New Delhi: With the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) stating that “there existed a Hindu temple prior to the construction of the existing structure” at the Gyanvapi site, Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) said that the disputed structure should be handed over to the Hindu community.
“The ASI, an official and expert body, has submitted its report to the district judge hearing the Gyanvapi matter in Kashi. The evidence collected by the ASI from the Gyanvapi structure reconfirms that the mosque had been constructed after demolishing a magnificent temple. A part of the temple structure, particularly the western wall is the remaining part of the Hindu Temple,” VHP working president Alok Kumar said in a statement Sunday.
“The Shivlinga in what was called the wuzu khana (a pond for ablution) leaves no doubt that the structure does not have the character of a mosque. The discovery of the names including Janardana, Rudra and Umeswara in the inscriptions found in the structure are the tell-tale evidence of this being a temple,” he added.
He further said that the “evidence collected and the conclusions provided by the ASI do prove that the religious character of this place of worship existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and as at present is of a Hindu Temple. Thus, even as per Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the structure should be declared as a Hindu Temple”.
Video statement of Shri @AlokKumarLIVE … pic.twitter.com/2z2CY4f7Rn
— Vishva Hindu Parishad -VHP (@VHPDigital) January 27, 2024
The VHP also suggested that the Hindus be permitted to offer sewa puja to the Shivlinga found in the so-called wuzu khana area.
It also called upon the Intezamia Committee to “agree to respectfully shift the Gyanvapi Mosque to another appropriate place and to handover the original site of Kashi Vishvanatha to the Hindu Society”.
“The VHP believes that this righteous action shall be an important step towards creating amicable relations between the two prominent communities of Bharat,” he added.
Another VHP leader, while referring to the Gyanvapi case, said “things are becoming brighter for the Hindu side”.
A number of BJP leaders and many in the Sangh parivar claimed that the Gyanvapi issue is something that the society has taken up itself. “It’s a legal procedure and law will take its own course,” BJP national spokesperson R.P. Singh told ThePrint.
Taking to ‘X’, formerly Twitter, Union Minister Giriraj Singh said after the ASI report, the Muslim side should on its own handover the temple to the Hindu side. “This will provide an opportunity to correct the mistakes made in the past (history) and will also promote social harmony”.
Uttar Pradesh deputy chief minister Brajesh Pathak also took to ‘X’ and posted: “Bam Bam Bhole, Baba ki kripa”. Keshav Prasad Maurya, the other deputy chief minister, wrote “Har Har Mahadev”.
Last year in July, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath had said that there will be a dispute if one calls Gyanvapi a mosque. He had pointed out that whoever has eyes can see the structure (read, can understand that it is not a mosque).
But a senior BJP leader said that there is need for a relook at the provisions of the 1991 Act, the main bone of contention in the Gyanvapi controversy, and a campaign driven by the public to “reclaim” the temples in Kashi (now known as Varanasi) and Mathura.
The Act provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947.
In its 2019 verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid matter, the Supreme Court had observed that the law is “a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution”.
“The law addresses itself to the State as much as to every citizen of the nation. Its norms bind those who govern the affairs of the nation at every level. Those norms implement the fundamental duties under Article 51A and are hence, positive mandates to every citizen as well,” read the Ayodhya judgement.
“The State, has by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalised its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism which is a part of the basic features of the Constitution.”
Two petitions challenging the Act are currently pending in the Supreme Court. One was filed by BJP spokesperson and lawyer Ashwini Kumar, while the other was filed by a Lucknow-based body of priests, the Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh.
“It is quite evident that the 1991 Act is not sacrosanct and can always be changed. Neither the party nor the RSS has been actively involved in the legal matters related to the Gyanvapi issue but the public itself is demanding it,” another BJP leader another.
Sources in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) said that they would not press for a ‘mass public movement’ as far as Gyanvapi, Kashi and Mathura are concerned unlike the Ram Janmabhoomi but acknowledged that the demand itself stems from the public.
In 2019, soon after the Ayodhya judgement, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat said that the Sangh would not be involved in any political movements or agitations thereafter.
Three years on, Bhagwat commenting on the row over the Gyanvapi mosque had questioned the need to “look for a Shivling in every mosque (har masjid me Shivling kyun dekhna)”. The RSS chief also pointed out that the Sangh was not in favour of launching any other movement (andolan) on these issues.
His statement was significant in the backdrop of slogans — ‘Ayodhya-Babri sirf jhaanki hai, Kashi-Mathura ab baaqi hai (Ayodhya-Babri is just a trailer, Kashi, Mathura still to come)’ — that were raised by Hindutva outfits after the 1992 Babri mosque demolition.
A third senior BJP leader pointed out that the kind of response received from the public after the opening of the Ram Mandir shows that ‘Hindus would want to reclaim their mandirs with, or without a movement’.
“The opening of Ram Mandir and the response of the people shows how the issue has tremendous emotive value for the Hindus who for years have remained silent. The fact a Shivling has been found there means that the society will not let it go. The political strategy will have to be in sync with that. For now, the matter is in court but we need to chalk out a strategy too,’ said the leader.
A Sangh source claimed that the society itself is taking on the cause and hence the need for a movement spearheaded by the Sangh is not required as of now. “The 1990s were different, we didn’t have social media, even news channels were limited. Today’s Hindu society is enlightened and knows how to fight its own battle,” he said.
(Edited by Tony Rai)