The Narendra Modi government appears to have adopted a dual approach on the Gyanvapi controversy. While it has clearly distanced itself from the fast-paced developments in Varanasi, it has not attempted to stop, directly or indirectly, the momentum generated by Hindu hardliners in creating the euphoria over the findings inside the Gyanvapi mosque.
At an event celebrating eight years of the Modi government, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s top brass and powerful ministers in the government were seen keeping a distance from the Gyanvapi issue.
On the question of the ongoing legal battle in Varanasi over the rights to perform puja in the mosque, BJP president J.P. Nadda and home minister Amit Shah had the same stand — ‘the issue will be decided by the court.’
When a cabinet minister was asked about a few Hindu petitioner’s pleas in the Varanasi court, he said, “We can’t stop people from going to the court.”
The Gyanvapi issue has been unfolding in a calibrated manner through videos leaked on social media. The developments have generated so much heat that the high of grand inauguration of the Kashivishwanath temple corridor by PM Modi in December 2021 is now almost forgotten. That could be one of the reasons why BJP stalwarts are ducking the Gyanvapi questions.
The Central government has not spoken on any platform on the issue yet.
On 17 May, interestingly, while appearing for the UP government in the Supreme Court in the case that challenged the survey inside the Gyanvapi mosque, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta gave an oral submission: “suppose a Shivling is found at the contested spot and someone touches it with feet, then that would give rise to a law-and-order problem.”
His submission did give an idea how the Yogi Adityanath government is looking at the evolving issue. It has considered the sensitivity involved — of the Hindus. That in Waju Khana, inside the Gyanvapi mosque, if possibility of Shivling exists, then Muslims should not sanitise their legs in the Waju Khana, an act necessary before performing namaz.
According to the UP government, the Supreme Court’s direction “to protect the Shivling area” will help in maintaining “law and order.”
For the time being, the Modi government and the BJP is likely to be circumspect over the issue as the legal battle will take a few more years to reach its conclusion.
On 2 June, even RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat validated the government’s stand when he gave his first remark on the Gyanvapi dispute. He said, “why look for Shivling in every mosque?” At the risk of displeasing some of his own followers who are hardliners, Bhagwat said that the Sangh was not in favour of launching any other movement on these issues.
Bhagwat’s stance is in sync with what PM Modi told in his virtual address to the BJP office-bearers in Jaipur. Modi asked his party men to “stick to the issues of development” and not to fall in the trap of their adversaries.
Also read: How Lucknow-educated Chinese cleric lit the first Jihad fire in Xinjiang
The resentment against the 1991 law
Meanwhile, within the saffron constituency of the Sangh pariwar, the momentum is building steadily that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 is against the ethos of the Indian judicial review system. How can any legislation deprive any citizen from appealing in the courts? This is a question bothering many. When the rights to repatriation of cultural heritage is recognised globally, how can the right to reclaim cultural heritage be denied in India? Many are questioning the arbitrariness of the 15 August 1947 cut-off date mentioned in the Act that demands that character of any places of worship shall be maintained as it was on 15 August 1947 and no court shall entertain appeal requesting change in their character.
What is surprising to the observers is the fast-pace of developments around the Gyanvapi mosque, both inside and outside the court. Already, one Kulpati Tiwari, former mahant, has filed a petition to claim that rights to perform puja for “shivling” found in Waju Khana belongs to him. The Muslims have strongly claimed that it’s a defunct fountain.
Two other petitions questioning the origins of the Dharara mosque on the Ganga ghat and Laat Bhairav mosque in Varanasi have been filed. A Hindu petitioner has already submitted the prayer that the Shringar Gauri temple within the Gyanvapi complex fall under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958, requesting exemption from the 1991 Act.
Interestingly, in the Varanasi district court, the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Management and the Hindu petitioners are citing the same 1942 judgment of the Allahabad High Court to support their respective arguments.
Also read: More tourists doesn’t mean Kashmir is ‘normal’. ‘Naya Kashmir’ is still not in sight
The 1942 judgment: a critical document
The court case of Din Mohammad, a Hanafi Muslim, and others versus Secretary of State, which was decided on 10 April 1942 over the ownership of Gyanwapi mosque mentions that the mosque was built on a site of a Hindu temple demolished by Aurangzeb.
As this judgment has recorded the history of disputes from 1809 to 1942 between Hindus and Muslims over plot number 9130 — where the mosque stands — it almost acts as a guide book of history of the Gyanvapi dispute.
The 1942 judgment records the background story of why Din Mohammad went to the court.
It quotes: “In 1935, the District Magistrate of “Benares” decided that, “the musalmans” should not, in any case, be permitted to congregate outside the upper platform of the mosque and to say their prayers within the “Gyan Bafi” mosque enclosure anywhere except within the building of the mosque or upon it.”
After this, the local superintendent of police prohibited the Muslims from saying their prayers or from sitting for that purpose within the compound or the platform of the mosque.
The police action prompted Din Mohmmad and other Sunni Muslims to approach the local court to get clarity of ownership of the Gyanvapi plot as it hindered their legal and religious rights to perform prayers. But they were given clarity of limited ownership only of the dome of the mosque and the courtyard below the dome.
Since, the judgment wasn’t clearly giving them hold over the entire plot so that they could hold the last Friday prayers during Ramazan called Alvida on the parts outside the mosque, they appealed in the Allahabad High Court.
While dismissing the appeal of Din Mohammad in 1942, the Allahabad High Court said: “the overflow (of Muslims for Friday prayers) was intentional in the sense that it was intended in recent years to establish some kind of claim over this land and it was only about the year 1929 or 1930 that the overflow became so serious as to cause inconvenience to others.”
This judgment, that went against the Muslims, is read differently by both sides because the existence and the control over the mosque isn’t disputed and the judgment records the existence of a Hindu temple.
Also read: Why it’ll be difficult for Laal Singh Chaddha to be a true remake of Forrest Gump
The dispute: legal, religious and political
All debates move around one question: whether the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 applicable to the Gyanvapi mosque or not?
In the 1991 Act, it’s said that the “religious character” of the places of worship can’t be converted. The cut-off date given is of 15 August 1947 when India got Independence.
But the Hindu petitioners are asking the court if under the 1991 Act, “religious character” can’t be changed then, let us first know what is the religious character of plot number 9130.
The issue is before the court and “question of fact” versus “the question of law” has arisen. Here, there is one possibility of “mixed” character of religious place of worship, too.
Many experts believe that in view of the series of judgments before 1947 over the dispute, the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid has prematurely rushed to the court. But then, there is feeling of déjà vu in the Muslim community that sees a repeat of the 1992 Babri mosque demolition.
The Gyanvapi dispute is, in equal parts, legal, religious and political.
But the Hindu petitioners are pushing the debate towards a specific question: what is the religious character of this plot? If the answer for this is not clear, then how will the 1991 Act apply to Gyanvapi?
Sheela Bhatt is a Delhi-based senior journalist. Views are personal.
(Edited by Anurag Chaubey)