We never claimed share in Jinnah property due to his ‘divisive politics’: AMU

AGRA: Aligarh Muslim University has come out in defence of being labelled “pro-Jinnah” recently amid row over presence of a portrait of the Pakistan founder on its campus. Its spokesperson said they never laid claim to one-third share of his property which he had left to the institution in 1939 due to his “divisive politics”.
According to officials, Mohammad Ali Jinnah had willed 1/3rd share of his immoveable property in Mumbai to the university in 1939 but it never claimed it. According to his “will” written in 1939, besides AMU, Islamia College, Peshawar, and Sindh Madrassa of Karachi also have share in the property.

“We have never claimed our share and have no intentions of doing it, as he was never a role model for the university due to his two-nation theory and divisive policies,” AMU spokesperson Shafey Kidwai said.

The university was caught in a row over a Jinnah portrait in its students’ union hall after BJP MP Satish Gautam wrote to AMU VC asking him to remove it. Though the controversy has since died down, students have categorically said that the portrait will not be taken down till MHRD issues a circular for its removal.

Jinnah House built in 1936 on a 2.5 acre plot, stands opposite Maharashtra chief minister’s official residence, and is a protected heritage structure. It was the location of a crucial meeting between Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and Jinnah before Partition.

The palatial property has been a long-standing bone of contention between India and Pakistan, with the latter keen on setting up its consulate there.

The house was also at the centre of a prolonged battle between Jinnah’s daughter Dina Wadia who died in November last year in New York at the age of 98 and the Union government.

Jinnah’s only child, Wadia had moved court, claiming the property by virtue of being his only legal heir. She had said in her plea that there was no valid will to justify the Centre’s notification declaring the heritage property as evacuee property. The Union government had opposed the petition, saying that the house belonged to the government and that only Jinnah’s sister Fatima or her legal heir could claim right over it.