Mysuru: Advocate Zafaryab Jilani, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) Secretary and Spokesperson who is representing the Board in the Babri Masjid case, said that this issue could have been resolved as early as in 1949 itself.

“This is not a major issue at all. There are records that people offered Namaz at Babri Masjid till 1949 when the idol of Lord Rama was installed stealthily in the name of ‘aastha’ (faith),” said Jilani speaking to SOM over phone from Lucknow this morning.

He was in Mysuru to participate in the Silver Jubilee celebrations of All India Milli Council yesterday. “Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had sent a telegram to the Chief Secretary to remove the idol. But the District Magistrate K.K. Nayar (who later contested on a Jan Sangh ticket) expressed his inability to remove the idol as he apprehended law and order problem. He wanted the State to decide on the issue and a case was filed,” recalled Jilani and added, “Government itself had used the word ‘stealthily’ installed the idol of Rama.” The Allahabad High Court had decided the case on the basis of ‘aastha — faith or belief.’ Based on the faith, the Rama idol was installed.

Asked whether the whole issue revolved around the ego of a few organisations, as he had said, which appeared in a section of the Press, Jilani said, “Only a few organisations from the majority community are stoking the egos. We are very clear from the beginning that the whole issue must be based on law and evidence. Hence, we cannot surrender before the force of the majority people. However, I would like to reiterate that it is only a section of the majority community that is creating confusion. As far as we are concerned it should be based on the Constitution of India and rule of law.” The final hearing of the case will begin on Mar.14. It was earlier schedule to start on Feb.8. On whether they would accept the SC verdict which has said that it will treat the matter as “purely a land dispute,” Jilani said the SC will have to decide on the basis of law and evidence.

Asked whether they would accept the SC verdict irrespective of the outcome, he said that they would accept the verdict provided it (SC) gives the AIMPLB to place all the facts and evidence in law before the Apex Court.  

When asked will there be a solution to the row at all or will it drag on for a long time, he said that the SC can decide the case within a year.