Author:
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: July 7, 2003
Following is the text of the first
letter of the Kanchi seer Jayendra Saraswati to the All India Muslim Personal
Law Board (AIMPLB) chairman Maulana Rabe Hasan Nadvi.
Dear Nadvi Saheb,
Having come to know that your good-self
is not keeping well, his holiness decided to make a private visit to Nadwa
to see you and pray for your well-being. Accordingly, on the 7th June,
he took a private trip from Delhi to Lucknow and visited you in the afternoon
and was indeed happy to be with you in the pious ambience. I am indeed
thankful to you as the president of the all India Muslim personal law board
for the hospitality and courtesy extended to his holiness and his followers.
In the course of discussions we
indeed reviewed the present situation arising out of the Ayodhya dispute,
which have been unfortunately exploited by some vested interests. This
is the main reason as to why his holiness has been insisting that the issue
should be amicably settled between the concerned religious top leaders,
keeping aside as far as possible the political approach to the problem,
to avoid creation of feelings of apprehension, hatred and fear amongst
the various communities. By doing so, we, the religious heads of the two
communities can find a solution, which would be conducive to communal harmony
and national integration.
Since the matter of mandir and masjid
is currently under judicial reference, we may have to wait (how long, i
do not know). Therefore we should try to work out a formula of compromise.
To initiate this compromise formula, his holiness would request you to
discuss in your board the following:
1. Your board, on our request, may
consider giving a no objection statement regarding construct of mandir
upon the undisputed/acquired area.
2. Disputed area also can be discussed
after some time and an amicable settlement may be given to the court and
verdict can be given by the court based on the settlement.
3. In order to protect the disputed
area, a wall may be constructed separating it from undisputed/acquired
area.
4. If we reach a final negotiated
settlement on the undisputed area, we shall both ensure support for the
same from the various religious groups/sub-groups on each side to ensure
that no further demands would be raised on the undisputed area.
5. Once we arrive at a cordial understanding,
we may together approach the Government of India for its effective and
time bond implementation.
His holiness is sure under your
benign leadership, the above suggestions would be supported and reciprocated.
I am sure this will lead the communities towards a peaceful coexistence
and prosperity.
His holiness further prays to almighty
for your health, peace and prosperity for our nation.
Regards,
Yours sincerely,
N Sundaresan
Trustee
Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam
Charitable trust.
Following is the text of the clarifications
sought by the all India Muslim personal law board chairman from the Kanchi
seer after receiving the first letter dated June 16, 2003 containing a
five-point formula to resolve the Ayodhya issue. The letter is addressed
to n Sundaresan, who is the trustee of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam charitable
trust of Jayendra Saraswati.
Dear Shri N Sundersan,
Maulana Syed Mohammed Rabey Nadwi,
president, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, has directed me to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter dated 16th June, 2003 which was delivered on
20th June, 2003.
Maulana appreciated the personal
courtesy extended to him by his holiness Jagadguru Shankaracharya by his
touching gesture of having taken the trouble of travelling from Delhi to
Lucknow to enquire after his health. By the grace of allah, maulana's health
has improved considerably.
Love for motherland is the article
of faith for every Muslim. Our beloved country is passing through delicate
times. To achieve prosperity and strength it is absolutely necessary that
all the segments of Indian citizenry should march together and are bound
in bonds of affection and good will.
Hindu-Muslim unity, which was the
cornerstone of our struggle for freedom, still remains the bedrock of our
nation's progress towards prosperity with justice to all. His holiness
has made sincere efforts in this direction and your letter under reference
is looked upon as an endeavour in this area.
Maulana, as the president of all
India personal law board, has convened a meeting of its executive committee
on 6th of July 2003. But before maulana puts the letter before the executive
committee, certain clarification are needed as detailed below to enable
the executive committee to come to some final conclusions.
Firstly, may I request you to turn
to the letter dated 8th march 2002, written on behalf of his holiness by
Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peethadipati Jagadguru Sri Shankaracharya Swamijee
(Srimatam Sansthanam) addressed to the late maulana Mujahid-ul-Islam Qasmi,
the then president of the board, containing similar proposals which contained
categorical assurance.
First, both Hindus and Muslims will
abide by the court verdict. The present proposal however, is silent on
this assurance. The maulana desires to know whether such assurance is still
valid and binding and if it is so, what practical/legal measures are conceived
to implement such assurances.
