Revision as of 19:47, 25 June 2022

The dispute

A backgrounder

Prabhash K Dutta, May 15, 2022: The Times of India

Tracing Gyanvapi shrine's history, 4th-5th century- 1778
From: Prabhash K Dutta, May 15, 2022: The Times of India

A sketch of the temple ruins by James Prinsep, an antiquary and colonial administrator dated 1834. (Picture- Rare Book Society of India)
From:


Varanasi’s Gyanvapi shrine premises is one such emotive subject that is being debated today. This complex houses religious places of Hindus and Muslim — Gyanvapi Masjid (or, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid) which is adjacent to the famous Kashi Vishwanath temple, where resides Lord Shiva, the presiding deity of Varanasi. Behind the western wall of the Gyanvapi mosque is Shringar Gauri which houses the statues of Shringar Gauri (mother goddess), Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman and Nandi, the constant companion of Lord Shiva.

Gyanvapi masjid-Kashi Vishwanath temple complex is currently under judicial scrutiny and archaeological inspection primarily over two bunches of petitions. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), however, has nothing to do with the survey as of now. It is also not an ASI-protected site. But before we go into claims and counter-claims, let us first have a look at the history.

History behind Gyanvapi

In ancient times, temples used to be the centres of learning and culture. Kashi, as Varanasi was more famously known in earlier times, is one of the oldest cities and centres of learning. The name, Gyanvapi translates to the well of knowledge or a place of learning. There is a well on the premises.

Historians are divided on the date and the nature of the original structure at the site. But it is believed that the Gyanvapi mosque was built in 1669 during the reign of Aurangzeb, the Mughal emperor who ruled between 1658 and 1707. 
The historical debate is whether he built this mosque by demolishing an earlier temple or the two developments (demolition and construction) happened separately. The Hindu side believes that the lingam of the older temple was hidden by the priests in the well (Gyanvapi) when the structure was demolished. 
That the temple was demolished on the orders of Aurangzeb was mentioned in a 1937 book titled, History of Benares: From the Earliest Times Down to 1937 , written by AS Altekar, who was head of the Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture at Banaras Hindu University (BHU). The existing place was then called the Vishweshwar temple.

A longer history

There is another belief that the Gyanvapi site housed an ancient temple, portions of which was destroyed during the invasion by Muhammad Ghori in 1194. The ancient temple was built by one of the Vikramaditya kings.

Later in the 14th century, Jaunpur’s Sharqi sultan Muhammad Shah destroyed the temple to build the Gyanvapi mosque. The temple was reconstructed or renovated in 1585 with the permission of Mughal emperor Akbar, who was following the policy of sulah-e-kul (universal peace), by his minister Raja Todarmal. It was this temple of Lord Shiva that Aurangzeb apparently ordered to demolish. A chronicler of the time, Saqi Mustaid Khan in his Maasir-e-Alamgiri has mentioned about the temple demolition. Its translation, by historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar, shows the record of September 2, 1669, as: “It was reported that, according to the Emperor’s command, his officers had demolished the temple of Viswanath at Kashi.”

The other viewpoint is that both Kashi Vishwanath temple and the Gyanvapi mosque were constructed by Akbar as part of his experiment of religious toleration. The Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee, in-charge of the Gyanvapi mosque, has maintained this stand.

Yet another version of history says that Aurangzeb ordered demolition of the temple but the Gyanvapi mosque was built separately, and has been in use for offering namaz since 1669. The dispute over offering prayers in this contentious place of worship is not new, as seen in this TOI news report dated December 20, 1935 
 The dispute

The religious structures have stayed side-by-side since the days of Mughal decline. A legal dispute emerged in 1991 when three local residents — Harihar Pandey, Somnath Vyas and Ramrang Sharma — moved a Varanasi court seeking permission for worship in the area of the Gyanvapi mosque contending that it was the original site of Kashi Vishwanath temple.

The mosque management committee opposed the petition dismissing the claims made by the petitioners.

