Former PM Manmohan Singh assured Shahi Imam Syed Ahmed Bukhari that Delhi's Jama Masjid won’t be a protected monument
NEW DELHI: Former prime minister Manmohan Singh "assured" the shahi imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid that the Mughal-era mosque would not be declared a protected monument, a letter submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India to the Delhi High Court has revealed.
The assurance was made in a letter from Singh to Syed Ahmed Bukhari in 2004, soon after he had taken over as PM, according to the ASI affidavit.
This adds a new dimension to the case in which the high court has been trying to find out for more than a decade why the erstwhile Congress-led UPA government refused to declare the 17th century Jama Masjid a protected monument. Doing so would have meant that control over it would pass to the central government.
In the October 20, 2004, letter addressed to "Dear Syed Ahmed Bukhari Sahib", Singh said he had "instructed" the ministry of culture and ASI to complete repairs sought by him in his letter of August 10, 2004 "within a specified time frame". He also informed him that the ministry had decided not to declare the Jama Masjid a protected monument.
In its reply, submitted to the court a fortnight ago, ASI said that "the issue of notifying Jama Masjid as a centrally protected monument was raised".
However, the former PM had "assured" the Shahi Imam that the mosque would not be declared a protected monument, ASI said. It also said that declaring the mosque a protected monument did not come within its purview.
Several restrictions apply to a monument that's declared protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958. A place of worship or shrine "shall not be used for any purpose inconsistent with its character".
A protected monument cannot be used for meetings, receptions, parties, conferences or entertainment programmes except with special permission by the Centre. However, the Act does not provide for any ban on prayers being offered at sites that are already places of worship. "Notwithstanding the fact that Jama Masjid is not a protected monument, ASI in acknowledgment of its (Jama Masjid) being an ancient structure, has from time to time since 1956, acceded to the request of carrying out conservation work at its own expense, made to this effect by Shahi Imam," the ASI said in its affidavit.
The government agency added: "It is evident that successive shahi imams of the Jama Masjid, which is a live place of worship, have been seeking help from ASI for carrying out conservation work in acknowledgment of ASI being an expert body in this regard. In so far as funds are concerned, the same were allocated by the ministry of culture, government of India and the same have not been provided either by shahi imam or the Wakf Board."
A detailed questionnaire sent to Singh in this regard remained unanswered as of Wednesday evening. Bukhari could not be reached for comment despite repeated attempts.
For the past 11 years, several benches of the Delhi High Court headed by successive chief justices have been demanding a copy of the file regarding the decision not to declare the Jama Masjid a protected monument.
One such direction was reiterated on April 27, 2005, by a division bench headed by then chief justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. The bench had held in a previous hearing that "if the property is declared a protected monument, not only the property but its surroundings will also be protected".
PILs Filed
The court acted in connection with a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2004 that sought directions to the authorities to declare the masjid a protected monument and remove all encroachments in and around it. The court then instructed the ASI to hold a meeting with the Wakf Board so that a special memorandum of understanding could be reached to preserve the masjid and also maintain it as a place of worship.
The high court has been expressing disapproval over the masjid not being declared a protected monument. "It is required to be noted that the property which was constructed by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in 1650 is to be protected," the court held on February 23, 2005. In November last year, another PIL challenged the dastarbandi (anointment) of Bukhari's son as his successor and demanded a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into the mosque's management.
Petitioner Suhail Ahmed Khan also demanded that the masjid be declared a protected monument. His lawyer Devinder Pal Singh pointed out that while the Red Fort had been declared a protected monument (in 2007), the mosque did not figure even in the tentative list submitted to Unesco for declaration as a World Heritage Site.While the Delhi Wakf Board's lawyer took the stand that the Jama Masjid was a Wakf property, he failed to explain why the board has not exercised any rights or supervision over the mosque.
The board also failed to reply to the court's query as to what rights and control the Delhi Wakf Board had been exercising over the mosque and why it had left this to Bukhari. The counsel also failed to explain the rules under which Bukhari -- a controversial figure whose family has controlled the mosque since its inception -- had been appointed shahi imam.
Kamal Faruqui, a founder member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, told ET, "It (the Jama Masjid) indeed is a very important monument. We have no hesitation if Jama Masjid is declared protected but the ASI must give us a guarantee in writing that for all times to come prayers will be allowed in the masjid. Also, it should allow prayers to be offered in 53 mosques under the ASI."
Faruqui, also a former chairman of the Delhi Minorities Commission, added, "In my personal capacity I must say there is no concept of appointment of shahi imam and the same is against Islam."
