Ayodhya: It’s been four years since an alternative 5-acre plot was assigned as the site of a new mosque in Ayodhya, after the Supreme Court handed over the Ram Janmabhoomi land — believed to be the birthplace of Hindu deity Ram, where the 16th-century Babri masjid stood until it was razed in 1992 — to the Hindu side.
But while the Ram temple has since come up at the janmabhoomi — and the deity consecrated last week in a big-ticket ceremony — the mosque site in Ayodhya’s Dhannipur village still stands vacant, used as a playground by local children or as pasture by farmers.
Work has yet to begin on the project on account of a multitude of problems.
There are allegations that the project size has been scaled down since the first proposal was released in 2020, as well as differences over its design — should the structure just be a mosque, or something grander, a premises with its own massive aquarium?
Then there is the lack of acceptance for an alternative mosque among some Muslims, including national leaders like Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi, which has impeded the drive to collect funds for the mosque.
Add to it some administrative hurdles and community leaders’ trust issues with both the UP government and the Indo-Islamic Cultural Foundation (IICF), set up by the state Sunni central waqf board to oversee the mosque’s construction, and the chaos intensifies.
Local residents in Dhannipur, where the state allocated the land parcel to the Sunni Central Waqf Board in February 2020, allege the mosque project has been “cut down” by the IICF.
Speaking to ThePrint, Shaban Khan, a marine engineer from the village, said: “We had earlier received information that a hospital, community kitchen and library were proposed at the site along with the mosque, but all that has been scaled down now.”
Members of IICF admitted that the trust had proposed a mosque along with a multi-speciality hospital, community kitchen, library and a publication house on the land parcel but said the plan was being revised and nothing had been finalised yet.
Athar Husain, IICF secretary, told ThePrint: “The project design which was submitted to the Ayodhya Development Authority (ADA) earlier did not find acceptance within the community and the project is now being redesigned by the masjid development committee. More time will be taken in formalising it.”
Husain added that Mumbai BJP leader and former chairman of Maharashtra State Minority Commission Arfat Shaikh has “decided to fund the project and the new plan is being drawn according to his expectations”.
Shaikh has suggested that the project should include a grand masjid with a traditional look, i.e, with minarets and a dome.
Speaking to ThePrint, Shaikh said the proposed mosque would be the first in India to have five minarets symbolising the five pillars of Islam — the profession of faith (shahada), prayer (namaz), almsgiving (zakat), fasting (roza) and pilgrimage (hajj).
He added that the site will include a community kitchen, a 500-bed cancer hospital, an aquarium that will be “bigger than the Dubai Aquarium” and a gigantic Quran that will be 21 feet long and 36 feet wide.
“The mosque will be named Muhammed Bin Abdullah masjid, after the Prophet Muhammad and his father, Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib,” he added.
Asked about the allegations of the proposed library being removed from the plan, he said it would be built, adding that that the revised project plan will be finalised by next month and all details — including the budget, specifications, etc — will be uploaded on the IICF website by then.
However, several Muslim community leaders in Ayodhya said there was little acceptability for the mosque among the community and they did not trust the IICF.
Speaking to ThePrint, litigants in the Babri masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title dispute case said the proposed project map was not acceptable to them.
Iqbal Ansari, one of the main litigants in the case, said: “A masjid has an identity of its own. Zufar Faruqi (IICF’s chief trustee and chairman of Sunni Central Waqf Board) has formed a private trust and the map that he is showing has caused disinterest among the Muslims. This is because the map is not correct. Had a simple masjid been proposed, it would have been constructed already.”
He added that the “project map seemed like the trust was trying to build a showroom” and alleged the “possibility of embezzlement of funds” in its construction. “This is not acceptable to the Muslims of India,” Ansari said.
Speaking to ThePrint, Faruqi said the trust consisted of persons who had said they would accept the court order in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case when several others were saying they would file a review petition against the judgment.
The IICF, too, admitted there was a lack of acceptance towards the mosque.
Also Read: Waqf boards are India’s big urban landlords. But whose interest are they serving?
