At a possibly record-breaking press conference held by six prominent Muslim organizations, it was asserted that there was no temple beneath Jama Masjid or Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi. The leaders also voiced their discontent with lower courts for not upholding the Places of Worship Act and accused the Executive of challenging the patience of Muslim youth.
Khalid Saifullah Rehmani, president of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, emphasized, “No temple existed where the masjid stands today. Islam forbids the destruction of another place of worship to erect a mosque.” He added, “The current situation seems to aim at deteriorating Hindu-Muslim relations under the guise of temple-mosque disputes. Hindu temples have peacefully coexisted for centuries; Muslim rulers never disturbed them.”
In a joint statement, the leaders voiced their indignation regarding the sudden commencement of pooja in a cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi. They highlighted the overnight breaking of iron grills and installation of idols, which followed a controversial judgment by the Varanasi District judge. Expressing deep regret and concern, the Muslim leaders suggested that the swift execution of this action, despite the court granting a seven-day window for administrative arrangements, raised suspicions of collusion between the administration and the plaintiff. This collusion, they claimed, aimed to preempt any efforts by the Masjid Managing Committee to challenge the District Court’s ruling.
The leaders voiced concern that the events unfolding in Varanasi in recent weeks could potentially lead to a situation reminiscent of the Babri Masjid saga. Arshad Madani, president of Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, highlighted the rising number of petitions filed in different courts seeking alterations in the status of Muslim places of worship since the Babri Masjid verdict in November 2019.
“The verdict has empowered certain entities to petition courts for the conversion of mosques into temples. What’s occurring in Varanasi isn’t an isolated event. There are concerns regarding the Eidgah in Mathura, another mosque in Ahmedabad, one in Sambhal, and even Delhi’s Jama Masjid. The rapid emergence of these issues suggests that courts may be showing a leniency favoring the transfer of places of worship. However, it’s worth recalling that in the Babri Masjid case, the Supreme Court explicitly stated the absence of evidence of a temple beneath the mosque. Despite this, we accepted the judgment, maintaining our trust in the judiciary. Nevertheless, this verdict has opened the door for claimants over other mosques. If the judiciary continues to prioritize faith over evidence, it will become increasingly challenging to maintain that trust,” remarked Mr. Madani.
Malik Mohtasim Khan, vice-president of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, expressed deep concern over the judiciary’s failure to uphold the 1991 Act and criticized the swift actions of the administration and bureaucracy in response to the Varanasi district court’s directive allowing a priest’s family to conduct pooja in the cellar of Gyanvapi Masjid. He emphasized that the issue extends beyond Gyanvapi, highlighting the worrying trend of unwarranted claims on various places of worship. Mr. Khan also expressed the Muslim community’s deep apprehension over the continued silence of the Supreme Court on the Places of Worship Act, stating that in a democratic system, courts serve as the last resort for justice. He referenced the recent remarks by senior advocate Dushyant Dave about the judiciary becoming a ‘majoritarian judiciary’ and raised concerns about the judiciary’s silence amidst transgressions of law orchestrated by the Executive. Mr. Khan concluded by stating that biased court decisions raise fundamental questions about where justice can be found.
Mr. Rehmani noted that Muslim leadership has consistently urged the community to exercise patience and trust in the judiciary. However, he questioned the sustainability of this stance, echoing the sentiment expressed by all leaders that their faith in the judiciary was diminishing.
The conference featured prominent figures from the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, and Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith Hind, along with esteemed clerics.
