THE ALL-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has decided to oppose the plan to make the sanctum sanctorum of the disputed Ayodhya site bullet proof.
Board member Zafaryab Jilani, who is also dealing with the Babri case, told Hindustan Times here on Monday that the Central and the State Governments should take measures to strengthen security, but construction of any structure, as envisaged in the application of the Union Home Ministry to the Supreme Court on Monday, was against the law. Jilani said the government could not change the situation of January 7, 1993. He said the apex court, too, had accepted the status quo of January 7, 1993. He said the AIMPLB had passed a resolution at its meeting in April last to oppose any construction at the site.
Jilani said he had written a letter to Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav, opposing the Rs 7.22-crore security plan prepared by the State Government.
However, the Union Government had now taken up the issue with the apex court. Jilani said as per the plan, the government had decided to put up steel walls with a wooden roof at the Ramlala site. Jilani said steel walls could not be called a temporary structure.
The State Government drew up an elaborate security plan after the July 5, 2005 ‘fidayeen’ attack at the makeshift temple site. Since the apex court is seized of the matter, the Centre on Monday moved an application seeking permission for civil work. The steel chamber, as per the plan, will be air-conditioned. The government has proposed four steel walls surrounding the sanctum sanctorum to ‘avoid a rocket attack’.
However, the AIMPLB is in no mood to relent. Jilani said more security personnel could be deployed and other security infrastructure put in place. He also said senior police officers could be entrusted with the task of overall security of the disputed area. Immediately, after the Ayodhya attack, the Centre had advised the State Government to put an IPS officer in charge of overall security. But, the State Government had rejected the proposal on the ground that the disputed area could not be earmarked as a “separate district”. The State Government argued that it would lead to operational problems with the SSP, Faizabad.