Advocate Rajiv Dhawan, who advocated on behalf of the Sunni Central Waqf Board, a Muslim party in the Ayodhya case, has clarified his statement over Hindu and Muslims.
Rajiv Dhawan had said in an interview that Hindus, not Muslims, spoil peace. Now he has described this statement as the cleverness of TV channels. Rajiv Dhawan has said, “When I speak Hindu, it does not mean all Hindus”.
He clarified his statement saying, “When I am using the word Hindu somewhere, it means the Sangh Parivar which is connected with the Babri Masjid case. In court, I used to tell people that those who were involved in the Babri demolition are Hindu Taliban. I am talking about that particular part of the Sangh Parivar which is associated with violence and lynchings.
Rajeev Dhavan: When the word Hindu is used in its context it means 'sangh parivar',in relation to Babri Masjid. In court I told people who destroyed Babri Masjid that they were Hindu Taliban.I'm speaking of those sections of 'sangh parivar' who are dedicated to violence&lynching. https://t.co/WxvhQyCUKV
— ANI (@ANI) November 27, 2019
Muslim organisation Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind on Thursday clarified that it will file a review petition, challenging the Supreme Court’s vedict on Ayodhya. The top court on November 9 had ordered a trust to be set to oversee the construction of a Ram temple at the site while the Muslims were offered a separate five-acre plot elsewhere in the city for the construction of a mosque.
The purpose of filing the review petition was not to disrupt the “national solidarity and law and order”, said group chief Maulana Arshad Madani, according to The Indian Express. “This is because millions of our countrymen, including Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and legal experts have found the verdict to be beyond their understanding.”
A draft of the plea was ready and the Muslim body is likely to submit it in court on December 3 or December 4, according to PTI.
On November 14, the working committee of the faction had formed a five-member expert panel, comprised of legal experts and religious scholars, to review every aspect of the judgement. The committee submitted that the verdict was against Muslim parties and was open to review under the Constitution.