The mosque litigation deepens divisions in the society as Hindus want to correct historical discourse while Muslims want to latch on to it

Rejecting the plea of the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee citing the Places of Worship Act, 1991 as an argument to set the case aside, the Varanasi district court upheld the maintainability of the Gyanvapi suit and has decided to continue hearing a petition seeking daily worship of Hindu deities. The case has already generated a lot of heat and dust in political circles and society at large. It has opened floodgates for litigation concerning disputes between religious communities over places of worship and would have a far-reaching impact. These developments have evoked mixed reactions amongst various sections of society. Many devout Hindus cite “Medieval History” and feel that the historical wrongs must be undone at any cost.

They support the “Cultural Nationalism” of the BJP. The opposition parties harp on secular credentials opposing the communal politics of the BJP and speak against righting historical wrongs. However, a large section of the majority community feels that we are taking the religious issues too far which is creating unnecessary conflict and tension between the otherwise peaceful communities living in perfect harmony. To grasp the issue, we need to understand the chronology of events. Last year, a civil suit was filed by five women seeking enforcement of their right to worship deities within the Gyanvapi mosque complex. In April, the civil judge allowed a video survey of the mosque in which “shivling” was said to have been found in the “wazukhana”. This led to Anjuman Intezamia filing a case in the Supreme Court on the plea that the proceedings were an attempt to change the religious character of the mosque. The places of Worship Act, of 1991 bars the conversion of the religious character of a place of worship from how it existed on August 15, 1947. On May 20, the Supreme Court realized the “complexity of the issue involved in the civil suit” and transferred the case to the District Judge saying that it would intervene only after the District Judge had decided on the preliminary aspects of the case. After hearing the case, the District Judge ruled that he did not find any law which barred the petitioners from filing such a suit. Now, after acceptance of the case, the onus of proving the claims would be on the plaintiffs. 

As claimed by the mosque side, the argument for barring the suit rests under three specific laws- The places of Worship Act, 1991, The Wakf Act, 1995, and the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983. According to Section 4 of the Provision of The places of Worship Act, 1991, & “any suit, appeal or other proceedings concerning the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship existing on (that day) ….is pending before any court, tribunal or other authority, the same shall abate. No suit, appeal, or another proceeding concerning any such matter shall lie on or after such commencement in any court, tribunal, or other authority”. The Muslim side argued that the mosque is in existence for over 600 years and that allowing the Civil suits would alter the character of the mosque whereas the counterargument of the Hindu side was that until 1993, regular prayers were offered inside the mosque complex and since 1993 prayers were allowed on a designated day, every year. Based upon this argument, the Varanasi Court concluded that the Places of Worship Act does not bar the civil suit.

Before deciding on the issue, the court will have to look into evidence on the situation in 1947. This has led to the tricky reading of the law and has opened the door for a wider religious divide in the country. Quoting section 85 of The Wakf Act, 1995, the Muslim side argued that only Wakf Tribunal, Lucknow can decide the suit. They submitted that Varanasi Gazette says that the mosque is built on Wakf land and that Allahabad High court has held that the land is being used from time immemorial for mosque or Muslim burial and would be treated as Wakf property. But, the court overruled the arguments and decided that the suit is not barred by the Wakf Act. Another plea taken by the Muslim side is the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983, which states that “temple land” was demarcated and the Board of Trustees appointed under the law did not interfere in the case. The court cited section 4 (9) of the Act, which defines “Temple” to hold that it does not bar the mosque premises. 

While the legal battle will continue in court, it is clear that the crux of the matter lies in politics and not in law. Although RSS Chief, Mohan Bhagwat had emphasized on many occasions that the Sangh joined the Ram Janambhumi movement due to historical reasons and it would no longer be associated with any other demand for conversion of a mosque to a temple, it is clear that the Hindu claim to mosques at Kashi and Mathura is part of the political agenda of the BJP and other Sangh Parivar outfits in court and on the street. The Supreme Court in its 2019 Ayodhya Ramjanambhoomi order described the Places of Worship Act as a “legitimate instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity”, Following this approach, we need to work out a way through which the majority assures minorities about the sanctity of their other places of worship so that the environment of mutual trust is created and maintained.

(The writer is a senior journalist and Chairman, Panwar Group of Institutions, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The views

expressed are personal.)