Media dubs mosque illegal without probe

BY mahtab alam| IN Media Practice | 22/01/2011
The demolition of an `illegal’ mosque has given rise to tension and further alienation of the Muslim community from the media.
Newspapers and agencies have not checked if the mosque was really built on illegal land, says MAHTAB ALAM
On the morning of 12th January 2010, a mosque, Noor Masjid, located in south Delhi's Jangpura area was demolished by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) claiming that it stood on ‘illegal’ land. The demolition sparked protests. English news agencies Indio-Asian News Services (IANS) and Press Trust of India (PTI) filed reports on the incident.
 
 The IANS, one of the largest subscribed news agencies, wrote, "The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) demolished an illegal mosque in south Delhi's Jangpura area today morning, sparking protests against which police used force and tear gas shells, an official said." This appeared on different news portals with the headings, "Delhi: Protest over demolition of illegal mosque" and "Protest over demolition of illegal religious structure".
 
PTI, partly funded by the government of India, reported, "Six persons, including four policemen, were injured here today when police used batons to disperse a group of people who indulged in stone-pelting to protest the demolition of a religious structure illegally built on government land," with the heading, "Protest over demolition of illegal religious structure, 6 hurt". In follow up reports PTI used the word illegal in quotes to question the DDA’s claim but its subscribers, including The Hindu, ignored these.
"Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit on Saturday reviewed the situation in South Delhi’s Jangpura area where an illegal mosque was demolished by civic bodies, leading to tension," reported The Hindu dated 15th January using PTI as its source. Earlier on 13th, the daily reported, "Several people were injured when the police lathi charged and tear gassed residents who were protesting against the demolition of a religious structure by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) at Nizamuddin here on Wednesday" with the heading, "Demolition of religious structure by DDA in Delhi sparks tension". It was also reported in various news papers and portals that the demolition was ordered by the Delhi High Court.  
In covering the incident the newspapers and agencies have not bothered to check if the mosque was really built on illegal land. They have relied entirely on official sources and not spoken to the protesting people.

Dr Zafar Mahmood, who heads the Zakat Foundation of India (ZFI) and is Officer on Special Duty (OSD) of Sachar Committee, in an article titled "Jangpura Masjid: Factual Position" (TwoCircles.net, 13th January) claimed that months before the demolition, his organisation had approached the office of Lt Governor, DDA and Delhi Government’s Home Dept. seeking details about a meeting of the Religious Committee held on 16th June 2009 at which this mosque was discussed. As yet there has been no response to this request, he wrote.

He claimed that the High Court had not ordered the demolition of the masjid and that the Delhi Waqf Board had informed DDA on 26 Oct 2010 that the 30 year old masjid was located on land owned by the Board as per a 35 year old gazette notification. He said he had all the relevant documents in his possession.
He further argued that while the demolition was carried out under the pretext of a Delhi High Court order in response to a writ by the Jangpura Residents Association for removal of unauthorized construction and encroachment on the adjoining Nala and public land, the comments by the court indicate that it was satisfied with the action on encroachment taken prior to the demolition of the masjid. "Having examined the photographs filed by the Association it appeared to the Court that most of the unauthorized structures have been removed and there is a boundary wall constructed to ensure that no further encroachments take place. It is stated by the counsels for the Petitioners that any further grievance that the Petitioner may have, including those made in the present application, will be promptly looked into and appropriate action taken thereon. ‘In view of this statement, this Court does not consider it necessary to continue to monitor the progress of the implementation of its directions’," he added.

A report by journalist Seema Mustafa in The Sunday Guardian also confirmed the claims made by Zafar Mahmood. "Documents with The Sunday Guardian show that it was not the Delhi High Court alone as is being propagated, but the Lt Governor's office, supported by the Delhi government that pushed for the demolition. On 28 October 2009, Joint Secretary (Home) in the Delhi government, R.N. Sharma wrote to the vice chairman saying, "The Religious Committee in its meeting held on 16.06.2009 ... recommended for the removal of Masjid. As regards the Balmiki mandir it has been recommended that DDA should consider the request for re-allotment of land." He goes on to add that the Lt Governor has approved these recommendations and that immediate action should be taken."

A curious fallout of the incident is that the area has become a tourist attraction due to the media coverage it has received. This is not unlike what happened after the 2008 `encounter’ at Batla House locality of Jamia Nagar. Apart from attracting gawkers, the reportage has lead to furthering the belief within the Muslim community that the media is biased against it. It has engendered an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust that can be allayed only through responsible and sensitive coverage of such events by the media.
 
(Mahtab Alam is a Civil Rights’ Activist and can be reached at activist.journalist@gmail.com
 
 
 
 
TAGS
Mosque
Subscribe To The Newsletter
The new term for self censorship is voluntary censorship, as proposed by companies like Netflix and Hotstar. ET reports that streaming video service Amazon Prime is opposing a move by its peers to adopt a voluntary censorship code in anticipation of the Indian government coming up with its own rules. Amazon is resisting because it fears that it may alienate paying subscribers.                   

Clearly, the run to the 2019 elections is on. A journalist received a call from someone saying they were from Aajtak channel and were conducting a survey, asking whom she was going to vote for in 2019. On being told that her vote was secret, the caller assumed she wasn't going to vote for 'Modiji'. The caller, a woman, also didn't identify herself. A month or two earlier the same journalist received a call, this time from a man, asking if she was going to vote for the BSP.                 

View More