saying: “The court has accepted that there was a masjid at the disputed site but has said the site be handed over to the Hindus to make a temple because Ram Lalla is installed there and can’t be removed. This is strange.”

A few kilometres from Haji’s house, another congregation of Muslim thinkers assembled at Badi Bua Makbara, a 100 year-old Muslim mausoleum housing a school and a boys’ hostel. Founder of the place, which has a following in town, Mohammad Shafiq, said the High Court had ruled only to maintain peace and order and had steered clear of the main question of land ownership.

“Fragmentation of land into three parts is unacceptable and will create deeper division of hearts. The court should have awarded the claim to us or our Hindu friends. This is a pro-Congress judgment because Ram Lalla idol was installed during Rajiv Gandhi’s time and the court today ordered that it could not be removed from where it had come to stay. It’s not a fair thing to say,” Shafiq said. He, however, hastened to add that the judgment was good for harmony between the communities and would ease tensions in Ayodhya that had affected people’s livelihood for years.

The argument was backed by Hashim Ansari who stuck to his stand, saying the HC verdict was welcome and he would not go into appeal. He disagreed with his Muslim friends and said: “Had we got the ownership of the disputed site, it would have caused trouble. The court has made the right decision,” he told TNS. The common man wants the matter to end here. “We are happy. What else could we have got,” remarked a 50-year-old Mohammmadunisa.