When will the violence against our cultural practices in the name of secularism stop?
Ongoing disputes over religious sites in India, particularly those involving claims of historical conversions, have heightened communal sensitivities. Similar cases in Varanasi and Mathura have set precedents that contribute to public unrest when surveys or legal actions are seen as threatening the status quo of religious sites. The dispute over the Jama Masjid in Sambhal has escalated amid ongoing cases in Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura. The Hindu side claims that the Jama Masjid was built by demolishing the Harihar temple. The Muslim side rejects the Hindu side’s claims to the Jama Masjid. The recent battle is being fought legally, with the court ordering a survey of the mosque.
-Dr. Satyawan Saurabh
The petition filed in Sambhal is similar to the petitions filed for the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura. The main issue is how the law—the Places of Worship Act, 1991—is interpreted. The district court in Sambhal ordered a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid based on a petition claiming it was built on a Hindu temple site. The order led to protests by local Muslim residents who saw it as an attack on their religious rights and heritage. The protests turned violent when large crowds gathered to oppose the survey. Reports suggest that protesters clashed with police, resulting in injuries and deaths of both protesters and law enforcement officers. Ongoing disputes over religious sites in India, particularly those involving claims of historical conversions, have heightened communal sensitivities. Similar cases in Varanasi and Mathura have set precedents that contribute to public unrest when surveys or legal actions are seen as threatening the status quo of religious sites. The dispute over the Jama Masjid of Sambhal has increased amidst the ongoing cases in Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura. The Hindu side claims that the Jama Masjid was built by demolishing the Harihar temple. The Muslim side rejects the claims of the Hindu side regarding the Jama Masjid. The recent battle is being fought legally, in which work is being done on the survey order of the mosque received from the court.
A case was filed in the court of Civil Judge of Sambhal on behalf of Vishnu Shankar Jain regarding Jama Masjid. There are 8 plaintiffs including Supreme Court lawyer Harishankar Jain and Mahant Rishiraj Giri of Kela Devi Temple. The plaintiffs have made the Government of India, the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Sambhal Jama Masjid Committee a party in the dispute. The petition said- ‘The mosque was originally a Harihar temple, which was converted into a mosque in 1529. The temple was demolished by the Mughal emperor Babar in 1529. It is mentioned in the book Baburnama and Ain-e-Akbari that the place where the Jama Masjid is built, there used to be a Harihar temple.’ The Muslim side also believes that the Jama Masjid was built by Babar and till date Muslims have been offering prayers in it. However, the Muslim side registers its protest in the legal dispute on the basis of the 1991 order of the Supreme Court, in which the court had said that whatever religious places are in whatever condition since 15 August 1947, they will remain at their places. The Supreme Court had also emphasized on this during the Ayodhya verdict. Through this, the Muslim side claims its right over the Jama Masjid of Sambhal and has described the claims of the Hindu side and any other judicial proceedings as a disregard of the law.
What does the law say about the petitioners’ claim? The petitioners filed a civil suit to establish their claim to the mosque site. In civil suits, initial claims are usually accepted at face value (prima facie), with further evidence being produced later if the suit is deemed to be triable. However, any claim that seeks to change the religious character of a place of worship is barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The Act aims to maintain the status quo of places of religious worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. What does the Places of Worship Act, 1991 say? The Act prohibits any conversion of places of worship and mandates that their religious character must remain as it was on August 15, 1947. Specifically, Section 3 prohibits the conversion of any place of worship, either wholly or in part, into a place of worship of another sect or denomination. Section 4 states that any legal proceedings in respect of the change in the religious character of a place are terminated (abetted) on that date, so that no new suits can be filed in respect of such conversions. Notably, the Act does not apply to disputes already pending at the time of its enactment, such as the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case, which has complicated its application to contemporary disputes.
How have the courts allowed these title suits? Despite the provisions of the Places of Worship Act, courts have allowed title suits relating to places such as Gyanvapi and Mathura to be maintained. An important observation by the Supreme Court indicated that while changing the religious nature of a place is prohibited under the Act, examining its historical character may still be permissible. This interpretation has provided district courts with a basis to entertain such petitions without directly violating the intent of the Act. In the case of Sambhal, the Court ordered a survey before determining whether a civil suit was maintainable. This ex parte decision (without hearing both sides) has led to further controversies about its legality and fairness. Courts should uphold the intent of the 1991 Act by ensuring that disputes challenging the religious character of sites dating back to August 15, 1947, are dismissed, avoiding unnecessary surveys or proceedings that may escalate communal tensions. Governments and local authorities should facilitate inter-religious discussions to peacefully address historical grievances and promote mutual understanding, reduce the risk of violent clashes, and promote communal harmony.
,
– Dr. Satyawan Saurabh,
Poet, freelance journalist and columnist, Radio and TV panelist,
333, Fairy Garden, Kaushalya Bhawan, Barwa (Siwani) Bhiwani,
Haryana – 127045, Mobile :9466526148,01255281381
