Attack On The Gyanvapi Mosque Is An Attack On The Existence Of Muslims
As a Varanasi Court ordered the survey to attack yet another mosque, it has again shown that the Indian judiciary synchronously works with the RSS. This time, it is helping RSS fulfil a promise it made long back.
Historian AG Noorani writes: “The RSS set up the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) at Mumbai on Aug 29, 1984. In 1986 at Allahabad, a World Hindu Sammelan (conference) was held. Eventually, the VHP adopted an 18-point code of conduct which explicitly called for the ‘liberation’ of the birthplaces of Ram at Ayodhya and of Krishna at Mathura and also for the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir at Varanasi to be ‘liberated’ from the Gyanvapi Masjid”. Now that Babri Masjid has been “liberated”, the Varanasi court is simply helping RSS in removing Gyanvapi Masjid.
They have started their routine. Considering the fountain in the mosque as Shiv Linga and sealing the spot in the absence of Muslims is an attack on the Muslim community, and I strongly oppose the court’s decision. Opposing the court’s decision is not condemnation. Mosques built in the Sultanate era had fountains.”
“Baba has not been found. Masjid committee is saying that it’s a fountain, not a ‘Shiv Linga’. Every masjid has this fountain.
The thing is, why couldn’t the Places of Worship Act save Babri Masjid from getting demolished when it was a mosque on the eve of independence? It is because the act has two exceptions. It doesn’t apply to historical monuments. And it doesn’t apply to places of worship that are in dispute. The Varanasi court order has just exploited the second exception. The order says: “The prime purpose of the Archaeological Survey shall be to find out whether the religious structure standing at present at the ‘disputed site’ is a superimposition, alteration or addition or there is a structural overlapping of any kind, with or over, any other religious structure”.
By calling it a “disputed site”, the court has simply opened the room to bypass the Places of Worship Act. Come to think of it, the act itself was systematically implemented to ensure that it doesn’t go against the RSS promise. It was implemented after 5 years of its promise when India’s prime minister was Congress leader Narasimha Rao. But it wasn’t enough. A BJP leader has now challenged the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act itself and the Supreme Court has already sent a notice to the Centre. It seems like they are in no mood to even have unuseful constitutional safeguards. There are major takeaways from here.
The Constitution cannot help Muslims in defending themselves from the direct attack on their very presence in India. The attack on mosques is actually an attack on the existence of Muslims. In such a situation, getting involved in legal acrobats is a trap laid by those who don’t want a systematic change. When they say it’s against the constitution, it implies that the fault lies in the court rather than the system itself. This way, nothing really changes.
The Gyanvapi case and the connection to the Ayodhya dispute
The two Supreme Court judges, Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha, hearing the Gyanvapi mosque petition have an association to the Ayodhya dispute involving the Babri Masjid. Justice Chandrachud was part of the five-judge bench that delivered the historic verdict and Justice Narasimha was a lawyer
The two-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha are hearing a petition challenging videography inside the Varanasi’s Gyanvapi Masjid in the Supreme Court. PTI
The Supreme Court judges hearing the case related to the Gyanvapi mosque survey in Uttar Pradesh’s Varanasi are connected to a similar dispute in Ayodhya – the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit.
On Tuesday, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha heard the petition that challenged a court order that allowed filming inside the Gyanvapi Masjid in a case that involves claims that parts of a temple are inside the mosque complex.
The Ayodhya connection
Justice Chandrachud was part of the five-judge bench who heard the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case for 40 days before delivering a historic verdict which went in favour of the Hindu side. The site of the Babri Masjid was handed over for building a Ram Mandir and the top court ordered an alternative five-acre land for a mosque.
Justice Chandrachud was the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court from 13 October 2013. He was appointed to the Supreme Court (SC) on 13 May 2016 by then President Pranab Mukherjee.
Justice Narasimha was a senior lawyer when the Ayodhya case was being heard. He argued on behalf of the Hindu petitioners, representing Rajendra Singh, the successor of the original petitioner, Gopal Singh Visharad.
In 1950, Visharad had filed a plea in court saying that he should be allowed to worship Lord Rama at his birthplace in Ayodhya. He petitioned that “he is entitled to offer worship without any obstruction according to the rites and tenets of his religion at the birthplace of Lord Shri Ram Chandra”. He also sought a “permanent prohibitory injunction against the removal of the idols of Lord Ram situated at the place of birth”.
Narasimha was appointed a judge of the apex court on 31 August 2021.
Both judges, Justice Chandrachud and Justice Narasimha, are in line to become Chief Justice.
