 |
||
|
||
|
||
With the deployment of the Wakf as a new piece on the temple chess board, the game is likely to take a new turn. All these years, since the locks of the Ram temple were opened, the Babri Masjid proponents have made it into a property dispute. They repeatedly said they would abide by the court's verdict. The element of excavation to find the reality, has shaken these proponents. It has been claimed by the Madhya Pradesh Minorities Commission Chairman, Mr Ibrahim Qureshi, that Bhojshala at Dhar also belongs to a Wakf.
It is being said that the disputed site belongs to Wakf, therefore, no mandir can be built upon it. Prima facie, playing the "Wakf piece" is an easy way out of the pressure. Not merely at Ayodhya or Dhar but also at other places in future. Many edifices contended as masjids are likely to be Wakf properties.
The Wakf is the biggest urban landlord in India. Its origin dates back to the time of Prophet Muhammad. It began with a place called Khaybar in Arabia. It was the Prophet's genius for turning a conquered property into an inalienable ownership. So is written by Asaf AA Fyzee in his book, Outlines of Muhammadan Law.
Joseph Schacht, an international authority on Islam in law, in his book says: "The Wakf has one of its roots in the contributions to the holy wars which Muhammad had incessantly demanded from his followers in Medina". For one thing, a Wakf property is an outcome of conquest. If any further proof of expropriation was required in this context, the temple turned mosque provides it. The corollary of this development would be that the conflict over the temples would extend to question the validity of the institution of Wakf itself.
Uncannily, the caliph of all Sunni Islam and the Ottoman Emperor thought it was fit to abolish the institution in his empire in 1917. Thus, there are no Wakfs in Turkey, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. In 1956, on the morrow of Tunisian independence, President Habib Bourguiba abolished Wakfs. Although every Wakf or donor claims that he has handed over the property to Allah, the merciful, Muslim leaders ranging from the conservative caliph to the modern Bourguiba did not think so. For India, there are several other arguments that support the abolition of Wakfs.
The dispute over a Wakf in late 19th century eventually went up to the Privy Council in London. The British judges, in their judgement, described the Wakf as "a perpetuity of the worst and the most pernicious kind" and declared it to be invalid. The institution was however saved by Jinnah when he persuaded the Legislative Council in Delhi to pass the Wakfs Act of 1913.
The rulers of the 565 princely states, that merged into the Indian Union after Independence, were, until then, the owners of their respective principalities. They were persuaded to join the Indian Union on an understanding that they would get privy purses or annual payments in lieu of their cooperation with the Government of India. Despite this commitment being of a perpetual nature, the Indira Gandhi Government abolished the privy purses.
Zamindaris were also abolished after Independence. Though zamindars were not the owners of the land but mere tax collectors, yet the Nehru Government considered it fit to terminate their status. Fundamentally, hereditary possession of land or estate was feudal and contrary to the spirit of democracy. As with the princes, so with the zamindars as well as the jagirdars of Rajasthan and Gujarat. Why not then with the Wakfs which are also obsolete.
Moreover, they are monuments of the medieval conquest of India. The Wakfs that display temples turned mosques, show that they are the evil fruit of plunder and loot. They, therefore, have no justification for survival. The new pro-masjid moves are thus fraught with danger. Not only will they provoke moves for the abolition of the Wakfs but also vitiate Hindu-Muslim relations.
The BJP had taken no interest in Ayodhya until after the Babri Masjid Action Committee, which was set up in 1986, provided a provocation. For five years until 1989, the party had only two representatives in the Lok Sabha. Ayodhya helped it to increase its representation and eventually the party was able to form a Government at Centre.
This was only one temple. Imagine
what would happen if 3,000 mandirs become the subject of conflict! They
are spread across the country from Punjab (Gurdaspur) in the north, to
Kamatak (Bidar) in the south, from Gujarat (Mehsana) in the west to West
Bengal (Malda) in the east. Not to under-estimate Jaunpur, Vidisha, Ajmer,
Etawah, Kannauj et al.
|
||
|
||
|
||