The ongoing Gyanvapi mosque dispute has led to similar petitions being filed in other temple-mosque cases, which would have larger implications for the country, writes Biswajeet Banerjee
On November 9, 2019, when the Supreme Court delivered a judgment on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Mosque dispute in Ayodhya, many thought this was the end of such contentious issue as the court in its order dwelled at length about the Places of Worship Act, 1991. But within a year, petitions were filed across the country with Gyanvapi mosque and Krishna Janmashtami- Shahi-Idgah cases hogging the limelight. Hindu organizations also filed petitions demanding they should be allowed to offer prayers at Quwwatul Islam mosque in the Qutub Minar premises in New Delhi, while another Hindu organization claimed Taj Mahal as Tajo Mahal temple of Lord Shiva and asked for the court’s permission to offer prayers there
This was not limited only to Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, but in down South, too. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad volunteers demanded they should be allowed to offer prayers at the outskirt of Mangaluru after a Hindu temple-like architectural design was purportedly found there underneath the Juma Masjid on April 21 2022. The VHP claimed that the mosque was built atop Sri Ramanjaneya Bhajana Mandira. Prohibitory orders were imposed in the city after Hindu organizations said they will be organizing 'Tambula Prashne' at Sri Ramanjaneya Bhajana Mandira.
The police claim that the status quo should be maintained as the matter is already in the court and temporary injunctions have been issued to the president of the mosque as well as all the parties.
The legal battle is the latest instance of a growing phenomenon in which Hindu groups petitioning courts demanding land where mosques are located by claiming these belong to Hindus. They claim that these mosques were built after demolishing temples
A senior advocate appearing for the Varanasi mosque management committee informed the lower court that the ongoing dispute had led to “similar petitions” being filed in other temple-mosque cases, which would have "larger ramifications across the country". The statement signifies the petitions filed in different courts by Hindu plaintiffs against mosque committees across the state claiming ownership right of land where the mosque stands now. Inevitably, such petitions claim that the said mosques were built atop Hindu temples and thus the right be restored to the rightful owner.
In the forefront is the Gyanvapi case of Varanasi. Historians claim that originally it was Lord Visweswar Temple. Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, a French merchant, described a cruciform structure of the temple complex with multistoried domed towers at the four ends and at the center. It was the most sacred shrine in the subcontinent after the Jagannath Temple at Puri. In September 1669, Moghul emperor Aurangzeb ordered the demolition of the temple and a mosque was constructed in place. Initially, the mosque was called Aamgir mosque – under the name of Aurangzeb but later it was called Gyan Vapi (Well of Knowledge). Scholars attribute political reasons rather than religious zealotry to be the primary motivation for Aurangzeb's demolition. Madhuri Desai — in her magnum opus on Banaras — opines that Aurangzeb's complex and often-contradictory policies can be "more accurately analyzed in the light of his personal compulsions and political agenda, rather than as expressions of religious bigotry.”
Muslims, however, argue that the Gyanvapi was constructed much before Aurangzeb's reign. Syed Mohammed Yasin, Joint secretary of Anjuman Intizamia Masajid Committee, the organization responsible for the maintenance of the mosque, claims that the mosque was built in 12th Century and later Aurangzeb renovated it in the 17th century. "The mosque was not built by demolishing the temple," he said. He claims Akbar had renovated an adjacent Shiva temple as a mark of Hindu Muslim unity. In fact, both the Kashi Vishwanath Temple and the Gyanvapi were constructed by Akbar in a true to his spirit of religious tolerance
Cut to present scenario: In August 2021, five women, belonging to Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh,d filed a civil suit in the Varanasi civil court on the “Right to Worship”, seeking daily access to the Shringaar Gauri temple, the Swayambhu Jyotirling, the Maa Ganga temple, and the Nandi temple to offer daily prayers. Shringar Gauri is a small temple at the western side of the mosque where till 1992 Hindus were allowed to offer prayers. Ramatama Srivastava, a resident of Varanasi, said that he had gone there many times where a group of Hindu women could be seen offering prayers. But after the demolition of the Babri mosque in 1992, Hindus were not allowed there and the area was sealed.
Eight suits are currently pending before the Varanasi civil court, which on April 8 passed orders for videography and survey of the area by court commissioners. The survey and videography inside the mosque were carried out for three days after which the Hindu side claimed that a “shivling” was found from ‘wazookhana’, which is a small reservoir used by Muslim devotees to perform ritual ablutions before offering the namaz.
The lower court ordered the sealing of the premises, but the Supreme Court ordered that Muslims should not be prevented from offering prayers.
Besides, a separate application seeking an ASI survey through Ground Penetrating Radar are pending in the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court in its directives of May 20 said that the district judge will hear the issue of maintainability of the Right to Worship petitions.
Shahi Eidgah case, in Mathura, at least 10 suits were filed in the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple and the Shahi Idgah mosque dispute in 2020, even though a compromise was reached in two sections over the title suit in 1968, and the issue was settled by the civil court.
In its new petition, Ranjana Agnihotri, who claimed herself as the “next friend” of Bhagwan Shri Krishna Viraajman, said that the 1968 compromise was achieved “through fraud”. She said that the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which had agreed to the compromise, was not the owner of the disputed land. Instead, Shri Krishna Janmasthan Trust was the rightful owner of the land.
The civil court of Mathura dismissed the case in September 2020, but the petitioner challenged the order and moved a review petition. The District Judge on May 19, 2022, directed the civil judge to re-hear the matter. Another case has been filed demanding the appointment of a Court Commissioner and videography be carried out to ascertain whether the mosque has Hindu religion signs, as is done in the Gyanvapi case.
Petitions are also filed in other places:
Quwwatul Mosque, Delhi
Ranjana Agnihotri, also moved Delhi civil court in October 2021 seeking the restoration of Hindu and Jain temples demolished to build the Quwwatul Islam mosque in the Qutub Minar premises in Delhi. Early this month, volunteers of VHP also held a prayer meeting at the Qutub Minar premises and recited Hanuman Chalisa there. The petitioners claim that 27 Hindu and Jain temples were demolished by Qutubuddin Aibak to construct the Quwwatul Islam mosque. They say the walls of the mosques are adorned with symbols of Hindu gods and goddesses. The plea had called for the restoration of the temples.
The petition was dismissed by the civil judge in November 2021. The verdict was challenged in the court of the district judge and is currently pending.
Taj Mahal, Agra
In May 2022, a PIL was moved in the Allahabad High Court by Rajneesh Singh who sought a “fact-finding commission” and survey of the Taj Mahal’s premises. It had argued that there are "Hindu symbols" on the premises and sought orders from the court to open the 22 locked rooms in the basement of the mausoleum. The plea was thrown out by the Allahabad High Court. Singh was pulled up for "making a mockery of the PIL system". The controversy was first stirred by Purshottam Nagesh Oak, a historian, who in his book in 1989 named “Taj Mahal: The True Story” where he claimed that the Taj Mahal initially was a Shiva temple and a Rajput palace named Tejomahalaya, which Mughal emperor Shah Jahan seized and adopted as a tomb.
The argument was debunked by a number of historians, and even the Supreme Court in 2000 rejected a petition by Oak to declare that the Taj Mahal was constructed by a Hindu king. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), in August 2017 said that that Taj Mahal was not a temple but a tomb.
The writer is Political Editor of The Pioneer, Lucknow