TCN News Desk
New Delhi: Several high-profile legal petitions brought the issue of religious sites and its historical significance back into the limelight in India in 2024, which came to an end today. Ranging from the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal to the Ajmer Sharif Dargah, these disputes reignited debates about the ownership and identity of sacred spaces. It stirred both public attention and legal action. However, what stands out in these cases is the surprising silence of influential organisations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – the ideological mentor of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – that has typically been vocal on matters of religious identity. Though seemingly neutral, this silence reflects deeper ideological calculations and strategic considerations within the broader discourse surrounding these disputes.
The Controversy in Sambhal: A Clash of Religious Claims
One of the most recent flashpoints in this ongoing struggle has been the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. Believed to have been built during the Mughal period, the mosque has become the subject of intense scrutiny after a petition claimed that it was constructed on the site of a pre-existing Hindu temple. The petition led to a court-ordered survey of the mosque, which, in turn, prompted violent clashes between locals and the police. The violence resulted in at least six deaths. The tensions underscore the volatile nature of religious disputes in India, particularly when they involve places of worship that hold historical and cultural significance.
Despite the rising public attention, the RSS refrained from commenting on the situation. While some members of the organisation advocate for a “case-by-case” approach to such matters, others worry that focusing on too many issues simultaneously may dilute the emphasis on more prominent disputes, like those surrounding the Kashi Vishwanath Temple and the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura. This internal division within the Sangh leadership is a reflection of the broader complexities surrounding these disputes and the potential consequences of pursuing such claims.
The Ajmer Sharif Dargah: A Spiritual and Legal Battleground
Another notable case involves the Ajmer Sharif Dargah, a revered shrine for Muslims in Rajasthan. A recent petition claimed that the site was originally a Shiva temple. The petitioners sought permission to worship there as a Hindu temple. A court in the state entertained the please and issued notices to all stakeholders. The growing legal battles over such sites are not only testing the limits of India’s secular fabric but also challenging the effectiveness of laws meant to prevent such disputes.
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, was designed to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. This law aimed at preventing any attempts to alter the religious status of historical sites, with the exception of the Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid dispute, which was resolved by the Supreme Court in 2019.
However, recent developments, including the petitions related to Gyanvapi and Ajmer’s shrine, have cast doubt on the efficacy of this law in preventing religious polarisation. The case over the Gyanvapi mosque, which involves the claim of a Shiva lingam being found in the mosque’s premises, is just one example of how historical grievances are being brought into the contemporary legal domain. It is raising new questions about the balance between faith, history and law.
The Gyanvapi Mosque and the Battle for Historical Justice
The Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi has become one of the most contentious sites in India’s religious landscape. Allegations that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb after demolishing a part of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple sparked numerous legal petitions. In November 2023, the Supreme Court intervened and allowed a survey of the mosque’s premises to investigate claims of the presence of a Shiva lingam, which added fuel to the fire. The Varanasi district court’s decision to make the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) findings public only intensified the situation and turned it into one of India’s most high-profile legal and religious disputes.
What is notable in the Gyanvapi case is the broader implication it holds for similar cases in the future. The court’s approach in this matter aligns with its stance on the Ayodhya case, where the Places of Worship Act was interpreted as not preventing the determination of the religious nature of a site. This legal stance has opened the door for future challenges against other religious sites, potentially leading to an escalation of disputes over India’s vast and complex religious heritage.
Strategic Silence: The Calculated Response of the RSS
The relative quiet from the RSS on these issues signals a more cautious approach to religious disputes. While right-wing organisation have historically been vocal about reclaiming religious sites and challenging the status quo, the silence of the RSS on the Sambhal and Ajmer cases reveals a strategic hesitation. Senior RSS leaders have voiced concerns that an overzealous pursuit of claims on every contested site could undermine the focus on more “genuine” cases such as those involving Kashi and Mathura, where they believe Hindus have stronger historical claims.
This measured approach, championed by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, emphasises the importance of restraint and harmony, with Bhagwat himself cautioning against raising new issues every day. His calls for unity and dialogue aim to prevent the escalation of religious tensions, reminding followers that Hindu-Muslim relations must not be defined by legal claims alone.
Despite Bhagwat’s calls for restraint, the growing number of petitions related to religious sites suggests that some factions within the Sangh Parivar are more willing to pursue these legal battles, which are often driven by local or political motivations rather than ideological consistency. This division underscores the complex and often contradictory nature of India’s religious politics, where religious identity and historical grievances intersect with modern legal frameworks and political agendas.
The Way Forward: Navigating Religious Sensitivities
As legal petitions continue to challenge the status of religious sites across India, it is clear that the country is facing a delicate moment in its democratic and secular history. The judiciary’s role in balancing historical claims with contemporary religious sensibilities will be crucial in determining the future of these disputes. The Places of Worship Act, which was meant to provide stability, is now at a crossroads, with petitions questioning its validity and relevance in the face of mounting public interest in religious identity.
In navigating these sensitive issues, India must find a way to reconcile its diverse religious heritage with its commitment to secularism. The current trajectory of legal battles over sacred spaces risks deepening communal divides and triggering violent confrontations, as seen in Sambhal. At the same time, the silence of key political and ideological players like the Sangh Parivar suggests that they too are grappling with how best to manage these complex and often explosive issues.
India’s ability to address these disputes in a manner that respects both its past and its pluralistic future will be critical in maintaining its social fabric. As the nation stands at this crossroads, the quest for justice, reconciliation and peace remains as urgent as ever.