रविवार, 3 मई 2015

बड़ी अजीब बात है भारत में शाही मस्जिद तो हैं नहीं शाही इमाम ज़रूर हैं.....


बड़ी अजीब बात है भारत में शाही मस्जिद तो हैं नहीं शाही इमाम ज़रूर हैं। पूछा  जा सकता है फिर शाह कौन है। भारतीय अन्वेषकों ने पता लगाया है शाह भारत के पूर्वप्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह है जिन्होनें प्रधानमन्त्री बनते ही इमाम शाही को भरोसा दिया :जामा मस्जिद को संरक्षित इमारत घोषित नहीं किया जाएगा।

भारतधर्मीसमाज जानता है और अच्छी तरह मानता है कि ये मस्जिद अल्पसंख्यक राजनीति का केंद्र बनी रही है जहां से न सिर्फ कांग्रेस के समर्थन में फतवे ज़ारी होते रहें हैं स्वामी असत्यानन्द उर्फ़ मफलर वाले केज़रीवाल के हक़ में भी गत दिल्ली विधानसभा के मौके पर  ज़ोरदार फतवा ज़ारी किया गया।  इसके पीछे वही मम्मीजी रहीं हैं जो शाही इमाम के पास बारहा चुनावी मौसम में पहुंची हैं फतवा ज़ारी करवाने।

मेरी एक आँख फूटी है पड़ोसी  की दोनों  फूटे (बतलादें आपको पड़ोसी का कुछ नहीं बिगड़ा फतवा कांग्रेस की दोनों फूट गईं   .

भारतधर्मी समाज चाहता है अवैध गतिविधियों की केंद्र  इस इमारत को भारत सरकार फ़ौरन संरक्षित इमारत घोषित करे।
(शाह मनमोहन सिंह को भी दरकिनार कर ) शाही इमाम की ताज़पोशी में शरीक हुए पाकिस्तान के प्रधान मंत्री नवाज़ शरीफ साहब (मोदी साहब को नज़रअंदाज़ किया गया।)

पूछा जा सकता है क्या ये इमाम पाकिस्तान के नियुक्त हुए हैं ?

अक्सर ये सऊदी अरब की बात करते हैं।

 इनकी वंशधरता को स्वीकार करते हुए इन्हें सऊदी अरब ही भेज दिया जाए। मोदी सरकार से भारतधर्मी समाज अपील करता है जामा मस्जिद, दिल्ली को फौरी तौर पर संरक्षित स्मारक घोषित किया जाए।

ताकि शाही इमाम की वंशधरता को उसका सही मुकाम बतलाया जा सके।

Former PM Manmohan Singh assured Shahi Imam Syed 

Ahmed Bukhari that Delhi's Jama Masjid won’t be a 

protected monument

  • Image result for Jama Masjid Delhi Pictures only
  • Image result for Jama Masjid Delhi Pictures only
  • Image result for Jama Masjid Delhi Pictures only
  • Image result for Jama Masjid Delhi Pictures only

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.


Protecting the Jama Masjid: Former PM Manmohan Singh was wise to deny the Shahi Imam an excuse to use the mosque as a political issue

By Nayanjot Lahiri

Why is the assurance that was given by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2004 to the Shahi Imam, that Delhi’s Jama Masjid would not be declared a protected monument, so newsworthy?

Prime Ministers do write on issues relating to monuments, some more than others — with the most consistent correspondence about the state of India’s heritage emanating from Indira Gandhi. These letters followed visits that she made as, for instance, to Jaisalmer where she went in December 1974 for a quick look after visiting Pokhran, the site of India’s nuclear explosion.
Getting PM’s Goat
In her letter to the then-Rajasthan chief minister Harideo Joshi, she lamented the fact that “the old havelis, which embody the traditional architectural skills of Rajasthan, are being used for herds of goats and cattle. New constructions are being put up without regard to the preservation of the special character of the city.”

Manmohan Singh himself is also known to have intervened on several occasions. There is much that is worth highlighting about the reticent Singh on matters relating to monuments — such as the fact that he quoted the epics to Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the then-chief minister of Haryana, in order to protect an archaeological site. This was the historic Khokra Kot, which was, and continues to be, steadily encroached upon by an organised land mafia.
Instead of seeking to remove encroachments, Hooda claimed that there was nothing of national importance at Khokra Kota and, thus, he asked that it be removed from the list of protected monuments. Singh, in his letter, enclosed a note on its historic importance and hoped that the chief minister “would appreciate that it would not be proper to denotify this site of great historical importance and which finds mention even in the Mahabharata”.
Considering his sensitivity to protecting archaeological sites and monuments, why then did Prime Minister Singh refuse to declare the historic Jama Masjid a protected monument? Here, two aspects pertaining to historic shrines in general and the Jama Masjid in particular should be kept in mind. The first is that there is a distinction between sites that are part of the ‘living’ religious heritage — where religious communities have continuously worshipped — and ‘dead’ or non-functional shrines treated as monuments whose character is maintained by the state.

The Dilwara temples at Mount Abu are living shrines, just as are many important temples in south India. Instead of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), religious boards look after their repairs and management. The Jama Masjid of Delhi, too, is a living place of worship and that is an important reason for not declaring it a protected monument.
Built by Shah Jahan in the 17th century, the masjid has had a Shahi Imam since the time that the emperor brought Abdul Ghafur Shah from Bukhara and designated him as the Imam-ul-Sultan (Imam of the Emperor).
The Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) is a much later entity, created by the Waqf Act of 1954, as a consequence of which the masjid was recognised as waqf property and the Shahi Imam as its paid employee.

