By Krishna Jha
Concluding his three day lecture series in Delhi, RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat made it clear that he would continue with his long held policy of letting his men keep hitting at the very roots of Indian democracy. He declared that while the RSS would not take up the issue of demanding that the sites of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Eidgah at Mathura be given to Hindus, he would not stop the Sangh cadres from associating themselves with any movement for these sites. He then added that “the other side”, meaning Muslims, could respond by giving up their claims as it was a “matter of just three”, which includes Ayodhya.
Thus, what Bhagwat did was to reassert, though indirectly, the same old demand of RSS that Muslims must surrender their sacred sites, at Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi. He did not leave any option for them. The challenge was ominous. It came like a request, steeled with threat, of demolition of sites demanded, and if opposed, violence. Memories of riots and barbaric attacks are still not dead.
What happened with Babri Masjid in Ayodhya is no longer a secret. First the Hindu communalists planted an idol in Babri Masjid in 1949, thus desecrating the mosque and turning it into a disputed site. Their move was based on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s thesis that Hindu religious places which had been under occupation of ‘foreigners’ must be liberated. Then in 1980s, the RSS launched a movement to bring down Babri Masjid. Culmination came when on December 6, 1992, Babri Masjid was razed to the ground. Judiciary recognised it as “egregious violation of rule of law”.
Even the Supreme Court accepted the fact that Mosque was desecrated when the idols were placed in the main hall and a puja was performed in 1949. Finally illegally, the Mosque was demolished in 1992. No one paid any attention to the grieving minority. Thus the Babri Mosque demolition could not be called a dispute over a place of worship. It was also declared that a temple would be built where the mosque was demolished. By this very act the apex court has pointed towards the ineligibility of the minority to be equal to the majority.
But Ayodhya case was not about one single place of worship. Had it been so it would not have mattered much because there are so many places of worship for peoples of all faiths in India and one less, of any community, would not have been of much consequence. In real sense, this was a test case for the rule of law. A place of worship had been desecrated and turned into a disputed site and then it was demolished in broad daylight in view of everyone in flagrant violation of the rule of law. The question central to the case, therefore, was this: would the aggressors be allowed to get away with their crime? The court’s decision is for all to see.
And yet, instead of letting the wound heal, Bhagwat is now trying to create the ground for inflicting more injuries, amounting to sacrilege. What he said in his nationally televised press conference was that he wanted Ayodhya to be repeated at two more places in the country. He might call them a “matter of just three” sites. But what it would mean is violation of the rule of law two more times. Legal proceedings are still on with regard to the disputes in Varanasi and Mathura.
And all this is happening despite the presence of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, a landmark Indian legislation designed to prohibit the conversion of any place of worship and to maintain the religious character of these sites as they existed on August 15, 1947. Enacted to curb communal tension and promote religious harmony, it mandates that no legal proceedings can be initiated or continued to challenge the religious status of any such place.
Section 3 of the Act strictly forbids anyone from converting a place of worship, whether partially or wholly, from one religious denomination to another, or even to a different sect within the same denomination. Section 4(2) of the Act terminates all existing lawsuits challenging the religious nature of a site and prevents the filing of new cases for this purpose.
However, the Act exempted the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute as it was already a pending legal matter, a subjudice case, at the time of the enactment of the law. The matter was kept out of the Act’s scope to allow the court proceedings to continue and resolve the dispute, thereby avoiding the application of the law to an ongoing complex case.
Despite its intent, the Act has faced numerous challenges in the Supreme Court by various parties. The Supreme Court affirmed in its 2019 Ayodhya judgment that the Places of Worship Act is intrinsically linked to the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, specifically to secularism. But lower courts have, in some instances, permitted inquiries into the religious character of sites, leading to ongoing disputes and controversies.
But the issue is not just about the Act. The preamble of the Constitution has spelt out in no uncertain terms that the foundational values of Indian state are principles of Secularism, Socialism, Republic and Democracy. The court’s decision to allow construction of the temple at the site of Babri Masjid must have made them feel “blessed”. Thus, each of the commitments made in the basic core left the question unreplied – the reason why Mohan Bhagwat feels emboldened to repeat the same act. (IPA Service)
NDA Led Bandh To Protest Rahul Gandhi’s Abuses Did Not Impact Normal Life In Bihar 