‘Can live without masjid but desperately need hospital’
When ThePrint reached the site of the proposed mosque last week, which is located close to a mazaar, a group of youngsters was busy playing cricket on the plot as some goats grazed nearby.
Residents of Dhannipur said at least 14 mosques already existed in the village and expressed deeper interest in the proposed hospital and community kitchen than the proposed masjid.
Speaking to ThePrint, Sultan Beig, a local teacher, said that when the people of Dhannipur heard that the site had been chosen for the construction of the masjid on the directions of the Supreme Court, it raised hopes that the village may finally get better facilities and infrastructure.
“We felt that if a masjid and hospital are constructed here, we will get better facilities and employment opportunities. We still hope for the same but nothing is happening on the ground as of now. We got information from the media that the map of the project was not getting approved and donations were not coming. Members of the trust (IICF) visit here only on 26 January and 15 August,” he said.
Shaban Khan, the marine engineer quoted above, added: “We can live without a masjid as 14 already exist here but we don’t have a hospital. We have also heard that the proposed library has been removed from the plan.”
Beig said it was about time construction started, pointing out the Muslims were not enthusiastic about the project as of now but would be once things proceeded.
He also urged the state government to help provide funds for the construction of the hospital and community kitchen.
“Since the government has not given money for the Ram temple, it need not give any money for the masjid, too, but I urge the government to give money for the hospital and community kitchen, and provide more land for these if required,” he said, adding that local Muslims would also donate for the same and contribute with labour as well if needed.
Khan said the area did not have a good government hospital within 15-20 km and the private ones were too costly. “For contingencies, most patients are referred to facilities in Lucknow which is 140 km away and most people die on the way there. I request the government to help start the hospital’s construction as everyone will benefit from it,” he added.
“We vote for ‘sabka saath, sabka vikas (support of all, development for all, PM Modi’s slogan)’, but look at the development happening in Ayodhya and the plight of Dhannipur. When it comes to Dhannipur, even drainage of water is difficult. There is a vast difference between what’s happening in Ayodhya and here,” he said.
ThePrint made calls and sent messages to Dharampal Singh, UP minister for minority affairs, in connection with the demand for government funds. His response is awaited.
Why some Muslims ‘won’t accept’ another site for mosque
The Dhannipur land parcel is located 25 kilometres away from Ayodhya city.
Abdul Khalid Khan, the nominee of Maulana Mehfuzur Rehman, one of the litigants in the Babri masjid case, explained why a section of Muslims was “not willing to accept” an alternative site for a mosque to be constructed in lieu of the Babri Masjid that was razed by karsevaks in 1992.
“In the Ayodhya judgment, it was mentioned that keeping in view the sentiments of Muslims, an alternative site be allocated for constructing a masjid at a prominent place. We were expecting that an alternative site would be given near Ayodhya city, because why will people go 25 km away?” he asked.
He also pointed out that a section of Muslims was fearful that if the community accepted the land parcel, it would “open a pandora’s box”.
“There are thousands of masjids where such (title dispute) cases may be filed in the future. If Muslims accept this land as an alternative site for the now-demolished Babri Masjid, a precedent will be set and more masjids may be demolished. As of now, when we have not even accepted the site, look at how many cases are being filed seeking ownership of land where masjids currently stand,” Abdul Khalid Khan said.
Citing the ongoing litigation for the ownership of land in Mathura and Kashi where mosques currently stand next to places of Hindu religious significance, he said that “Hindu organisations, the government and judiciary have cheated Muslims”.
“When the Places of Worship Act, 1991, clearly states that the nature of a place of worship will remain as it was on 15 August 1947, how are these cases being heard in lower courts, high courts and even the Supreme Court? I think they want to bring Muslims to a place where they cannot live with honour and dignity. We are fighting for our survival and also for the country because if there is no justice in this country, there will be anarchy,” he said.
Khan further alleged that the mosque’s construction was getting delayed because the Sunni Central Waqf Board was not getting the green signal for it from the UP government.
“The land has not been given to a litigant or appellant but the Sunni Central Waqf Board, which is under the state government’s control. The board may say the reason for delay in the mosque’s construction is lack of funds but I don’t think so. The real reason is that they are not getting the green signal, which is why the proposed project map was not given clearance by the ADA,” he said.