Rabble-Rousing Platform

As Hilal Ahmed’s book, Muslim Political Discourse in Postcolonial India, puts it, this resulted in a paradoxical situation where the Shahi Imam, the symbol of the Mughal era and a religiously recognised person, became financially dependent on the DWB.
The Imam-DWB relationship has been particularly fraught, with confrontations between them on many issues ranging from financial issues to the question of how the new Shahi Imam must be chosen.
The second point that comes out vividly in Ahmed’s book is how several Imams have used their position to inflame anti-government feelings among local Muslims since February 1975, when the then-Imam was arrested for the violence that broke out at the waqf board office. This was followed by a crowd targeting the police post at the masjid, which resulted in indiscriminate firing in which a few people were killed and about a hundred injured.
Since then, there have been many other incidents. The masjid, for instance, was closed down in 1987 by Imam Abdullah Bukhari as a protest against communal clashes and deaths in Meerut, with a demand that the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh be dismissed.

The media attention given to this ensured that the Jama Masjid was seen as a central political symbol of Muslims. Surely, in 2004, if this mosque was taken over by the ASI, the possible communal tension would have further elevated the political status of the Imam. So, Manmohan Singh was both wise and pragmatic in not giving the Imam, Syed Ahmad Bukhari, that opportunity. Importantly, he ensured that the ASI repaired the Jama Masjid even though it isn’t its direct responsibility.
More than a century ago, the same ASI had been pushed by Viceroy Curzon to repair the Jama Masjid, even though it was not legally obliged to do so. Both Curzon and Singh realised that it is not always desirable to have absolute control over old structures in order to repair them.
(The writer is professor at the department of history, University of Delhi)

मनमोहन सिंह ने PM बनते ही बुखारी से किया था जामा मस्जि‍द को लेकर वादा

भारतीय पुरातत्व सर्वेक्षण विभाग ने हाई कोर्ट को 'मनमोहन काल' की एक चिट्ठी सौंपी है. इसमें खुलासा किया गया है कि क्यों 10 साल सत्ता में रहने के बावजूद यूपीए सरकार जामा मस्जि‍द को संरक्षि‍त स्मारक का दर्जा नहीं दे सकी.

पत्र के मुताबिक, बतौर पीएम मनमोहन सिंह ने शाही इमाम को निजी तौर पर पत्र लिखकर भरोसा दिया था कि मुगलकालीन मस्जिद को संरक्षित स्मारक का दर्जा नहीं दिया जाएगा. हाई कोर्ट पिछले एक दशक से ज्यादा वक्त से यह पता लगाने की कोशिश कर रहा है कि मनमोहन सिंह के नेतृत्व वाली सरकार ने जामा मस्जिद को संरक्षित स्मारक घोषित करने से क्यों इनकार कर दिया था.

क्या लिखा है पत्र में
दिलचस्प यह है कि मनमोहन सिंह ने यह पत्र 20 अक्टूबर 2004 को लिखा था. यानी प्रधानमंत्री बनने के ठीक बाद. पीएम ने चिट्ठी में लिखा था कि उन्होंने संस्कृति मंत्रालय और एएसआई को निर्देश दे दिया है कि वे मरम्मत का काम तय वक्त में पूरा कर दें. इस मरम्मत का अनुरोध इमाम ने 10 अगस्त 2004 के लेटर में किया था. पीएम ने उन्हें लेटर में यह भी बताया था कि मंत्रालय ने तय किया है कि जामा मस्जिद को संरक्षित स्मारक घोषित नहीं किया जाएगा.
एएसआई ने दाखिल किया जवाब
कोर्ट में 15 दिनों पहले दाखिल अपने जवाब में एएसआई ने कहा कि जामा मस्जिद को केंद्र सरकार के तहत संरक्षित स्मारक का दर्जा देने का मुद्दा उठा था, लेकिन पूर्व प्रधानमंत्री ने शाही इमाम को भरोसा दिया था. एएसआई ने अपने पत्र में लिखा है, 'जामा मस्जिद संरक्षित स्मारक नहीं है. फिर भी इसके ऐतिहासिक महत्व को देखते हुए एएसआई 1956 से ही समय-समय पर रखरखाव का काम अपने खर्च पर करता रहा है. इसका पैसा संस्कृति मंत्रालय देता रहा है न कि शाही इमाम या वक्फ बोर्ड.'
गौरतलब है कि बीते 11 वर्षों में दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट की कई पीठों ने जामा मस्जिद को संरक्षित स्मारक घोषित न करने के निर्णय से जुड़ी फाइल की कॉपी मांगी है. ऐसा एक निर्देश 27 अप्रैल 2005 को कोर्ट के तत्कालीन मुख्य न्यायाधीश जस्टिस संजय किशन कौल की अध्यक्षता वाली डिवीजन बेंच ने दिया था.

कोर्ट ने 2004 में दाखिल एक पीआईएल के संबंध में यह कदम उठाए थे. पीआईएल में मांग की गई थी कि अथॉरिटीज को जामा मस्जिद को संरक्षित स्मारक घोषित करने और उसके अंदर और आसपास से अतिक्रमण हटाने का निर्देश दिया जाए. पिछले साल नवंबर में सुहैल अहमद खान ने अपने वकील देविंदर पाल सिंह के जरिए दाखिल एक पीआईएल में शाही इमाम के बेटे की दस्तारबंदी को चुनौती दी थी और मस्जिद के मैनेजमेंट की सीबीआई जांच की मांग की थी.

दिल्ली वक्फ बोर्ड के वकील ने कहा था कि जामा मस्जिद वक्फ की प्रॉपर्टी है, लेकिन वह यह साबित नहीं कर पाए कि मस्जिद की देखरेख में बोर्ड ने अपने अधिकार का कोई इस्तेमाल क्यों नहीं किया है.

कोई टिप्पणी नहीं: