With the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) stating in its report that the Gyanvapi Mosque in the Kashi Vishwanath premises was built after demolishing a Hindu Temple, the roads are seemingly being cleared to reinstall a similar temple. This move may evoke Ayodhya-type enthusiasm within the Hindu community, which has been fighting the case for decades, similar to the Ram Janambhoomi case.
In a significant development that occurred a couple of days after the consecration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, the ASI report, released to both Hindu and Muslim parties on Thursday evening, confirmed the existence of a large Hindu Temple before the construction of the existing structure.
"Indeed, this is a joyous moment for all of us and for those showing their allegiance to Sanatan Dharma. Personally, I am very happy, as since my childhood, I used to visit almost every day to pay obeisance to Shiva and Parvati, but I could not worship the place where it is believed that Parvati Mata used to worship with holy Ganga water. The area remains under grills as the mosque is there, and now, tides are changing, and the pious place shall be restored to us," said Sita Devi, one of the petitioners in the Gyanvapi case, a resident of Varanasi near the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Sita was contacted over the phone by The Pioneer from Delhi.
On Wednesday, a Varanasi district court had directed that the scientific survey report prepared by the ASI on the Gyanvapi mosque in July 2023 be supplied to all parties to the dispute.
Judge AK Vishvesha ordered that all parties to the case should have access to the report about the mosque. After the distribution of the ASI report, all parties will have the right to comment on the report's findings.
Advocate for the Hindu side Vishnu Shakar Jain told the media and shared a few details of the ASI report supplied to both Hindu and Muslim parties. He mentioned that the findings clearly indicate that the mosque was built over an old temple.
The ASI report, which included a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey, raises questions about the historical layers on the site. According to Jain, the current structure seems to have been built upon a pre-existing structure. "These are, in fact, inscriptions on the stone of a pre-existing Hindu temple that have been reused during the construction and repair of the existing structure," he added.
"The reuse of earlier inscriptions in the structure suggests that the earlier structures were destroyed, and their parts were reused in the construction and repair of the existing structure. Three names of deities such as Janardana, Rudra, and Umeshwara are found in these inscriptions," the senior advocate added.
"The ASI has stated that during the survey, a number of inscriptions were noticed on the existing and pre-existing structure. A total of 34 inscriptions were recorded during the present survey, and 32 stamped pages were taken," Jain said while reading out the report.
"The ASI findings suggest that modifications were made to the mosque, reusing pillars and plaster with minor alterations. Some pillars from the Hindu temple were slightly modified for use in the new structure, and attempts were made to remove the carvings on the pillars," Jain said, citing the ASI report.
Jain claimed that the report also revealed inscriptions belonging to the ancient Hindu temple, written in Devanagari, Telugu, Kannada, and other scripts.
The last page of the ASI report, a copy of which is also with The Pioneer, states: "The structure appears to have been destroyed in the 17th Century, during the reign of Aurangzeb, and part of it was modified. Based on scientific studies, surveys carried out, and the study of architectural remains, exposing the features and artifacts, inscriptions, art, and sculptures, it can be said that there existed a Hindu Temple before the construction of the existing structure."
In July of last year, the court had ordered the Director of the ASI to conduct a scientific survey of the Gyanvapi mosque premises, excluding the area previously sealed by the Supreme Court (wuzukhana or an ablution pond). The ASI carried out the survey.
In August of last year, the Supreme Court rejected the plea by the Muslim party challenging the survey and stated that the High Court order for the survey does not warrant interference by the apex court at this stage, as such a survey was conducted even in the Ayodhya case.
The Muslim parties had also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC challenging the maintainability of the suit on grounds that the Places of Worship Act of 1991, introduced at the height of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, seeks to protect the status of all religious structures as they stood on August 15, 1947. Both the district court and the High Court had rejected the same and held the suit to be maintainable.
