A Hindu Restoration

THE PIOUS THOUGHTS and acts of the faithful who prayed at the temple in Varanasi could not be obliterated despite the oppressive actions of a venge­ful monarch. Many centuries after devotees from distant lands offered libations, the record of their piety was uncovered by archaeological teams that removed tonnes of debris and patiently scraped away decades of neglect and deliber­ate obfuscation. The task was not easy. Asked specifically not to excavate, the surveyors used trowels, handle brushes, dust pans, and brooms to remove stones and accumulated mud. The cellars were dank and airless and the onset of the monsoon turned mud to slush. Every now and again, troops of monkeys tore up tarpaulin covers and tents. But as the rains stopped and the days and nights became cooler, inscriptions dated between the 12th and the 16th centuries told a tale through palaeography that was all but lost. The testimonials name individuals who instituted charities, proffered obeisance to gods like Vishnu or made provisions for perpetual burning lamps. Pilgrims such as Sajalla, Aryavati, Sumbhaji, Son­aji, Mallana Bhatlu, Narayan Raman, Raghunatha, Dodarasayya, Narasimha and Kanha came from near and far. Some of them were from faraway Deccan—modern-day Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Accounts of the devotees, along with a scientific survey and dating of pillars, walls, cellars, and ceilings provide a picture of a Hindu temple that once existed. “It had a big central chamber and based on the observations on the existing structures and available evidence it can be concluded that it had at least one chamber to the north, south, east and west,” the archaeologists concluded.

The Sanskrit (and some Dravidian) inscriptions contain refer­ences to Hindu gods Janardhana, Umeshwara, and Rudra. The term mukti-mandapa mentioned in three inscriptions is particu­larly significant, associated with rituals at major Hindu temples, establishing a link with the abode of Shiva as spoken of in ancient texts. The reams of detail in the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) 850-page report peel off ignorance and bias in equal measure and reveal a conclusion in plain terms: “Based on scientific stud­ies/ survey carried out, study of architectural remains, exposed features and artefacts, inscriptions, art and sculptures, it can be said that there existed a Hindu temple prior to the construction of the existing structure.” It might be a coincidence, but days after the report was made public by Hindu litigants, a court in Varanasi on January 31 allowed Hindus to offer prayers at the basement of the Gyanvapi complex. This had been the practice earlier, too, till 1993 when the then state government halted it. The ASI report, as pointed out by the Muslim side opposing the Hindu claim to the Gyanvapi site, is an opinion that can be contested. But as the Su­preme Court observed in the Ayodhya dispute, it is an opinion by a body with expert credentials and qualifications. The ASI survey recovered dozens of artefacts that have been handed over to the district administration for safekeeping and further examination. The structure of the mosque that stands on “Settlement Plot No 9130” is replete with material that was taken from the previous construction and contains motifs associated with Hindu temples rather than a mosque. A large number of trident and swastika symbols are discernible and the western wall—largely preserved from the pre-existing structure—has several signs of Hindu worship. “These vertical and horizontal members are distinctive features of Hindu temple architecture and conform to construc­tion and existence of a Hindu temple,” the ASI report says. The idea behind the transformation of a temple into a mosque, to re­mind a conquered people of their fate, was clear enough.

The current chain of events began in April 2022, when a civil court ordered a videography survey of the Gyanvapi complex on the plea of five women who asked to be allowed to worship the idols of Shringar Gauri on the outer wall of the mosque. In mid-May, the ongoing survey led to the discovery of a shivling in a pond used for ablution purposes. The finding was hailed by the Hindu side as proof of a temple dedicated to Shiva even as the Muslim party said it was a fountain and not a religious symbol. The court thereafter sought the preservation of status quo and objects found were handed over to district authorities. The ASI survey did not cover this area and the Hindu litigants are now likely to approach the Supreme Court to remove the stay and permit a survey. On May 16, 2022, when the shivling was recov­ered, the word spread like wildfire, prompting the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) to hold consultations and consider its previous position not to raise other matters before the consecration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. But the pace of events had overtaken such deliberation. VHP leaders concluded that they would lag public sentiment if the organisation failed to acknowledge the dramatic turn of events. Alok Kumar, VHP’s working president, told the media that the recovery of a shivling made it self-evident that the complex was a temple. Soon thereafter, with the demand for an ASI survey accepted by the district court and upheld by the Allahabad High Court as well as the Supreme Court, VHP adopted a proactive stance on the Gyanvapi demand.