NEW DELHI: Former prime minister Manmohan Singh "assured" the shahi imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid that the Mughal-era mosque would not be declared a protected monument, a letter submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India to the Delhi High Court has revealed.
The assurance was made in a letter from Singh to Syed Ahmed Bukhari in 2004, soon after he had taken over as PM, according to the ASI affidavit.
This adds a new dimension to the case in which the high court has been trying to find out for more than a decade why the erstwhile Congress-led UPA government refused to declare the 17th century Jama Masjid a protected monument. Doing so would have meant that control over it would pass to the central government.
In the October 20, 2004, letter addressed to "Dear Syed Ahmed Bukhari Sahib", Singh said he had "instructed" the ministry of culture and ASI to complete repairs sought by him in his letter of August 10, 2004 "within a specified time frame". He also informed him that the ministry had decided not to declare the Jama Masjid a protected monument.
In its reply, submitted to the court a fortnight ago, ASI said that "the issue of notifying Jama Masjid as a centrally protected monument was raised".
However, the former PM had "assured" the Shahi Imam that the mosque would not be declared a protected monument, ASI said. It also said that declaring the mosque a protected monument did not come within its purview.
Several restrictions apply to a monument that's declared protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958. A place of worship or shrine "shall not be used for any purpose inconsistent with its character".
A protected monument cannot be used for meetings, receptions, parties, conferences or entertainment programmes except with special permission by the Centre. However, the Act does not provide for any ban on prayers being offered at sites that are already places of worship. "Notwithstanding the fact that Jama Masjid is not a protected monument, ASI in acknowledgment of its (Jama Masjid) being an ancient structure, has from time to time since 1956, acceded to the request of carrying out conservation work at its own expense, made to this effect by Shahi Imam," the ASI said in its affidavit.
The government agency added: "It is evident that successive shahi imams of the Jama Masjid, which is a live place of worship, have been seeking help from ASI for carrying out conservation work in acknowledgment of ASI being an expert body in this regard. In so far as funds are concerned, the same were allocated by the ministry of culture, government of India and the same have not been provided either by shahi imam or the Wakf Board."
A detailed questionnaire sent to Singh in this regard remained unanswered as of Wednesday evening. Bukhari could not be reached for comment despite repeated attempts.
For the past 11 years, several benches of the Delhi High Court headed by successive chief justices have been demanding a copy of the file regarding the decision not to declare the Jama Masjid a protected monument.
One such direction was reiterated on April 27, 2005, by a division bench headed by then chief justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. The bench had held in a previous hearing that "if the property is declared a protected monument, not only the property but its surroundings will also be protected".
PILs Filed
The court acted in connection with a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2004 that sought directions to the authorities to declare the masjid a protected monument and remove all encroachments in and around it. The court then instructed the ASI to hold a meeting with the Wakf Board so that a special memorandum of understanding could be reached to preserve the masjid and also maintain it as a place of worship.
The high court has been expressing disapproval over the masjid not being declared a protected monument. "It is required to be noted that the property which was constructed by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in 1650 is to be protected," the court held on February 23, 2005. In November last year, another PIL challenged the dastarbandi (anointment) of Bukhari's son as his successor and demanded a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into the mosque's management.
Petitioner Suhail Ahmed Khan also demanded that the masjid be declared a protected monument. His lawyer Devinder Pal Singh pointed out that while the Red Fort had been declared a protected monument (in 2007), the mosque did not figure even in the tentative list submitted to Unesco for declaration as a World Heritage Site.While the Delhi Wakf Board's lawyer took the stand that the Jama Masjid was a Wakf property, he failed to explain why the board has not exercised any rights or supervision over the mosque.
The board also failed to reply to the court's query as to what rights and control the Delhi Wakf Board had been exercising over the mosque and why it had left this to Bukhari. The counsel also failed to explain the rules under which Bukhari -- a controversial figure whose family has controlled the mosque since its inception -- had been appointed shahi imam.
Kamal Faruqui, a founder member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, told ET, "It (the Jama Masjid) indeed is a very important monument. We have no hesitation if Jama Masjid is declared protected but the ASI must give us a guarantee in writing that for all times to come prayers will be allowed in the masjid. Also, it should allow prayers to be offered in 53 mosques under the ASI."
Faruqui, also a former chairman of the Delhi Minorities Commission, added, "In my personal capacity I must say there is no concept of appointment of shahi imam and the same is against Islam."
