The true character can only be ascertained through a survey by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) and conclusively established if an idol or a ‘Shivling’ is found inside the mosque. The presence of an idol or a ‘Shivling’ shall also help the Hindu side do away with the rider placed by the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Though the Wuzukhana is not covered under the survey, the Hindu side claims that many other idols of deities and even ‘Shivling’ (other than Wuzukhana) would be found inside the mosque if an ASI survey is done.
The argument in the making for the Hindu side is that the true religious character is that of a temple and it should be handed over to the Hindu side. In other words, the true religious character of the Gyanvapi mosque as of 1947 is that of a temple because of the presence of the idols or a ‘Shivling’, provided they are found inside the complex.
Hence, the court order allowing such a survey is a step that the Hindu side rejoices. A Varanasi court has ordered the survey of the entire Gyanvapi mosque complex by the Archeological Survey of India. This is the first time post-Independence that such a survey would be conducted. Earlier, an order for the carbon dating for the disputed structure — claimed to be a ‘Shivling’ — was stayed by the Supreme Court. Interestingly, it was at the behest of the Centre that the carbon dating process was stalled as the Centre was apprehensive of any kind of damage to the disputed structure claimed to be a ‘Shivling’ by the Hindu side. The legal basis of the dispute is only expanding.
It all began with the petitions seeking the right to pray and worship Ma Shringaar Gauri at one of the walls of the Gyanvapi Mosque complex. The Hindu side claims that the true religious character of the complex or the right to worship Ma Shringaar Gauri cannot be established without a survey by an expert body like Archeological Survey of India.
The disputed presence of a ‘Shivling’ inside the Gyanvapi complex was a key turning point in the case. If the claims of the Hindu side are found to be true, which is the presence of Hindu idols or ‘Shivling’ inside the temple, then the case shall see a monumental shift. The presence of a ‘Shivling’ or a ‘Swayambhu Shivling’ under the recognised Indian law gives deity a legal character or personality. The deity has property rights that are enforceable in law.
The Hindu side seems to be treading on a path where the claim to the Gyanvapi complex would not be based on the mere historical existence of the temple at the present site of the mosque. The argument that the Hindu side seems to be building is clearly tilted to establish the ‘true character’ of the Gyanvapi complex. The ASI survey is indeed the first step towards the expansion of the Gyanvapi dispute which was initially only about the worship of Ma Shringaar Gauri.
To presume any settlement or an agreement between the Hindu and Muslim side is foolhardy. History tells us the impossibility of such a task. The Ramjanambhoomi dispute, its history and trajectory remind us of the bitter history that defines such disputes. But one stark difference between Ayodhya and Gyanvapi is that the Hindu side seems to build a case which shall survive despite the existence of the 1991 Act that bars any change to the character of the religious places. Ayodhya was the only exception to the 1991 Act but the Gyanvapi legal tussle attacks the very foundation that the present structure is a mosque.
The impending carbon dating of the disputed structure termed to be a ‘Shivling’ and the ASI survey of the mosque complex shall be two decisive steps in this legal battle. The view or the findings of the ASI shall be the basic evidence on which the case by either side shall be built for the decades to come.
Comments
0 comment