Hindu stakeholder divided over SC’s mediation bid to resolve Ayodhya tangle

Trilokinath Pandey of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, one of the two Hindu litigants and ‘friend’ of ‘Ram Lala Virajman’, rejected the mediation efforts calling it an exercise in futility.
SC defers Ayodhya verdict
SC defers Ayodhya verdict

NEW DELHI / LUCKNOW: While Muslim parties, involved in the Ram Mandir Babri Masjid land dispute case, have welcomed the Supreme Court order on time-bound mediation, Hindu stakeholders appear to be divided over it and are sceptical of the success of the move.

The voice of consensus which emerged from the camp of Hindu litigants favoured nothing less than construction of a grand Ram temple at the birth site of Lord Ram.

Trilokinath Pandey of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, one of the two Hindu litigants and ‘friend’ of ‘Ram Lala Virajman’, rejected the mediation efforts calling it an exercise in futility. “The Supreme Court should muster courage and deliver the verdict to settle the vexed issue. These exercises will not serve the purpose. So we have kept ourselves away from it,” said Pandey.

The other Hindu litigant, Nirmohi Akhara, too, doesn’t seem much enthused by the mediation efforts. Though Akahara chief Mahant Dinendra Das expressed his readiness to present his side before the mediation panel to help it reach an amicable solution, its former chief Mahant Ram Das raised questions over the selection Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. “The saints of Ayodhya should have also been made part of any such panel as without them no solution will be possible,” he said.

Mahant Satyendra Das, head priest of the makeshift temple of Lord Ram at the disputed site, welcomed the SC order but added that “what we all want is just a grand temple of Lord Ram as soon as possible”.

Mahant Pramahans Das of Chhawani temple in Ayodhya, too, welcomed SC order and hoped it would bear fruits. Batting for inclusion of Ayodhya residents on the panel, the mahant, who had gone on a fast unto death seeking a temple last year, proposed a mosque name on Dr APJ Abdul Kalam in Lucknow “as no Babri structure should come up in Ayodhya”.

In contrast, Muslim parties welcomed the mediation order. The lone Muslim litigant in the matter, Iqbal Ansari, said court- monitored talks could be the way forward. “We respect the court and welcome the decision. At the end of the day, we all want a just, peaceful resolution to the issue.”

However, Ansari also favoured representation from Ayodhya in the mediation panel.

Advocate Zafaryab Jilani, who represents the Sunni Waqf Board before the court, said the board would be happy if something good comes out of the mediation. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) also said it would be most befitting that the matter is resolved through negotiations.

Jilani said they will extend all possible cooperation to the mediation panel. There is no harm if the court wants to avail this eight weeks time for process of negotiation. We will cooperate fully. If something comes out of this, it is good otherwise the court has itself pointed out that after expiry of eight weeks, the court will proceed in its own way. So, It is an opportunity to all parties to resolve the issue."

"The Supreme Court has given this order and it needs to be welcomed.... It would be most befitting that the matter is resolved through dialogue...let's see what happens now," said AIMPLB general secretary Maulana Wali Rehmani. He also welcomed the top court's decision to maintain "utmost confidentiality" saying, this would ensure the success of the mediation process and barring the media from reporting about the proceedings.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com