THE UNSETTLED DILEMMA OF GYANVAPI MASJID
All India Human Rights Association (AIHRA)
“THE DISPUTED AREA”
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The
recent controversy about the Gyanvapi masjid and Kashi Vishwanath temple has
raised many questions about history and law. To understand the whole
controversy, we need to look back to the pre-11th century period.
Medieval era
The
Kashi Vishwanath temple of Varanasi was built in 500-508 for the first time. It is one of the oldest temples of Lord Shiva in the
oldest city in the world, Varanasi. This temple faced demolitions since the 11th century when
foreign invaders came to India. The temple was first destructed in 1034 but the
residents of Varanasi rebuilt it. In 1194-1197, Qutub-ud-din Aibak’s army again
tried to devastate the temple but was successful to destroy only a few parts of
temple.
In 1230, Iltutmish, the Mamluk king again rebuilt this
temple and for the next two hundred years, the temple was as it is. The trials for demolishing the temple again started
in 1447 when Jaunpur’s Sultan Mahmood Shah also called Sikandar Lodhi tried to
destroy the temple.
Modern era
In 1518, Pandit Narayana Bhatt with the help
of Raja Todarmal rebuilt the temple. In the era of the Mughals, Aurangzeb, the great-grandson of Akbar
1632, issued a Farman to demolish the
temple. The proof of this is found in Shahkaid Mustan’s book Masury Alam Giri, according to which, on
18th April 1669, Aurangzeb ordered to destroy Kashi temple and to conversation
the religion of pandits and other
residents of Varanasi into Islam. Within four months of this order, the temple’s
pillars were converted into a mosque. During all the chaos, to protect the shivling, the mahant of the temple
jumped into the Gyanvapi kund along
with the shivling.
Aurangzeb
named the mosque as Anjuman Inte- Jamia
Masjid. This is how Gyanvapi masjid came into force.
But
in 1782, Maratha Sardar Dutta Ji Sindhi along with Malhar Rao Holkar started a
revolution for the freedom of the Kashi temple. And this dream came true in
1776-1778 when Indore’s queen Ahalya Bai
Holkar took the responsibility to rebuild the adjacent Aurangzeb mosque.
Maharaja Ranjeet Singh also added a golden top to the temple making it more
mesmerizing.
Pre-independence era
With
the rule of the Britishers, the charge of the temple went to the East India
Company and the construction of the temple was stopped. On 30th
December 1810, Banaras District Judge wrote a letter to Vice President in
Council requesting him to give the Gyanvapi area to Hindus. But the request was
rejected and this conflict is not resolved till now.
In 1936, the first case that came upon this issue was Deen Mohammad v. Rajya Secretary, in which Deen Mohmmad appealed to the lower court asserting his right over Gyanvapi Masjid and adjacent area. But his appeal was rejected and the court stated the area was not Mosque’s property.
Post-independence era
After
independence, the second case came in 1991, in which Kashi Vishwanath Mandir
Trust claimed that the mosque’s area belongs to Hindus. This case is still
pending in Ahallabad Court. In 2011, the Kashi temple was reconstructed by the
Indian Government.
Meanwhile,
it was also ordered that its interim order dated May 17th, 2022,
shall continue in operation till the application is decided and for 8 weeks
thereafter.
Further,
on the 20th of May, the Supreme Court transferred the suit filed by
Hindu devotees in connection with the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath Temple
dispute, to the District Court in Varanasi.
Some historians believe that Aurangzeb demolished
a Vishweshwar temple to build the mosque, others argue that there
is no evidence of a rebuilt structure. How the
Court chooses to proceed in this case will startle many other long-contested
debates over the identities of religious sites in India, particularly whether
they belong to Hindus or Muslims.
Gyanvapi
Masjid Case in Supreme Court- Key Highlights (jagranjosh.com)
The Places Of Worship Act, 1991 (Act No. 42 of 1991) which came into force on the 18th of September, 1991 is "An Act to deny transformation of any place of worship and to accommodate the maintenance of the place of worship as it existed on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, and for issues associated therewith or accidental thereto."
The Places of Worship Act, 1991 was passed by the PV
Narasimha Rao-drove Congress system and forces a positive commitment on the
state to keep up with the strict person of every place of worship as it existed
at the hour of freedom. As indicated by this Act which was passed by P.V.
Narsimha Rao's Congress government during the Ram Mandir development, “The
religious nature of a place of worship remains as it was on August 15, 1947”.
However, an exception to this act is the Babri
Masjid dispute.
THE
SECTIONS WHICH ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AND INVOKED IN THE PRESENT ISSUE OF THE
GYANVAPI MASJID DISPUTE ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 3 of the Places of
Worship Act, 1991 states: “No
person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any
section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same
religious denomination or a different religious denomination or any section
thereof.”
The word 'conversion'
utilized under Section 3 of the Act has been characterized under section 2(b)
of the Act, which expresses that, ' conversion', with its linguistic varieties,
incorporates adjustment or change of whatever nature."
Section 4(1) of the 1991 Act
declares: “…the religious
character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August 1947 shall
continue to be the same as it existed on that day.”