Later, Varanasi-based lawyer Vijay Shankar Rastogi approached the court as the “next friend” of the presiding deity of the Kashi Vishwanath temple. In legal terms, ‘next friend’ is a person who represents someone not capable of maintaining his or her suit directly in court. Petitioner and counsel Rastogi represents deity Swayambhu Jyotirling Bhagwan Vishweshwar in the case. This news report dated August 2, 1995, highlights the Hindutva brigade's interest in the Gyanvapi mosque. As a senior VHP leader, the late Ashok Singhal was instrumental in the 'kar sewak' campaign that led to the Babri Masjid demolition

It was in this case that the Varanasi court in April 2021 ordered an ASI-monitored survey of the Gyanvapi premises. The mosque committee moved the Allahabad high court against the civil court order and secured a stay on the archaeological survey of the site in September 2021.

The claim

The petitioners claimed that the Gyanvapi mosque was the original sanctum sanctorum of the original Vishweshwar temple. They cite the positioning of Nandi statue, which faces the Gyanvapi mosque, not the present Kashi Vishwanath temple.

The claim got support from historian Audrey Truschke, who in her book — Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth — writes, “My understanding is that the Gyanvapi masjid was indeed built during Aurangzeb’s reign. The masjid incorporates the old Viswanath temple structure — destroyed on Aurangzeb’s orders — as its qibla wall. While the mosque dates back to Aurangzeb’s period, we do not know who built it.”

The famed Nandi bull statue at the Kashi Vishwanath temple, which faces the Gyanvapi mosque (Pic: Wikidata) The mosque committee rejects this claim as manufactured by the petitioners and without any historical evidence.

The other case There is another case in which the Varanasi court on Thursday set May 17 as the deadline for video inspection of the Gyanvapi premises to ascertain the religious nature of the site. The mosque side had opposed videography of the survey and also sought inspection to be restricted inside the structure.

This case relates to a petition filed by five women devotees — one from Delhi, four from Varanasi — who sought permission for daily worship and performing rituals throughout the year at Shringar Gauri, which is behind the western wall of the Gyanvapi mosque.

The site currently opens for worship for the Hindus once a year on the fourth day of the Chaitra navratri (usually falls in April).


The petition was filed last year and the court had in August 2021 ordered a three-day inspection. An advocate commissioner was appointed to complete the survey, which could not happen. 
In April this year, the court appointed Ajay Mishra as the advocate commissioner for completing the survey. The mosque side opposed the inspection under Mishra’s supervision alleging that he was prejudiced against them. The attempt to film the survey created a row bringing the court in picture again.

On May 12, the Varanasi court though refused to replace Mishra as the advocate commissioner, it appointed a special advocate commissioner and an assistant advocate commissioner to oversee the survey and filming of the entire process.

What may be the outcome?

Given the emotive nature of the temple-mosque dispute in India, a law, called the Places of Worship Act, was passed in 1991 – the same year as the Gyanvapi dispute reached the court — by the then PV Narasimha Rao government. The Act says the nature of a religious structure as it existed on August 15, 1947 cannot be changed. Ayodhya’s Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute was kept out of the purview of the Act.

But the petitioners in the Gyanvapi dispute contend that the 1991 law does not apply in this case. Their argument is that the Gyanvapi structure is not a mosque. However, the Allahabad high court invoked the same law in 1993 giving relief to the mosque management committee, which had approached it against hearing on the plea made by the three petitioners in the Varanasi court. 
Many years later in 2018, the petitioners secured clearance from the Supreme Court for hearing in the Varanasi court, which began its hearing in 2019 and ordered an ASI-monitored survey in 2021. 
While the 1991 law enforces status quo at all pre-Independence places of worship, the Supreme Court in March 2021 agreed to examine the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act. An outcome of that legal scrutiny may decide what happens to the Gyanvapi dispute.

1936 case

Prabhash K Dutta, June 10, 2022: The Times of India


This case was filed by one Deen Mohammad, who in 1936 moved a local court in Varanasi (Benares), claiming that the land on which the Gyanvapi mosque stood and enclosure around it belonged to the waqf. The lower court heard the arguments, examined historical documents and dismissed the plea saying the land around the mosque was not a waqf property.


