Arshad Madani, president of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind | Suraj Singh Bisht | ThePrint
Arshad Madani, president of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind | Suraj Singh Bisht | ThePrint
Text Size:

New Delhi: Arshad Madani, president of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, one of the key players in the Ayodhya mediation process, Wednesday said if the Supreme Court delivers in its verdict that Babri Masjid should be built elsewhere, he wouldn’t consider it a victory but would accept the judgment.

Madani further said that he expects the Supreme Court’s verdict will be based on hard facts and evidence, and not on faith and belief. 

“The mosque is not for anyone to give away. It will remain a mosque till the day of judgment. If the court, in its verdict, says that the mosque should be built elsewhere, we wouldn’t consider it a victory — but we will accept whatever the verdict is,” he said at a press conference at Delhi’s Constitution Club.

“The Supreme Court is not a place of faith. It is a place of legality and justice,” Madani added.

The judgment on the case is expected before 17 November, when Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi retires.

Madani said the Muslim side has always maintained that they will accept the court’s verdict. “We could have also taken to the streets in protest, but we never did. Hindu-Muslim solidarity and peaceful relationship is of utmost importance,” he added.

Also read: Memory, travelogues & faith — how Ram Lalla, waqf board & seers claimed Ayodhya land in SC

‘Settlement can be achieved if both sides compromise’

In the press conference, Madani reiterated that he was willing to compromise. “I said a settlement can only be achieved if both sides are willing to compromise on their hard stance and come one step below,” he said.

He also added that the reconciliation formula he had suggested was that Muslims give up their claim to the part of the disputed land, which has the Ram Chabutra, Ram Bhandara and Sita ki Rasoi, provided that the Hindus give up their claim over the area where the Babri Masjid once stood.

“Even though it is part of the Waqf land, I said we can give up that land since that’s where Ram Lalla’s idol was kept. But no one, not those representing the Ram Lalla deity, nor those from the Akhara accepted this offer,” he said.

‘Mohan Bhagwat & I spoke on Hindu-Muslim unity’

Breaking his silence on his meeting with RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in September, Madani said: “When we met, we spoke of the need for Hindu-Muslim unity. However, I have noticed a change in his positions lately, but we are still hopeful that both sides will work towards harmony.”

Hitting out at Union Home Minister Amit Shah for his comments on the National Register of Citizens and the Citizenship Amendment Bill, Madani said Shah’s stance completely contradicts Bhagwat’s opinions.

Last month, Shah had said in Kolkata that the government would extend the NRC to West Bengal, but before that “the Citizenship Bill will be passed to accord Indian citizenship to all Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist refugees”.

“Amit Shah’s statement goes against whatever Bhagwat and I agreed upon. Shah’s comment is obliterating the very legacy of this country,” Madani said emphatically.

‘BJP is sending out a message that mob lynching is okay’

Denouncing mob lynching incidents, Madani launched a scathing attack on the BJP for not doing anything about it.

“Whichever states have a BJP government, those states don’t have a law against mob lynching to date. Only non-BJP states have formulated a law against mob lynching,” he asserted.

“This sends out the message that BJP is okay with mob lynching, that they find it acceptable. This will be the message for as long as they fail to make a law against it,” he said.

Also read: Modi govt asks Muslim Ulema to send message of peace through mosques before Ayodhya verdict


ThePrint is now on Telegram. For the best reports & opinion on politics, governance and more, subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

4 Comments Share Your Views


  1. There is already judgement that mosque is not an integral part of a mosque what more do you want??Ram mandir should be built and masjid should be built in some other place. It’s victory for both the sides then.

  2. Either this man is confused or what, you have no right to destroy other’s religious shrine then build your controversial structure (mosque) over it like it happened in 1528AD.. Now when that controversial structure is destroyed to build the previous original one (temple in this case) . You must not do drama but accept your mistake quietly.

    • Fast spreading of Islam has been possible by applying force to convert non-Muslims to Islam. More over this barbaric religion celebrates destruction of others religious places. One simply can’t argue with Muslims fed with overdose of misinterpreted views expressed in QURAN.

  3. It is precisely because the Supreme Court is a place of legality and justice that it is also a place of immense faith for Indians. May the eagerly awaited judgment in this case further cement our confidence in its impartiality.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here