Section 4(2) states: If, on the beginning of
this Act, any suit, claim one more procedure concerning the change of the
character of the place of worship, existing on the fifteenth day of August
1947, is forthcoming under the watchful eye of any court, council or other
power, the equivalent will lessen, and no suit, advance or other procedure
regarding any such matter will lie on or after such beginning in any court,
council or other power."
Section 4(3)(a) states that
nothing contained in Section 4(1) and Section 4(2) shall apply to Any place of worship referred to in the said sub-sections
which is an ancient and historical monument or an archaeological site or
remains covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains
Act, 1958 (24 of 1958) or any other law for the time being in force.
Section 6 of the Act provides
punishment in case of contravention of Section 3. It states: “Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 3
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine.”
CURRENT CONTROVERSY
This
controversy dates back to 1991, which came into highlight recently after the
judgment of the Ram Janam Bhoomi dispute. In 1991, local priests filed a petition in Varanasi
court seeking permission to pray in the Gyanvapi mosque because it was earlier
part of the Kashi Mandir.
December 2019 was the time when the 69-year land dispute of Ram Janam Bhoomi
dispute was resolved. After its judgment, the case of the Gyanvapi mosque was
revived. Vijay Shankar Rastogi, the Varanasi-based lawyer, filed a petition in
court for an archaeological survey to be conducted in the Gyanvapi mosque and
claimed that the mosque was an illegal construction.
Varanasi
court-ordered Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a videography survey in
the Gyanvapi mosque. This order was opposed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid
committee which runs the Gyanvapi mosque and the Sunni Central Waqf Board. This
matter even went to the Ahallabad High Court which ordered a stay on the survey
because of the provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
In
March 2021, the Supreme Court of India agreed to examine the Places of Worship
Act, 1991. But in August 2021, five women filed a petition in Varanasi Court
seeking permission to pray daily in the Gyanvapi structure and also to prohibit
other people from destructing the idols. This site is usually open once a year
for praying on the day of Navratri.
STATUS OF THE CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT
On the 13th of May, the matter finally reached the Supreme Court of India. The Mosque’s Management
Committee filed a petition before the Court, again requesting the stay
of the survey and pending proceedings before the Varanasi Civil Court. Senior
Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, who was appearing for the Gyanvapi mosque, argued that
this exercise disturbs communal peace and harmony, also at the same time
violating Section 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The SC refused the stay
of the survey and pending proceedings but agreed to list the matter for the next week
before a Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
While the SC proceedings were
yet to commence, on May 16th, the District Magistrate Kaushal Raj Sharma was
ordered to seal an area within the Gyanvapi mosque by the Varanasi Civil
Court. Before the Survey Committee filed a report, the petitioners informed
Diwakar J that a shiv lingam was present within the premises of the Mosque. Without hearing from the Mosque
Management Committee, the Civil Court accepted that the premises must be
sealed—and the namaz was restricted to protect the
alleged shiv lingam.
On the 17th of May,
hearings on the matter commenced at the Supreme Court before a Bench comprising
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha.
Narasimha J, formerly a Senior
Advocate, who appeared in the Ayodhya Dispute, in whose favor of the Babri
Masjid’s demolition and at the same time Chandrachud J was also a part of the
Bench for the same dispute—which ultimately granted the land on which the Babri
Masjid stands to Hindu devotees.
Hearing
the plea on the 17th of May, the Supreme Court clarified that the
order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division at Varanasi to protect the spot
where a "shiv ling" was
claimed to have been found during the survey of the Gyanvapi mosque will not
restrict the right of Muslim to access the mosque to offer namaz and to perform religious observances.
While the SC was hearing
the case on May 17th, the Varanasi Civil Court ordered the removal
of Mr. Mishra as an Advocate Commissioner for the survey. Justice Diwakar’s order
came off the back of an application by Special Advocate Commissioner, Mr. Vishal
Singh which said that “Mr. Mishra had allegedly leaked footage from the video
survey to the media”. The Work pending in the survey from the 12th
of May 2022, onwards will be handled by Mr. Vishal Singh and an Assistant
Advocate Commissioner. Meanwhile, Justice Diwakar has also raised his safety concerns.
WHILE THE CASE IN VARANASI COURT
On
19th May 2022, the report of the survey was submitted to the Varanasi
court, and it was claimed that there was debris from the temple found in the
mosque. On this day, Supreme Court also agreed to hear the case.
But
on 26th May, it was transferred to Varanasi court. And it is still underway
in Varanasi court, court is hearing the Muslim’s side under Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Civil Procedural Code which states that the court has to read the plaint as a
whole and cannot reject it only reading a few lines.
THE RELATION BETWEEN AYODHYA VERDICT AND THE GYANVAPI CASE
The two Supreme Court judges,
Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha, who are hearing the Gyanvapi mosque
petition have an association with the Ayodhya dispute involving the Babri
Masjid. Justice Chandrachud was part of the five-judge bench that delivered the
historic verdict and Justice Narasimha was an Addl. Solicitor General of India.
