Tensions surrounding the Shahi Idgah Mosque–Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute in Mathura have intensified after Dinesh Falahari Maharaj, president of the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Sangharsh Trust, proposed an out-of-court settlement involving the relocation of the mosque.
In a letter dated August 20, Falahari Maharaj addressed the Shahi Idgah Committee and said that if the Muslim side was willing to settle the dispute outside court, his organisation was prepared to offer 20 acres of land in Mewat, along with the expenses required to construct a mosque there.
He said the Muslim community could offer prayers in Mewat, where he claimed there was a larger Muslim population.
The proposal comes amid the longstanding dispute over the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi temple and the adjoining Shahi Idgah Mosque. The Muslim side has opposed claims seeking changes to the status of the mosque.
Falahari Maharaj framed the proposal as an attempt to maintain communal harmony, saying that Mathura was a “city of love” and that Muslims should help preserve brotherhood by accepting the arrangement.
He argued that devotees of Krishna were concentrated in Braj and wanted to worship at the site they believe to be Krishna’s birthplace without disruption.
Reference to 1968 agreement
The controversy also involves a 1968 agreement between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and the Shahi Idgah Committee, which has been cited by both sides in the broader legal dispute.
Falahari Maharaj said Hindu representatives were willing to negotiate if the Muslim side wanted an out-of-court settlement.
He also suggested that former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav could participate in mediation, saying his involvement would not be an obstacle.
The proposal comes as legal proceedings concerning the Mathura dispute continue. The Supreme Court has previously encouraged the parties to explore the possibility of resolving the matter through mediation rather than allowing the dispute to further deepen communal tensions.
The Hindu side has continued to demand that what it describes as an earlier “illegal occupation” of the site be removed, while Muslim organisations have maintained their opposition to the claims against the mosque.
