'Kashi, Mathura And Ayodhya ...'

Text of the controversial second letter of the Kanchi seer tothe ALMPLB chairman Maulana Rabe Hasan Nadvi in response to the clarifications sought by the latter. DatedJuly 1, this letter was received on July 4 by the AIMPLB.

Dear Nadwi Saheb,

Your fax letter dated June 2003 seeking certain clarification wasreceived 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 begiven 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 in betweenthe disputed and undisputed areas to physically separate them

3.The judgement of the court regarding the disputed area is likelyto be delayed if we can settle the matter out of court by discussions, we may go before the court with thatsettlement/agreement and pray for a consent judgement. As a whole this was considered keeping in view thenecessity of maintaining communal harmony.

4. Supreme court has ruled that the stay will not be vacated andordered that the verdict of the Supreme Court be pronounced only after the Lucknow High Court gives itsjudgement on the disputed area case.

Status quo will have to be maintained till then. Therefore, even ifa no objection certificate is forthcoming and given it may not serve the desired purpose. Under thesecircumstances we offer the following explanation to our suggestion that the matter could be settled by mutualdiscussions.

A) The disputed area in Ayodhya is a place which is highlyrevered by the Hindus. Itis a historical fact that Babar, the great, constructed a building at that place in commemoration of hisvictory. At present, due to some unavoidable reasons, there is no building in that place. The status quoposition is that Rama is sitting over there. It is almost certain that the court judgement will not come earlyand when it comes, it will not be satisfying any community.

In the present circumstances, if the judgement goes in favour ofone community or even in favour of both the communities, we cannot expect communal harmony. Both the sides arecharged so much. Even though the disputed area may belong to the Wakf board and is a place of faith to Muslimsas well, since the place is of great faith and reverence to the Hindus, Muslim community and Wakf board maythink 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 o 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 placeand construct a mosque over for communal harmony.

Local Muslims are already offering prayers in their mosques, thatthe idol of Rama is being worshipped, that the area is a disputed one and keeping in view the larger interestsof the nation and the communal harmony in particular, the Muslim community and Wakf board can decide to donatethat area which is a place of matter of faith and belief to the Hindusof the country.by doing so and presenting it before the court we may be able to obtain a court judgementfaster and earlier.

His holiness Sankaracharya appeals that the disputed area be donated to the Hindus and acceding to thisrequest 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 communalharmony 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 undisputedarea are only positive steps in the direction.

Even though we have been discussing the disputed and undisputedareas separately, it is essential that both the issues are discussed together comprehensively to ensure alasting 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 issueshould be settled amicably by mutual discussion.

A point was made that Kashi, Mathura and Ayodhya all the threebelong to the Hindus and keeping in mind the larger interest of the country and communal harmony, if not today but at sometime or other, these places have to be given to the Hindus. Muslims have to mentally preparethemselves for this.

Even if this proposal is not accepted by all sections of the Muslim society or is opposed by the Muslims withpolitical connection, history will record that the religious leaders of Hindus and Muslims have decided onsuch a bold step.

His holiness also opines that in present circumstances this willonly bring amity between the two communities. His holiness will be at Kanchipuram between July 5th and October4th and will not move out of Kanchipuram during this period.

Yours Sincerely,
Sri Kanchi Kamakoti,
Peetam Charitable Trust,
N. Sundaresan,
Managing Trustee