Secondly, as you are well aware,
the executive committee of the board has passed the resolution dated 10th
march 2002, expressing its inability to consider the proposals contained
in the letter dated 8th march, 2002 with detailed reasons. Please see our
resolution dated 10th march 2002. The maulana desires to know whether his
holiness will be able to furnish the details as desired by the board.
You will kindly appreciate that
above clarification amongst others are extremely crucial and important
and maulana humbly requests his holiness to respond to these positively,
well before the 6th of july,2003.
Such response will go a long way
in establishing congeniality and confidence between our two great communities.
Yours sincerely
(Mohammed Hamza Hasani)
Personal Secretary to the President
Following is the text of the second
letter of the Kanchi seer to the all India Muslim personal law board chairman
Maulana Rabe Hasan Nadvi in response to the clarifications sought by the
latter.
Dear Nadwi Saheb,
Your fax letter dated June 2003
seeking certain clarification was received and placed before his holiness.
His holiness is happy that you are improving in your health
1. It was pointed out that if a
no objection certificate could be given for the undisputed area it will
facilitate the vacation of court stay in this regard
2. A suggestion was made that a
compound wall be erected between the disputed and undisputed areas to physically
separate them
3. The judgement of the court regarding
the disputed area is likely to be delayed if we can settle the matter out
of court by discussions. we may go before the court with that settlement/agreement
and pray for a consent judgement. As a whole this was considered keeping
in view the necessity of maintaining communal harmony.
4. Supreme court has ruled that
the stay will not be vacated and ordered that the verdict of the supreme
court be pronounced only after the Lucknow high court gives its judgement
on the disputed area case.
Status quo will have to be maintained
till then. Therefore, even if a no objection certificate is forthcoming
and given, it may not serve the desired purpose. Under these circumstances
we offer the following explanation to our suggestion that the matter could
be settled by mutual discussions.
a) The disputed area in Ayodhya
is a place which is highly revered by the Hindus. It is a historical fact
that Babar the great, constructed a building at that place in commemoration
of his victory. At present, due to some unavoidable reasons, there is no
building in that place. The status quo position is that Rama is sitting
over there. It is almost certain that the court judgement will not come
early and when it comes, it will not be satisfying any community.
In the present circumstances, if
the judgement goes in favour of one community or even in favour of both
the communities, we cannot expect communal harmony. Both the sides are
charged so much. Even though the disputed area may belong to the WAKF board
and is a place o faith to Muslims as well, since the place is of great
faith and reverence to the Hindus, Muslim community and WAKF board may
think that they donate the said area to Hindus.
B) Generally, if daily prayers are
being offered in any mosque, asking for that place is not justifiable.
In view of the fact that at present the area is without any building (empty)
and an idol of Rama is placed there, it will not be right or possible to
remove Rama from that place and construct a mosque over for communal harmony.
Local Muslims are already offering prayers in their mosques, that the idol
of Rama is being worshipped, that the area is a disputed one and keeping
in view the larger interests of the nation and the communal harmony in
particular, the Muslim community and WAKF board can decide to donate that
area, which is a place of matter of faith and belief to the Hindus of the
country. By doing so and presenting it before the court we may be able
to obtain a court judgement faster and earlier.
His holiness Shankaracharya appeals
that the disputed area be donated to the Hindus and acceding to this request
by the Muslim community will itself enhance the prestige of the Indian
Muslims in the world.
History will record that the Indian
Muslims stood for communal harmony by this generous act of theirs and their
name and fame will get a permanent place in the history. Giving a no objection
certificate to the undisputed area or raising a wall between the disputed
and undisputed area are only positive steps in the direction.
Even though we have been discussing
the disputed and undisputed areas separately, it is essential that both
the issues are discussed together comprehensively to ensure a lasting peaceful
and early solution. Donation of the disputed area will only be the permanent
solution. All the above explanations/ clarifications have been given as
an amplification of our proposal that the issue should be settled amicably
by mutual discussion.
A point was made that Kashi, Mathura
and Ayodhya all the three belong to the Hindus and keeping in mind the
larger interest of the country and communal harmony, if not to day but
at sometime or other, these places have to be given to the Hindus. Muslims
have to mentally prepare themselves for this.
Even if this proposal is not accepted
by all sections of the Muslim society or is opposed by the Muslims with
political connection, history will record that the religious leaders of
Hindus and Muslims have decided on such a bold step. His holiness also
opines that in present circumstances this will only bring amity between
the two communities. His holiness will be at Kanchipuram between July 5th
and October 4th and will not move out of Kanchipuram during this period.
Yours sincerely
Sri Kanchi Kamakoti
Peetam Charitable Trust
