In the case of Kashi Vishwanath Temple and Gyanvapi Masjid, the Varanasi Court talked about conducting an archaeological survey. Since then, Hindu-Muslim organizations are expressing their happiness and objection in their own way. Here Muslim Personal Law Board member Zafaryab Jilani challenged the fast track court’s survey decision calling it a violation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Said that. Survey is getting conducted in Gyanvapi Mosque of Varanasi and numerous evidences have been found. The team was able to go inside the mosque to conduct the survey, the camera could also be taken along with it. After the order of the court, the survey work of the entire mosque complex was start again. Earlier on Friday, the court commissioner made a plan for the survey after meeting with both the parties.
During the Gyanvapi Masjid survey of Varanasi, it has been claimed from the Hindu side that on Monday, about 12 feet 8 inches long Shivling was found in front of Nandi. The survey work has now been completed and now tomorrow i.e. on May 17, the report will be placed before the court on behalf of the team. Here, the team of lawyers has reached the court to preserve the Shivling found today.
What is the temple-mosque dispute in Kashi?
After the Ramjanmabhoomi verdict in Ayodhya, the mention of Mathura and Kashi has started coming in many places. This is the case of Kashi, which is currently being discussed, that is, the Gyanvapi Masjid dispute, in which according to the petitioners, the mosque was built by the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb after demolishing the ancient temple. It goes so far as to say that the same relics were used in the mosque, which were once in the temple. Old documents were also handed over as proof of this in the petition. At present, the fast track court has ordered the archaeological department to excavate and survey the temple-mosque complex. Whatever the reality may be, only then will it be known.
The ‘Place of Worship Act’ is once again in discussion amidst the ongoing survey in the Gyanvapi Masjid complex of Varanasi. This law made in 1991 says that the status of all religious places in the country will be maintained as it was on 15 August 1947.
Let us understand what is Worship Act and on which religious places there is a dispute…
Know the Places of Worship Act
When was the Act made? –1991
Challenged the status of religious places like 1947 – Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Federation
Challenge When – 14 June 2020
Challenge Where – Supreme Court
hearing – not yet
What is Places of Worship Act?
The law was enacted in 1991 to protect the places of worship. The full name is Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991. This act was made during the time of Narasimha Rao government. The real reason behind making this act was to avoid conflict between different religions. According to this act, the situation like August 15, 1947, will remain in every religious place, according to this, if there is a temple somewhere on August 15, 1947, it will remain a temple and if there is a mosque, then it will remain a mosque. The Ayodhya dispute was not brought under this law. In June 2020, this law was challenged in the Supreme Court.
Let us know some of the religious places, which are disputed?
1. Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi
What is the dispute?
– Claim of building a mosque by destroying the temple
2. RoyalEidGah Masjid, Mathura
What is the dispute?
– Demand to change the name to Vishnu pillar , claim to build a tower by demolishing temples.
3. Taj Mahal, Agra
What is the dispute?
– Claim to build Taj Mahal in place of Shiva temple
4. Bhojshala, Dhar
What is the dispute?
– Demand to hand over the entire premises to Hindus Demand
to stop offering Namaz
Now the Places of Worship Act 1991 is also being disputed. Recently, the Supreme Court summoned the government in this regard and asked it to respond to a petition. It was said in the petition that this act is going to prevent people of Sikhs, Buddhists, including Hindus, from claiming against illegal occupation of their religious places. In this regard, Supreme Court lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay challenged this act while filing a petition. He said that the invaders broke the places of worship of many religions and made their religious places. Now it is unconstitutional to prevent us from knowing the truth of those places of worship by making laws.
Was the mosque built after demolishing the Krishna temple in Mathura?
Now we know what is the matter in Mathura after all. The Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute is going on here, under which the petitioners claim that the Shahi Idgah was built in the 17th century on the premises of the 13-acre Katra Keshav Dev temple of Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi. They say that at present where there is a mosque, there was once a prison of Kansa and then there was a Krishna temple. Later the Mughals got it destroyed and built the Shahi Idgah Mosque. In this case also it is being said that the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb had ordered the destruction of the temple.
What does this rule made at the place of worship say?
The case of Kashi Vishwanath Temple and Gyanvapi Masjid Complex is coming under the Place of Worship Act made in the year 1991. This means that at the time of the country’s independence i.e. on 15th August 1947, whatever the places of worship i.e. place of worship, whatever sect belonged to, it will remain the same. That is, if there is a temple, it should remain a temple and if there is a mosque, then there should be no alteration in it. This law was made to maintain the faith of those who believe in different religions and especially to avoid the situation of conflict between them. It was passed by the Narasimha Rao government in the year 1991.
BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay had filed this petition in October last year, seeking to repeal the sections of the law . In this petition, a demand has been made to repeal sections two, three and four of the Places of Worship Act 1991. According to the petition, these sections give legal recognition to places of worship established illegally by the ruthless rulers who invaded India. Along with this, questions have also been raised on the right of the Central Government to make laws in the petition. The Supreme Court has asked to consider the legality of the law.
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.