The way a mosque becomes a disputed structure
text_fields
Yet another historically significant mosque in India is becoming a 'disputed site'. The Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, which is entering its 500th year, has been declared a disputed site after the Babri Masjid and Gyanvapi mosques. The Shahi Jama Masjid was built in 1526 by Babur, the first Mughal emperor. Until five years ago, no one had raised any doubts about this historical structure. However, after the Supreme Court's verdict in 2019 allowed the construction of a Ram temple on the Babri Masjid site, some individuals and organizations, under the shade of the Hindu nationalist government at the Centre, began to lay claim to the places of worship and lands of minorities. This is how, after two decades, the Gyanvapi Mosque in Uttar Pradesh became a disputed site. That is how Hindu nationalist groups in Sambhal also staked their claim and approached the court. Advocate Harishankar Jain, representing a man named Vishnu Shankar, claimed that Babur had demolished the Harihar Temple to build the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, leading to the initiation of a new legal case. Subsequently, as per the court's directive, officials from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) conducted a survey of the mosque under heavy police presence, escalating tensions. Five people were killed in the firing that occurred during protests against the survey. The Supreme Court intervened in the matter, temporarily halting the local court's actions, which brought some quiet in the situation.
Now, the Allahabad High Court has referred to the Shahi Masjid as a "disputed structure." This strange decision by the court came during a legal proceeding related to the cleaning of the mosque. The mosque committee had approached the High Court, requesting that the mosque be cleaned. Accepting the request, the court assigned the responsibility to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on February 28. However, Advocate Harishankar Jain and the Sangh approached the court, arguing that the mosque committee's request should not be considered. One of the main arguments from their side was that the Shahi Masjid should not be referred to as a "mosque" in official records. Instead, they demanded that it be recorded as a "disputed structure " in all case documents. The judge not only accepted this demand but also instructed that henceforth, in all case records and other documents, the term "disputed structure" should be used instead of "mosque." This move can be seen as a repetition of what happened in the Babri Masjid case decades ago. From now on, the term "Shahi Masjid" will not be used in legal proceedings or official documents; instead, it will be treated as a disputed piece of land and structure claimed equally by two religious communities in the country. In the future, as our history and historians record this, a significant monument from the Mughal era will also be erased.
The recent actions of the Allahabad High Court provide clear indications about the future of the Shahi Masjid. Following the Supreme Court's decisive order in December regarding the validity of the Places of Worship Act, issues related to the Shahi Masjid and other similar sites had somewhat subsided. However, BJP leaders and other Hindu nationalist groups have filed numerous petitions in various courts across the country, staking claims over places of worship such as the Gyanvapi Masjid, the Shahi Eidgah in Mathura, the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, and the Ajmer Dargah in Rajasthan. The Supreme Court's ruling in the matter is that no further proceedings in these cases should take place until case about the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act is settled. This forced Hindu nationalist groups to temporarily halt their legal pursuits.
During the Ayodhya agitation, Hindu nationalist groups not only staked claims over certain places of worship but also questioned the relevance of the Places of Worship Act, which ensured the protection of minority places of worship in the country as they existed on 15 August 1947. It was in this context that the Supreme Court had to intervene in the matter. However, the recent actions of the Allahabad High Court make it clear that the issues are far from resolved. The courts are once again becoming witnesses to the disputes surrounding Gyanvapi, Babri, and other similar sites. In the Gyanvapi case, the Supreme Court bench, led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, had clarified that the Places of Worship Act does not bar the examination of the religious nature of a place or object. This was why the court allowed the survey in Gyanvapi. What followed in Gyanvapi is well-known: the ASI report claimed that temple remnants were found beneath the mosque. The Varanasi district court even granted permission for worship in Gyanvapi. Indications of similar developments are now in sight in Sambhal too. Despite the Supreme Court's interim stay, Hindu nationalist groups are employing all possible strategies through the ASI to bypass the apex court's orders in the High Court. They have successfully crossed the first hurdle. Now, Sambhal has also become a disputed land and a disputed temple. Just as in the Babri case and the ongoing developments in Gyanvapi, it will not take long for them to "establish" their claims in Sambhal.