By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-04-12 07:07:49
Four developments that took place recently do not augur well for the preservation of our historical religious places and for peace among Hindus and Muslims. In one of these developments, a junior magistrate in Mathura rightly chose not to entertain a petition that sought to examine whether the mosque that stood in the town at a place that is known as Krishna Janmbhoomi was constructed by demolishing a temple, saying that the petitioner had no locus standi in the matter. In a second development, the Allahabad High Court reserved its judgment on the maintainability of a petition that sought to examine the status of the mosque that stood adjacent to the Kashi Viswanath Temple in Varanasi. In a third development, the Supreme Court admitted a petition that sought to challenge The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 and issued notice to the Centre. In the fourth and most alarming development, a civil court in Varanasi has ordered the Archaeological Survey of India to survey the Gyanvapi mosque in order to find out whether it stood on the ruins of a Hindu temple. It is surprising that despite The Places of Worship Act having expressly frozen the status of religious places to as they existed on 15th August 1947 the Varanasi judge chose to pass the above order.
The above developments show that the slogan "Ayodhya toh jhanki hai, Mathura, Kashi baki hai" was not coined just for effect - the votaries of Hindutva, and those bent on erasing a part of Indian history, will not pay heed to The Places of Worship Act and will do all it takes to arouse passions over Mathura and Kashi. What is now clear is that despite getting a favourable verdict from the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya case (or may be because of it), the Hindutva elements will not let go of temple politics and use it to create further divisions in society. It helps their cause that the BJP is now ruling at the Centre and in UP. What will now be watched with interest is the Centre's response to the notice the Supreme Court has issued to it over the challenge to The Places of Worship Act. If the Centre chooses to defend the Act, then it will send a signal to the elements who file such applications to desist from doing so. In any other scenario, more such applications will be filed creating a legal tussle. It will become very difficult to send the genie back in the bottle once it is allowed to come out.