In the season of Ram temple inauguration at Ayodhya, fresh controversies have been triggered vis-a-vis Gyanvapi Masjid at Varanasi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's parliamentary constituency.
The Hindu side now claims that the photographs and ASI's latest report, spanning 839 pages, provide irrefutable evidence that the Gyanvapi mosque was built atop the ruins of a pre-existing Hindu temple. It has been stated that photos show 'Shivling'and broken deity statues.
Documents 'as claimed by Hindu side' claim fragmented statues of Hindu deities and inscriptions in Persian suggest in crystal clear manner that the Gyanvapi mosque was constructed atop the ruins of a Hindu temple.
Those tacking the developments say in most of these cases - the lower courts in various stages have seemingly backed the idea that these structures were Hindu temples once. In other words, either the court's observations have given legitimacy to Hindu claims and at times the court orders puts things on move which ultimately led to even bigger tragedies like demotion of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1992.
According to Justice S U Khan, who was one of three Allahabad High Court judges that delivered the historic 2010 (Sept 30) verdict, ironically it was the order of a district court in Uttar Pradesh in 1986 that “triggered a chain reaction leading to the demolition” of the Babri Masjid in 1992. His reference was to the 'unlocking' of the Mosque premises during the tenure of Rajiv Gandhi as the Prime Minister.
Moreover, when the locks were opened in 1986, the Ram Janma Bhoomi remained confined as a societal issue. Even the BJP plunged into the Tempe movement only in 1989. According to Justice Khan, “Prior to that (unlocking in 1986) no one beyond Ayodhya and Faizabad was aware of the dispute”. At the subsequent stage, there was another directive from the court that allowed Shilanyas. And coincidentally, the Congress government under Rajiv with a brute majority had done it.
Closer perusals suggest even with the Kamal-ud-Din mosque in Madhya Pradesh, Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura and also the Qutb Minar in Delhi, the lower courts have played an active role from tome to time. With regards to Hindutva claims about the Mughal-era Gyanvapi mosque, two cases before civil courts in Varanasi have sparked off a controversy.
The first case was filed in a Varanasi civil court in 1991 by devotees of “Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar”. They claimed that the Gyanvapi mosque plot was originally occupied by a temple and asked for permission to worship on the property. The court, in 1997, said that certain portions of the plea were barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
This act was passed during the Ayodhya temple movement and provided for the religious character of a place as it existed on August 15, 1947, to be maintained.
On appeal, a district judge set aside this order in September 1998, saying that these issues could not be decided without evidence being collected. Later in the year, the Allahabad High Court stayed these proceedings.
The stay was in force until 2020. However, relying on a 2018 Supreme Court judgment that said that a stay cannot be in force for more than six months unless the stay order is expressly extended, the civil court where the dispute was pending started hearing the case again based on an application filed by the plaintiffs. In February 2020, the Allahabad High Court stayed these proceedings again. In March 2020, it reserved its judgment.
After this, a civil court started hearing the matter again. In April 2021, it ordered the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a survey to determine if a temple had existed at the site of the mosque. Scroll.in had reported that this survey could be used to claim an exception under the Places of Worship Act, which exempts from “ancient monuments” — structures or monuments that are of historical interest and have existed for more than 100 years — from the purview of the legislation.
The Allahabad High Court, in September 2021, reprimanded the civil court for its order and stayed the directions for an archaeological survey.
“The judicial courtesy and decorum warranted such discipline [of waiting for the Allahabad High Court verdict] which was expected from the court below, but for unfathomable reasons, neither of the courses were taken,” the court noted.
Issues and controversies related to 'Videography of Gyanvapi'
A former Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Amar Saran told media that "survey' ordered actually contravened the Places of Worship Act, which prohibits even attempts to convert a place of worship.
Therefore, “the lower courts are complicit in perpetrating an illegality”, he said.
In August 2021, while a case was already pending before the Allahabad High Court, a petition was filed before a civil court in Varanasi. It asked for the right to perform rituals in the Gyanvapi complex and the preservation of the “Hindu gods Maa Shringar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman and other visible and invisible deities” it claimed were present there.
On April 8, 2022, a civil judge appointed Ajay Kumar as an advocate commissioner to undertake a videographic survey of the mosque and submit it to the court.
The Muslim side protested Kumar’s appointment. On May 12, 2022, the court refused to replace Kumar but appointed two more advocate commissioners to assist him in the videography.
It directed the district administration to break the locks if required and register a first information report against those who create a hindrance. It also asked for the report to be submitted by May 17.
At later stage the court ordered that a portion of the Gyanvapi mosque be sealed. It also said that only 20 Muslims would be allowed to pray in the mosque.
The mosque side has contested this claim, saying that the structure is actually a fountain. The next day, the advocate commissioner was removed for leaking information to the press. The two remaining commissioners will file the report by May 19.
Pakistan foreign office has called the new Ram temple “a blot on the face of India’s democracy”
It expressed concerns over the future of other mosques in the country, including the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Eidgah Mosque in Mathura that are also facing threats of desecration and destruction.
The statement called on Delhi to ensure the safety and security of its religious minorities and their holy places.
It also urged the international community, including the UN, to take notice of the increasing Islamophobia, hate speech, and hate crimes in India and take action to protect Islamic heritage sites.
Pakistan says ‘majoritarian actions’ have put future of secularism in peril in India; on the other hand, PM Narendra Modi heralds temple’s inauguration as a ‘new era’ for India.
The Pakistani statement added that the inauguration “symbolises the rise of Hindu nationalism” and reflects the political and religious aspirations of BJP and its supporters.
“The construction of the temple on such a historically disputed site underscores the ongoing transformation in India’s religious and cultural landscape, heavily influenced by the BJP’s ideology.”
No comments:
Post a Comment