‘Ayodhya verdict is not about Hindus & Muslims’

Zafaryab Jilani, Lucknow-based low-profile lawyer of the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Wakf Board, did not speak out as much as the others did in the immediate aftermath of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case. He held his fire because as the man who argued the case, he knew the intricacies of the contentious issue. In an exclusive interview with DNA at his Lucknow chambers in the Islamia Degree College in Lal Bagh, he put forward the Muslim perspective on the issue. Sitting barefoot behind a large lawyer’s desk, he clarified that the Muslims are disappointed and
disheartened with the verdict but they are neither alienated nor antagonised and he dismissed the impression created in the media that Muslims in the country have been pushed to the wall.

Now that the decision has been made to go in for appeal, is there unanimity on the issue in the Sunni Wakf Board or is there still some effort being made for a settlement?
The Sunni Wakf Board has 30 members who have been elected according to the UP Wakf Act of 1995. The board is very clear that the appeal to the Supreme Court is the right option. The Wakf Board has nothing to do with the Personal Law Board except that the decision of the board may have a moral impact.

When did the Babri Masjid come under the purview of the Wakf Board?
The mosque was registered under the Sunni Wakf Board in 1943. Before that there was no Wakf Board. It was constituted by the Wakf Act of 1936.

There is the general perception that the Allahabad high court verdict is anti-Muslim...
It is against the expectations of the Muslim community. I cannot term it as anti-Muslim. Judges are not anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu.

Do you perceive ideological overtones in the judgment?
I cannot impute any motive to any judge.

Do you think that there are too many loopholes in the judgment?
Yes. They have relied on the belief and faith of the Hindus as against the documentary evidence.

The judges did admit the idols were placed in 1949. Did they have a legal basis?
They did. They said it was based on belief.

You are going to challenge the ‘legal infirmities’ of the judgment in the Supreme Court. But are you hopeful?
I cannot predict but I am hopeful.

Generally in law, local traditions are given legal recognition...
Local beliefs of the period are given recognition if they are proved to be time immemorial. There was no such belief for centuries among the Hindus that it was the Ram Janmasthan.

To what extent did the Muslims acquiesce in the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) report?
The ASI report said that no temple was destroyed. The ASI report was full of ambiguities but on this point there was clarity.

Are there representatives of the Wakf board to look after the mosques, cemeteries and other Wakf properties?
They are appointed.

Are they paid salaries?
Not by the board.

The government pays?
No. They are honorary, unless there is a Wakf deed providing for salaries.

How did the Babri Mosque come under the Sunni Wakf?
There was a Wakf survey in 1938 and it declared the Babri Mosque to be Sunni Wakf property.

Is there some confusion because they gave one-third of the land for the mosque after rejecting the claims for the mosque?
They did not reject that there was a mosque. They said the land is the joint possession of the two communities.

How does Ram Lalla become legal?
The place beneath the central dome was believed to be Ram Janmasthan.

In spite of accepting the fact that the idols were placed in 1949?
They considered the place and not the idol as sacred. But this is a local belief of the 20th century. Until the 19th century, the local belief was that the chabutara was the janmasthan. That is why we
argued that the local belief was not time immemorial.

Was there worship between 1949 and 1986 when the locks were opened?
The court order of January 16, 1950 provided for the bhog because the belief was that if there was no bhog the deity would cease to be a deity.

But the Muslims did not have access during the same period?
The property was under attachment. But for Muslims, a mosque remains a mosque even if prayers are not offered.

Do you think that Muslims would lose faith in the judiciary if the Supreme Court verdict goes against the appeal?
I do not think so. Muslims will accept whatever the highest court of the land has to say.

Do you think that the communal divide between Hindus and Muslims will deepen if the Supreme Court rejects the Sunni Wakf Board claim?
This case has nothing to do with Hindus and Muslims. It is about legal and constitutional issues. Does faith and belief of one community prevail over the faith and belief of another community? It can be the faith and belief of any community.

So, you think that this is an important constitutional matter which should be argued and debated?
I think the Supreme Court should form a constitutional bench of five judges to hear the case. If we do not challenge the high court judgment, it will become a precedent because it is the verdict of a full bench of three judges.

Do you think that the country is mature enough and we can discuss the difficult issues openly?
Yes. The country has become very mature. There was no tension after the high court judgment. We told the community members that they should not get into street protests on this. It is only the media that is making it a grave and divisive issue.