The survey, as per court orders, was observed by plaintiffs, de­fendants, and their lawyers. While carrying out investigations at the western wall—as specifically sought by the court—the ASI team found it obscured under heaps of debris, soil, and even gar­bage. But once cleared of obstructions, its purpose became clear. “Art and architecture of any building not only indicate its date but also its nature. Karna-ratha and prati-ratha of central cham­ber visible on either side of western chamber, a large decorated entrance gateway on the eastern wall of the western chamber, a smaller entrance with destroyed image on lalatbimba, birds and animals carved for decoration, suggest that the western wall is remaining part of a pre-existing Hindu temple,” the report states. It also notes that the pillars used in the mosque were part of the older temple that pre-existed it.

VHP feels the ASI report has dealt Hindu litigants a strong hand. “The court and ASI have learnt from the excavations at Ayodhya. The report of ASI is very complete. It will be argued that restoring the Gyanvapi complex to Hindus is not a violation of the 1991 Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act,” Kumar told Open. The argument is premised on a reading of Section 4(1) of the Act which says: “It is hereby declared that the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day.” Kumar, who is an advocate, says the key issue is the use of the term “religious character” as the survey has revealed that this is that of a Hindu temple. “The current usage of a place does matter but the essential religious character cannot be ignored,” he said.

The Act, from the day it became effective, extinguishes any appeal or other proceedings with respect to the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship. The contending par­ty—the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee—rejected ASI’s conclusions, saying it was just a report and not a judgment. Com­mittee joint secretary Syed Mohammad Yasin said the mosque went back 600 years and was renovated by Mughal Emperor Akbar and later expanded by Aurangzeb. Other Muslim bodies like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board also dismissed the report. The final legal settlement of the Ayodhya case saw the Sunni Central Waqf Board accepting the offer for a five-acre plot to rebuild the Babri mosque. As things stand, the Intezamia com­mittee—the relevant party to the case—will likely contest the matter in court. Legal proceedings will take time but will not be interminable. VHP, which has said the site be handed to Hindus in the light of the ASI report and the mosque be translocated, is no longer categorical about whether a resolution of the Ayod­hya, Kashi (Gyanvapi), and Mathura (Krishna Janmabhoomi) disputes will put an end to other reconversion demands.

“We do feel that accommodation of Hindu sentiments on these significant sites will create a very positive atmosphere be­tween communities. But we are not the arbiters of Hindu senti­ments,” said Kumar. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which had backed the Ayodhya movement, has previously stated it will not consider another national movement along the same lines. But the upsurge of popular sentiment, which received a strong fillip from the January 22 consecration of the Ram Mandir, could change things. There is, feel Sangh leaders, an undeniable sentiment seeking redress for historic hurts.

“Can we say the dispute at Dhar (Madhya Pradesh) should not be pursued?” asked a Sangh functionary. The reference is to the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula mosque dispute. Hindus say it is a shrine dedicated to goddess Saraswati and Muslims call it a mosque. At present, Hindus are allowed worship on Tuesdays and Muslims offer namaz on Fridays. A plea demanding ‘restrictions’ on Hin­dus be removed is being heard in court. A court order may, as in the case of Ayodhya, uphold one or the other Gyanvapi claims. Yet, more delays may only scrape festering wounds further and give rise to fresh grievances. The Gyanvapi dispute is best settled between Hindu and Muslim religious leaders. Whether that may happen is another story.

ASI surveyAyodhyaGyanvapi mosqueHindu RestorationRam MandirVaranasi