Ayodhya verdict review: BJP seeking to play up differences within AIMPLB

The BJP, its ministers and some outfits backed by the Sangh Parivar have stepped up the attack on the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) ever since the

The BJP, its ministers and some outfits backed by the Sangh Parivar have stepped up the attack on the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) ever since the community’s highest decision making body decided to seek a review of the Supreme Court’s November 9 Ayodhya verdict. The apex court judgment has paved the way for Ram temple to be constructed at the hitherto disputed site.

HT Image

The ruling party is seeking to play up differences within AIMPLB on the issue of the review and some BJP leaders are in touch with ‘moderate Muslim voices’, many of whom have publicly expressed their view against a review.

After the Ayodhya decision, a delegation of clerics led by Mohsin Raza, the lone Muslim face of the BJP government in UP, had met chief minister Yogi Adityanath and welcomed the judgment. Adityanath had, in turn, assured the clerics that he would ensure that the minorities weren’t ‘exploited’ under his watch.

“If you come across any instance of exploitation or harassment of the community, let me know. I will ensure strict action and accountability,” Adityanath had said.

However, AIMPLB’s November 17 decision to seek a review appears to have soured the relations somewhat between the board members, as well as the ruling party whose ministers have begun targeting personal law board members.

Mohsin Raza, who had met several clerics before the November 9 verdict as part of the RSS minority outreach plan to ensure peace, launched a vitriolic attack on AIMPLB to the extent of accusing one of its senior members Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, 66, of having headed Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), a now-banned terrorist organisation.” Rasool had read out the AIMPLB decision that favoured reviewing the apex court’s historic order.

Little wonder, not only the BJP raked up his past, but also preferred to highlight how he was the father of Umar Khalid, the youth who was named in the 2016 JNU sedition row.

“AIMPLB, as well as AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, who was also present at the Sunday’s board meeting, need to clear why it chose to reveal its mind on the Ayodhya verdict through a person who has been an ex-SIMI chief and whose son was named in JNU row. It needs to be told that SIMI is now banned as a terrorist organisation,” Mohsin Raza said.

Qasim Rasool neither answered phone calls nor responded to messages sent to him by HT.

The Muslim Rashtriya Manch (MRM), an outfit backed by the RSS, has now threatened an agitation to “expose” the AIMPLB.

“So far, we have restrained ourselves against launching any public protest against the NGO that calls itself the AIMPLB. But, their tactics are shocking and smack of attempts to derail the peace and amity with which the historic verdict of the SC was received by common Muslims. A handful are out to provoke sentiments, something that is unacceptable and if they continue to do that, we will expose them,” said Raees Khan, a senior functionary of the Muslim Rashtriya Manch.

The BJP leaders also claimed that AIMPLB had been hijacked by “hawkish elements who are muzzling saner voices.”

“AIMPLB also needs to reveal why it chose to shift the venue of its board meeting from Nadwataul Ulama campus in Lucknow to Mumtaz Degree College at the last moment?” Mohsin Raza asked, playing up the fact that the board wasn’t one on the issue of seeking a review.

AIMPLB secretary Zafaryab Jilani had accused the district administration of forcing them to change their venue, a charge that the city administration denied, claiming neither any permission was sought nor any withdrawn.

Sources privy to the AIMPLB meet said that there could have been more to the venue shift than met the eye though they refused to give details.

However, they pointed out the delayed arrival of widely acclaimed Nadwa rector and AIMPLB chief Maulana Rabey Hasani Nadvi at the board meeting and the early departure of another senior member Maulana Mehmood Madni, the general secretary of Jamiat-Ulama-e-Hind as “hints” that the veterans didn’t want to oppose the verdict.

“There is a feeling within the community that those with a political background/agenda are muffling moderate voices, something which senior, widely respected clerics don’t seem to be happy with. Even otherwise, many of those who favour going for a review have publicly stated that they knew there was little to be achieved by their token protest,” said Athar Siddiqui of the Centre for Objective Research and Development.

Siddiqui was obviously referring to Maulana Arshad Madni’s statement after the meeting that he was for a review despite being ‘100% sure’ that it won’t help.

Arshad Madni represents the same Jamiat-e-Ulama-e Hind that Maulana Mehmood Madni does but both clerics held divergent views with Mehmood Madni voicing his reservations against a review.

Other board veterans like vice-president Kalbe Sadiq skipped the meeting though he had publicly registered his dissent on the review ahead of the AIMPLB meet. Khalid Rasheed Firangimahal, the naib imam of Lucknow Eidgah, had said that “personally” he too was opposed to the review.

Such dissent against review has come in handy for the BJP and other outfits of the Sangh Parivar in playing up the fact that ‘saner voices were not for review but were being shouted down by a handful’.

AIMPLB was not a party to the Ayodhya case but has now confirmed it will rope in at least three litigants — Mohammad Umar Khalid, a resident of Ayodhya town; Misbahuddin, a resident of Ayodhya district and Mehfusur Rehman, a resident of Tanda town in Ambedkar Nagar district — to file the review petition. The board has claimed that more have come to support its stance on review.

However, Zufar Farooqui, the chief of the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, who has called a meeting on November 26 to decide its response to the alternative plot for a mosque, confirmed he and the Sunni Board will stick to the original decision of not filing a review petition.

Iqbal Ansari, another litigant in the case, said he disagreed with the AIMPLB’s decision and boycotted the meeting. There was suspense over the stance of another litigant Haji Mehboob who had met Maulana Salman Nadvi ahead of the AIMPLB meet and initially said he was against review though subsequently he was learnt to have made another statement.