Monday 21st Jan 2019
Radiance Views Weekly
You are here: Home »  Report
Text size: A | A

CBI Shielding Advani, Joshi: SQR Ilyas

Report

By OUR STAFF REPORTER

The Sunni Waqf Board deserved the title suit of Babri Masjid but the High Court debarred its plea, citing some technical issues. The High Court ignored all the facts and evidences provided by the Muslim groups and made its decision based on the viewpoint of a foreign traveller who mentioned that both Muslims and Hindus were worshipping at the same place. These are the views expressed by Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, Convener Babri Masjid Action Committee and member AIMPLB at Jamaat-e-Islami Hind headquarters in the Capital on December 8.

The Constitution of India states that if a person uses a piece of land for more than 12 years and no one has any objection to it then he would be considered its owner. Why this rule was not invoked in case of Babri Masjid as no dispute was there before 1949, asked Mr. Ilyas. Years before the demolition of the mosque some idols were installed near the site of the Masjid and people began worshipping them. However, the plea to construct a shed at the place of the idols was rejected in 1834 by the court saying it would disturb the communal harmony in the area.

Mr. Ilyas said that no decision could have been made without considering Waqf Board as a member in the case. But the court, very smartly, debarred its plea on technical basis and distributed the land among the three remaining members. He said that the court was supposed to fix the title suit of the land on the basis of facts and evidences provided and not to act as a Panchayat. “It seems that the Court’s verdict is not free from bias,” added he.

The hearing of Babri Masjid is based on the two FIRs—197 & 198. The FIR-197 describes that hundreds of kar sewaks demolished the mosque while FIR – 198 mentions the names of some of them including LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Ashok Singhal. But the Special Court of Central Bureau of Investigation refused to incorporate FIR-198 on “technical basis”. It openly means that “they” are shielding Advani, Joshi and Singhal, he added. Later on, it was included on the direction of the Supreme Court. But all the articles of Indian Penal Code under which they should have been booked for the criminal offence were excluded.

The Hindutvawadis who led the demolition of the Masjid maintain it is the matter of faith for them. Mr. Ilyas asked, “If it was the matter of faith and belief then why was not any claim made before 1949?” He further added that there are seven temples in Ayodhya and Mahant— spiritual leader—of each temple claims that Rama was born at his temple.



Top
A Sham Trial and Mockery  of Justice in Bangladesh
Vol. L No.39, 2012-12-23
A Sham Trial and Mockery of Justice in Bangladesh
ISLAMISTS UNDER FIRE 
From Egypt to Bangladesh
Vol. LI No.20, 2013-08-18
A Sham Trial and Mockery of Justice in Bangladesh
Political Implications of Ban on Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami
Vol. LI No.19, 2013-08-11
A Sham Trial and Mockery of Justice in Bangladesh
Egypt's Al-Sisi Dragged the Country into Civil War
Vol. LI No.18, 2013-08-04
A Sham Trial and Mockery of Justice in Bangladesh
The Scourge of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Vol. L No.43, 2013-01-20
A Sham Trial and Mockery of Justice in Bangladesh
Arab Spring: Promises and Challenges
Vol. L No.21, 2012-08-19
A Sham Trial and Mockery of Justice in Bangladesh
Just World Order
Vol. XLIX No.43, 2012-01-29
A Sham Trial and Mockery of Justice in Bangladesh
Let Us Refuse to Be Provoked
Vol. L No.27, 2012-09-30
A Sham Trial and Mockery of Justice in Bangladesh
The Islamists and Western Blinkers
Vol. L No.15, 2012-07-08
A Sham Trial and Mockery of Justice in Bangladesh
Death, Disappearance and Despair in India
Vol. L No.13, 2012-06-24
A Sham Trial and Mockery of Justice in Bangladesh
Subscribe 
 
Focus Issue
 Enter your Email:
Submit