Gyanvapi Mosque: Why SC-ordered ASI survey will open the floodgates

The sequential dismissals of the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee’s challenge to the Varanasi District Judge’s July 21 order for a survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), first by the Allahabad High Court on August 3, and by the Supreme Court on August 4, further tightens the noose around Gyanvapi Mosque, which is more than 350 years old.

By disallowing the objection of the mosque committee, the two courts also virtually sounded the death knell for the Places of Worship Act, the constitutionality of which has been challenged by a lawyer linked to the BJP and is currently pending before the apex court.

The hearing on this law that was passed in opposition to the BJP by the PV Narasimha government in September 1991, has become virtually meaningless as the Hindutva  cavalcade’s demand for a temple in place of Gyanvapi Mosque cannot be halted once the ASI declares that ‘temple-like structures’ lie beneath the mosque site.

Also read: ASI conducts scientific survey of Gyanvapi mosque complex for 2nd day

It is worth recalling that the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya judgment recorded evidence of temple-like structures at the disputed site but stated that it could not determine if those were demolished to build the Babri Masjid.

Sangh Parivar’s campaign

The Rao government’s important piece of legislation was aimed at enabling a resolution of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid conflict in favour of the Hindu parties. As a reciprocal or ‘balancing’ gesture, the state was given the responsibility of maintaining other disputed shrines in the country as they existed when India became Independent.

This law assured religious minorities and other citizens who did not support Hindutva politics, that the state would not allow the Sangh Parivar’s ‘demolish-mosques-to-restore-temples’ programme to run till eternity.

By permitting this ASI survey, the apex court, has not only opened the Pandora’s box but has also now chosen not to have the contrarian final word consistent with its past stance on certain occasions. Instead, it decided to endorse the orders of the two other courts which perused the matter prior to it: the Varanasi District Court and the Allahabad High Court.

This particular legal process has been rendered fairly inconsistent because the ASI was first directed to conduct the same nature of ‘comprehensive’ survey in April 2021 by a lower local Varanasi city court and the matter had gone up to the Allahabad High Court. Eventually, it reached the apex court too on appeal by the mosque committee and others.

After hearing arguments of both sides the survey was stayed. In the meantime, the city court had also ordered a videography of the inner precincts of the Gyanvapi Mosque and when this was challenged in the Supreme Court, it permitted this but simultaneously transferred the case from the city court to the District Court, citing the social complexities of the dispute.

Also read: Gyanvapi mosque: Owaisi hopes ASI report will not open floodgates for “thousand Babris”

Kafkaesque narrative

But these were not obviously factored when the particular district court ordered the ASI to conduct the survey which had been barred previously. Permission for this survey was also declined by the District Court last year on technical ground although the same judge allowed this on July 21. If this does not read like a Kafkaesque narrative or a whodunit script sans logic, there is more in store.

In May this year, while listening to a plea against the order for an ASI survey – the timeline of this case goes back and forth with each court saying the same thing at times and on other occasions, something completely contrary – Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated that “these are matters where one has to tread a little carefully”.

Again, barely days ago, when the mosque committee reached the apex court to seek time to appeal against the survey order of the District Judge, the Supreme Court granted a stay and directed that the High Court must admit and hear the petition of the mosque committee expeditiously.

The apex court also frowned on no time being given to the Muslim side and noted that the ASI began survey early in the morning. Paradoxically, the same sequence was followed after the High Court cleared the survey in August.

Only this time, the Supreme Court has not stopped the process and instead only directed that the survey should be “non-invasive.”

Opening the gateways

As a consequence, this order of the Supreme Court (to permit the ASI survey) opens the gateways for the Sangh Parivar to revive a much-widened campaign for ‘restoration of temples’ which they allege were demolished several centuries ago by ‘foreign invaders’.

The saffron camp’s crusade will in all likelihood be broadened and will no longer just remain directed at the Gyanvapi Mosque and Shahi Idgah in Varanasi and Mathura respectively.

Also read: Gyanvapi mosque: ASI resumes scientific survey as SC refuses to stay HC order

Depending on the outcome of several political events over the next couple of years, especially elections – nationally as well as for state assemblies – there is a likelihood of a new shrine being added to the ‘to-be-restored’ list. But more gloomily, there is a clear possibility of dramatic or even destructive developments over the contentious Varanasi shrine prior to the parliamentary polls due in March-May next year.

These likely developments, after the ASI report is submitted and portentously ‘leaked’ like the videos of the inner precincts of the Gyanvapi Mosque would be a disconsolate occurrence for forcing the impending Lok Sabha elections to being contested on the theme of ‘resurgent’ Hindus ‘reclaiming’ their past glory after centuries of ‘subjugation’ by ‘foreign’ rulers.

Places of Worship Act

In the wake of the contentious Ayodhya verdict when the Supreme Court awarded the property to Hindu parties to construct a Ram temple despite stating that the demolition of the mosque had been an “egregious violation of the rule of law”, many law abiding secular citizens of India had appreciated the judges for holding up the PoW Act as a beacon of hope.

The 1991 law was seen as one that put a lid on these two disputes while keeping the Ayodhya conflict out of its ambit. The five-judge Ayodhya title suit bench included current CJI Chandrachud and it described this law as emblematic of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. It was stated as being “intrinsically related to the obligations of a secular state,” and a law that “reflects the commitment of India to the equality of all religions.”

The judges were of the view that the PoW Act fulfilled “two purposes. First, it prohibits the conversion of any place of worship. In doing so, it speaks to the future by mandating that the character of a place of public worship shall not be altered. “Second, the law seeks to impose a positive obligation to maintain the religious character of every place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947.”

This faith got greatly eroded in May 2022 when the Supreme Court declared that ascertainment of religious character is not barred under Section 3 of the PoW Act. The ruling was given in the course of the hearing on the appeal of the mosque committee against videography of the premises.

Also read: Gyanvapi mosque: Allahabad High Court allows ASI survey

Questions arose if the paeans to the PoW Act were sung solely to make the Ayodhya judgment more acceptable. It was asked if the process of ascertainment – as the current survey would be (more than videography) – establishes the existence of a temple-like building beneath the Gyanvapi Mosque, can any court or other institutions of state prevent its demolition without risking widespread violence and police action.

Not just Gyanvapi

The Supreme Court has given the government the deadline of October 31 for submitting its viewpoint on the 1991 law. Subsequent to that the court will begin hearing the case. Given past experience, fears of the ASI findings being leaked to the media cannot be brushed away. This may only influence various processes, political or legal.

The ruling of the High Court and the Supreme Court jeopardises the existence of not just the Gyanvapi Masjid, but also the Shahi Idgah as in Mathura too, similar cases are moving towards denouement of sorts.

The fear of the Sangh Parivar’s ‘demolish-mosques-to-restore-temples’ campaign becoming endless, appears to be coming true as winning elections have become the primary objective of the current regime as recent events, whether in Manipur or Haryana, demonstrate.

(Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay’s latest book is The Demolition and the Verdict: Ayodhya and the Project to Reconfigure India. His other books include The RSS: Icons of the Indian Right and Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times. He tweets at @NilanjanUdwin)