The Supreme Court judges
hearing the case related to the Gyanvapi
mosque survey in
Uttar Pradesh’s Varanasi are somehow connected to a similar dispute in Ayodhya
– the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit.
The bench of
Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha heard the petition that challenged a
court order that allowed filming inside the Gyanvapi Masjid in a case that
involves claims that parts of a temple are inside the mosque complex.
During the 2019 historic judgment, the Ram janmabhoomi-Babri
Masjid case which was 5 judges bench heard the Ram janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid
case for 40 days before delivering a historic verdict also known as the “AYODHYA VERDICT” which went in favour
of the Hindu side. The site of the Babri Masjid was handed over for building a
Ram Mandir and the apex court ordered an alternative five-acre land for a
mosque, the SC bench had referred to The Places of
Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
A PEACEFUL APPROACH
Many
people believe that the Gyanvapi controversy is not about facts, history, and
law but it is about politics. The majoritarian government wants to create
issues out of religious sentiments for the next elections. While, the other
side believes that, the history of India deteriorated and it needs to be
acknowledged now. The temples which were demolished by the foreign invaders
need to be reconstructed.
But
all of this could cause religious disharmony and can even lead to communal
violence and riots. For this complex controversy, we need to look at a
peaceful approach that could save the sentiments of both the communities and a
peaceful example be created for the world. A few suggestions that we can provide through the
medium of this article are as follows: - The structures which are found in the
Gyanvapi mosque, if it shivling, then
need to be placed at a proper place in the temple and all the debris found, if
they are debris of temple then they are also needed to be placed in the right
place. The scriptures and debris found at the place of the mosque that places
to be strategically divided between both communities. The decision of the court
is to be respected. Political parties promote religious harmony instead of
accusing different sides.
CONCLUSION
Gyanvapi Masjid is a Mosque that is situated
close to the famous Hindu Shrine of Kashi Vishwanath Temple. The debate
connected with Gyanvapi Masjid started in the year 1991 when a gathering of neighbourhood
ministers looked for consent to worship in Gyanvapi Complex and guaranteed that
the mosque was based on a wrecked piece of Kashi Vishwanath Temple in the seventeenth
Century by Mughal ruler Aurangzeb. This was the very first time when this
matter came into existence but soon after some time, it cooled down. The matter
related to Gyanvapi Mosque was reignited after the petitioners 2019 demanded an
archaeological survey of the Gyanvapi Complex. Further the
archaeological study of the complex being done by the Archaeological Survey of
India was put on stay by Allahabad High Court. Videography of Gyanvapi Mosque
was later ordered by Justice Diwakar on the plea of some women petitioners. They
looked to perform the pray for Lord Ganesha, Shrinagar Gauri, Nandi Idols, and
Lord Hanuman, who is supposed to be situated on the walls of the mosque and that
a SHIVA LINGAM is available inside the premises of the Mosque. The applicants
additionally requested that the court prevent the rivals from making harm to the
symbols. The guidance from the Muslim side posed a case that the court had not
permitted the videography inside the mosque and just external the blockade till
the yard. The videography of Gyanvapi Mosque finished up with sloganeering from
both Hindu and Muslim sides. The Muslim insight affirmed predisposition from
the side of the court-delegated Commissioner of the Survey, Ajay Kumar Mishra,
and claimed that he attempted to do videography from inside the mosque against
court consent. They likewise called videography inside Gyanvapi Mosque, an
infringement of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The SC requested that the Work
forthcoming in the study from the twelfth of May 2022, onwards will be taken
care of by Mr. Vishal Singh and an Assistant Advocate Commissioner. The cellar of
the Gyanvapi Mosque will be opened according to the headings of the court. The archaeological
study is to be finished and the report is to be presented by May 17. Every one
of the gatherings needs to conform to the court bearings, this nation is
managed by regulation, said Adv Shahid Ali, President, and United Muslims
Front.
Hearing the solicitation on the seventeenth of
May, the Supreme Court had made sense of that the solicitation passed by the
Civil Judge Senior Division at Varanasi to protect where a "shiv ling" was proclaimed to have
been found during the investigation of the Gyanvapi mosque won't restrict the
right of Muslim to get to the mosque to offer namaz and to perform strict observances.
In the meantime, it was likewise requested that its break
request dated May seventeenth, 2022 will go on in activity till the application
is chosen and for a time of about two months from thereon. Law is
supreme of all in India and justice is sought to be given by our learned Judges
irrespective of any caste, creed, sex, religion, and place of birth. All that
is required by the citizens is to comply with the order of the court and have
patience because all the decisions which are given by our hon’ble court are
given based on justice, equity, and good conscience. However, it is said that “GOD
IS ONE” but even after so many years of independence, “THE PLACE OF
WORSHIP IS A DISPUTE FOR EVERYONE”.
REFERENCES
·
The spiritual
history of Kashi Vishwanath Temple (timesnownews.com)
·
Decoded: What is the
controversy over Varanasi’s Gyanvapi Masjid? - India News (indiatoday.in)
All India Human Rights Association (AIHRA)
Comments
Post a Comment