New Delhi, August 01: Despite the sacking of the Mohtamim of Darul Uloom, Ghulam Mohammed Vastanvi, appointed in January, the issue refuses to fade away. The latest episode is the Muslim seminary coming out with a detailed statement refuting allegations of Maulana Vastanvi that rules were not followed while seeking his ouster from the job.
Last week, Vastanvi, in a statement denounced “the way” he was sacked. In his statement, the first formal one after his ouster, published in several Urdu newspapers, Vastanvi said that he “accepts the decision of the Shoora, but thinks it is against the constitution and statutes of Darul Uloom”.
Going back on his earlier announcement on approaching the courts, and despite reports of his associates meeting advocate Prashant Bhushan on July 29 to seek legal opinion in the matter, Vastanvi’s statement said: “All those who are saying I will go to court are either my enemies or unprincipled.” He, however, said that while he has “accepted” the decision of the Shoora, he has problems with the way it has been handled. Vastanvi said, “The Shoora, in violation of the tradition and customs of the Darul Uloom, without explicitly and beforehand the meeting listing this under the agenda, insisted on discussing my resignation.” Vastanvi claimed that voting was forced on this issue and “seven members of the Shoora went along with those wanting me to resign, while five were on my side”.
Darul Uloom, in a clarification on “why Maulana Vastanvi was dismissed” cited protests immediately after his appointment on January 10 and interestingly, did not mention the controversy over Vastanvi’s statements on Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and the Muslims in the state.
The statement by Darul Uloom cited a letter by Vastanvi where he promised that he would resign, irrespective of the findings of the inquiry committee, which, it said, was set up to collect facts around the trouble and not authorised to give an opinion. The statement said, “Maulana Vastanvi wrote letter to all the members of Majlis Shoora in which he explained the situation and concluded in his own words: ‘Therefore, the meeting of Majlis Shoora will be held in Darul Uloom on 19 Rabi al-Awwal 1432 (February 23, 2011) Wednesday, so that I offer my resignation in the meeting. Then the Majlis can decide the future course of action for Darul Uloom’.”
Darul Uloom’s statement added: “This letter bears the signature of Maulana Ghulam Muhammad Vastanvi. It apparently reads that Maulana Vastanvi himself took the decision of resignation after examining the situation. He called the emergency meeting of Majlis Shoora on February 23, 2011 only to produce his resignation so that the Majlis can decide the future course of action. It was not a routine meeting, because the previous meeting was held only one-and-a-half month ago.
“Later, when the meeting was held and Maulana was asked to resign, as per his promise, he proposed to set up a probe committee. The members questioned him whether he would resign if the report of the committee favoured him. In reply, Maulana stressed repeatedly that he would resign whatever the report of the committee would be.”
The statement offered details of what transpired in the meeting in July, and said that nine members of the Shoora insisted that Vastanvi should stand by his commitment to resign. Deoband’s statement was emphatic about the inquiry report being complete and rules being followed.
–Agencies–