When ADA vice-chairman Vishal Singh was asked about clearance to the masjid project, he told ThePrint that the authority was yet to approve 11 sets of maps submitted by the IICF since the trust was yet to submit the land-use conversion charges and no-objection certificates (NOCs) required for taking the project forward.
“The trust has submitted the maps but they are yet to submit the land-use conversion charges from agricultural to public/semi-public land, which amounts to about Rs 12 crore, and the NOCs required for the project. Since the area falls in phase-II of the Ayodhya master plan, which is yet to be approved, and they want to use almost 45 per cent of the land, they need to submit the amount for land use conversion,” Singh added.
“They have asked us to reduce the amount. The maps will only be approved once the charges are paid,” he said.
Singh added that the trust had so far paid only the processing charges for the maps that were submitted in 2021.
“Now, since their maps are being revised, they will have to submit the maps afresh. Since the processing charges pertain to a small amount, they can be adjusted in the payment once they submit fresh maps,” he said.
The IICF had stated in 2021 that 11 sets of maps for the proposed project had been submitted to the ADA and Rs 89,000 deposited as processing fee.
“Since the project is being redesigned, a fresh plan will be submitted now but it will take some time to be finalised,” Husain told ThePrint.
Also Read: No domes, no minarets — Ayodhya’s new masjid to replace Babri gets a futuristic design
‘Dearth of funds’
Speaking about the budget for the mosque project, Shaikh said it could be arrived at only after the project design was finalised, which is likely by next month.
“The IICF website is being redesigned. Once that is done, we will disclose all details about the project including the budget, design, specifications, etc,” he said.
According to Husain, by October 2023, the IICF had collected only Rs 50 lakh as part of the fund mobilisation initiative for the proposed mosque project.
“So far, we have collected only Rs 50 lakh for the proposed project and we are already running an ambulance facility in the area using this money,” he said.
Husain said the dearth of funds had led to the delay in the mosque project and admitted to a feeling among the Muslim community that a mosque should not be built at the plot since it was “donated by the government”.
“Some people have been of the opinion that Muslims should not accept an alternative place. Some people had a religious approach and said we should not accept any place that we get in donation or from the government,” he said, adding that “this is subject to Islamic jurisprudence and having studied designs across the world, we have concluded that this is not correct”.
The earlier design mosque design, presented by Syed Mohammed Akhtar, dean of Jamia Millia Islamia’s architecture department, envisaged a “futuristic” spherical mosque without any minaret or dome.
The trust says it decided to revise the design after it “did not find wide acceptability within the community”.
A source in the trust told ThePrint: “It is true that the IICF did not find wide acceptability for the design within the community due to lack of minarets and also because it was designed differently from the way traditional masjids in India have been built.”
According to Husain, the new project design will include a masjid with minarets, a super-specialty hospital with a community kitchen and an archive to showcase the region of Awadh.
“When the SC judgement came, nobody knew that 5 acres would be given for masjid construction. In the course of the case, the Hindu side knew there was a possibility of a temple getting constructed at the spot but the Muslim side didn’t anticipate anything and we had to prepare ourselves to execute it,” he told ThePrint.
“While initially people were not interested in the affairs of the mosque, over the past four years, acceptability has increased and, today, whenever we visit any public place, people ask when the mosque is getting built and say that it’s a good project.”
Husain added that the trust wanted to use the project to send a message of brotherhood and Hindu-Muslim unity.
“Since the land has come in an extraordinary situation, we want to give the message that India is moving ahead. We want to give a message of brotherhood and Hindu-Muslim unity, of which, the land of Awadh has been a cradle,” he said.
He also said the trust could not pay the land conversion charges on time to the ADA because of a lack of funds.
“The first design was conceived and the drawings were submitted. We tried to get approvals for the same but couldn’t because we didn’t have substantial funds to pay the charges. Hence, the project got delayed,” he said.
He said that, under Faruqi, the trust undertook an exercise for fund collection last October.
