English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

“They want the Muslims to surrender their claim”

Published

on

Image courtesy: www.amu.ac.in

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Former UP additional advocate general Zafaryab Jilani has been fighting the Babri Masjid case from 1986. He is convener of the Sunni Control Waqf Board and is representing this body and other plaintiffs in this longstanding dispute. In a chat with Rashme Sehgal, he puts forward his views on the case

What do you feel about the latest initiative of the Supreme Court Chief Justice Khehar for an out-of-court settlement to this long pending dispute?

I am not in favour of an out-of-court settlement. From 1986, we have seen several attempts at arriving at negotiated settlements. Many of these initiatives have come from the highest levels but these have failed to resolve the matter.

What is the other side insisting upon? They want the Muslims to surrender their claim. They do not want an out-of-court settlement with us. Rather they want an out-of-court surrender from us. This has been going on for the last 27 years. They want us to give up claim on the title to the Babri Masjid mosque and build the mosque elsewhere across the Saryu river. This is what the BJP spokespersons have been reiterating again and again.

Is relocation such a major problem for the Muslim community?

Our acceptance of this proposal will imply that Muslims have no right to retain their mosques in any part of the country. Today they are demanding this place; tomorrow they will demand another place. Where is the justification for us to agree to move? Are we second class citizens in our own country?

Up to 1941, all court cases accepted the Babri Masjid mosque. In 1941, the Nirmohi Akhara was the only body in existence.

But the BJP claims they are expressing the sentiment, the astha, of crores of Hindus?

The astha is not created in one or two years. This is something which grows over hundreds and thousands of years. Earlier worship started in 1885 in the chabutra located outside the mosque. Then on December 22 1945, the idols were kept under the middle dome of the mosque.

But what led the Babri Masjid Action Committee to reject the verdict of the Allahabad High Court which had asked for a three-way division of the 2.77 acre site? The Allahabad High Court had opined that the land be equally divided between the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and  Ram Lalla represented by the Hindu Mahasabha ?

The judgement was against the law of the land. The verdict accepted two arguments. The verdict proceeded on the premise that Hindus have faith in Rama and that the middle dome is the birthplace of Rama. The other side was not able to muster any other evidence. My question is, is the country ruled by the rule of law or is it ruled by faith?

The Muslim community is not willing to give up their title keeping the sensibilities of the Hindus in mind?

There is no existence of faith in a property dispute. The right to property is equal for all. Faith, on the other hand, is a personal matter. Issues of property are decided by the law of the land. This point of view has been upheld by the Supreme Court also as far back as 1994.

I ask this question only because this case has dragged for years and years?

We are ready to argue our case before the law courts. The lapses have been on the part of the government. By now the government should have moved an application to set up a special court which could hear this basis on a day-to-day basis. The other side has refused to accept a legal notice for the last six years. We finally had to get it published in a newspaper which cost us thousands of rupees. It is for the Supreme Court to act.

But why is it so important for the Muslims to reconstruct the Babri Masjid at the same place where the earlier mosque had been located?

Why don’t you ask the other side the same question?  Why are you repeating the same question to me? Till 1949, there was no issue of a Ram Mandir at the site of the Babri Masjid. There was a chabutra outside the Babri Masjid and the Hindus had worshipped there but this chabutra was built only in 1886.

But with Adityanath Yogi as chief minister of UP and Narendra Modi as prime minister, the BJP can introduce a bill in Parliament and state assembly to construct the Ram temple on the site.

I am reemphasising this—let the law of the land prevail. Even if such a law is passed, it can be nullified by a Supreme Court judgement. If any such law is passed, it is liable to be struck down.

What about the pending cases against BJP leaders including LK Advani and Uma Bharti ?

The cases have been pending for some time now. The judgement should be decisive and given at the earliest.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

on

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com