“Since Mumbai is India’s commercial capital and has a lot of resources, a meeting took place and talks were held with several people. Arafat Shaikh expressed interest to take the project forward and a masjid development committee has been formed under his chairmanship,” he added. “Since a lot of expertise is required to run and sustain a hospital in such a remote area, we spoke to a lot of groups which can help in the same.”
Husain said Shaikh’s suggestions on the design seek to “enhance its acceptability”, including making the structure in line with the accepted traditions within Islam. “The process of redesigning is on and the committee is working for fund mobilisation,” he added.
Trust issues
Prominent local Muslims such as Iqbal Ansari and Abdul Khalid Khan have alleged that the members of the IICF have acted in violation of the Waqf Act, 1995.
Ansari told ThePrint that the IICF was a “private trust” that had no members from Ayodhya and was made up of people close to Faruqi, a charge denied by the latter.
Zameer Naqvi, a Lucknow-based activist, filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court alleging corruption on the part of the waqf board. He alleged the board had formed a private trust to execute the mosque project even though the land should have been treated as waqf land, and a mutawalli (custodian or manager of waqf property) appointed to manage its affairs.
“The land had been allocated to the waqf board. The board should have appointed a mutawalli for it or a committee should have been formed comprising local leaders, including litigants of the Babri Masjid case or others associated with it. It has formed a private trust for the land which is against the Waqf Act. They are seeking donations in the name of the property that should have been considered waqf,” Naqvi said.
Speaking about the charges, Faruqi told ThePrint that the waqf board was a statutory authority and not a private person.
“The waqf board has to comply with the order of the Supreme Court and follow the law of the land. As far as the allegations of the mosque construction being anti-Shariat are concerned, it can be disputed because this land has not been donated by anyone. This land has been given on directions of the highest court of the land. How can it be said that it has been donated?” he asked.
He said the trust consisted of persons who had said they would accept the court order in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case. “Those who said we will abide by the court judgment have been made part of the trust while others were preparing applications for filing a review petition,” said Faruqi.
“Not a single person in the trust is related to me in any manner. If it is proved, I am ready to resign,” he added. “One member of the trust is Feroz Ahmed Khan who lives within one kilometre of the project site.”
Asked about Naqvi’s petition, he said he was unaware of it. “Earlier, a similar petition was filed before the high court which was dismissed on merit basis and then a special leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court, which too was dismissed,” he said.
Talking about Ansari’s allegations, Shaikh said the trust had included an Ayodhya localite, Afzal Ahmed, an Army veteran, but he had passed away in 2021. “Even now, one person from Ronahi village is part of the trust,” he said.
Stand of national Muslim leaders
Over the past three years, several Muslim leaders at the national level have spoken against the mosque project and donations being sought for its construction.
In January 2021, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi said that 90 percent of the Muslim community was not in favour of the construction of the masjid at the proposed site, and that it was unIslamic and went against the self-respect of Muslims. He asked the community not to donate for the mosque proposed on “gifted land”.
“They (the Narendra Modi government) are showing to the world that they have given us five acres. But in lieu of what? A mosque that was criminally demolished, and for which no one has so far been punished? I fail to understand on what locus standi these jokers are accepting the five acres of land,” Owaisi reportedly said, adding that he had consulted the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and muftis and ulemas well versed with Islamic jurisprudence, and “all of them are categorical that namaz cannot be offered in that so-called masjid”.
Muslim organisations like the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind (JUH) and the AIMPLB have maintained they will not accept another masjid in lieu of the Babri masjid as it is “against the Shariat”.
Speaking to ThePrint, Niaz Ahmed Farooqui, secretary of JUH, said Muslims cannot accept another masjid.
“We have not left our claim on the Babri Masjid. We can’t accept another masjid in lieu of the Babri masjid because it is against the Shariat,” he said.
“A masjid can only be built on land that has been earmarked as waqf by a Muslim. It can’t be built on government land,” he added. “What if the government takes it back tomorrow?”
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: There are 3 claims to Ayodhya — law, memory & faith. It’s not a simple Hindu-Muslim dispute
We certainly need more Libraries than Mosques.