Unsatisfied, Deen Mohammad challenged the Varanasi court order in the Allahabad high court in 1937. The high court delivered its verdict in 1942. It, too, dismissed the petition ruling that the land around the mosque was not a waqf property. The basement of the mosque was also not held as a waqf property. 


The high court, however, ruled that the Muslims had the right to offer namaz at the structure of the Gyanvapi mosque, maintained by Anjuman Intejamia Masjid.


This is the part of the 1942 judgment that the Muslim side has cited in the courts now to assert that the mosque, courtyard and the land on which the mosque exists is a property of waqf. This means that the petitions by the Hindus challenging the Muslims’ rights on the Gyanvapi complex are not maintainable.

The 1942 ruling of the Allahabad high court that dealt with the ownership of the mosque and the land surrounding it

But the Hindus cite other portions of the judgment and point out that the Hindus were not impleaded in this suit.

In this debate, a question remains unanswered as to what prompted Deen Mohammad to move the court to claim title rights for the waqf over the land around the mosque? His was the first civil court case relating to the ownership of the Gyanvapi complex.

The riddle

The Allahabad high court ruling, which may be read here, gave a detailed description of the nature of dispute at the Gyanvapi complex. The court judgment talks about the dispute over the ownership and the right to worship and congregation at the Gyanvapi complex.

But the judge says, “I do not think it is necessary to go into the question of the origin of the mosque. It is sufficient to go back to the year 1809, when there was a serious riot between Hindus and Musalmans in that part of Benares where the mosque is situated.” These riots were related to the possession of the entire Gyanvapi structure.

The high court notes that the magistrate of Benares in 1809 and the acting magistrate in 1810 “had suggested that the Musalmans should be absolutely excluded from the mosque”. However, the British India government (Vice-President on the Council of Governor General of India) “disapproved of the suggestion” basing its opinion “on the obvious expediency” of maintaining public tranquility by not stoking “jealousy and discontent” among Hindus and Muslims.

The Allahabad high court judgment provides details of a number of administrative orders through the 19th century and the early 20th century – during which several attempts were made by both the Hindus and Muslims to take control of the entire enclosure around the Gyanvapi mosque.

On the basis of administrative inquiries and orders, the high court ruled that though the entire complex was not a waqf property, the Muslims congregated in large numbers at the mosque overflowing onto the adjoining enclosure particularly after 1929-30 to “establish some kind of claim over this land” despite orders to restrict their congregation within the mosque area. 


It was against this background that Deen Mohammad moved his petition to claim the Gyanvapi complex as a waqf property. He sought exclusive rights of the Muslims on the entire Gyanvapi complex. 


But, if it is decided that the mosque is the property of the waqf, what is the dispute now? 


What is brewing now? 


The 1991 case, the 2021 Shringar Gauri suit and the petition against the Places of Worship Act taken together may have a bearing on the ownership of the mosque structure. 
 As of now, the mosque and the wazukhana (the area used for washing up before offering namaz) belong to the waqf. It was in this wazukhana area that the shivling was reportedly found by the court-appointed team that conducted a video-survey of the premises in May.


In the 1937 case, the Allahabad high court did not go into the origin of the dispute and hence, it did not settle the question whether the mosque structure originally belonged to the Hindus or the Muslims. This is the question that is now being debated in the courts in the two bunches of petitions directly linked to the Gyanvapi dispute.

As in 2021 April

Gyanwapi mosque- Kashi Vishwanath temple- First petition filed in 1991 seeking nod to worship
From: Binay Singh, April 9, 2021: The Times of India

Uttar Pradesh: ASI probe ordered into Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanwapi mosque dispute

Binay Singh| TNN | Updated: Apr 8, 2021, 23:26 IST

The judge asked the Uttar Pradesh government to get examined the disputed premises by a five-member team of the Archaeological Survey of India. (File Photo)

1991- 2020

In 1991, the first petition was filed in Varanasi civil seeking permission for worship in Gyanvapi. The petitioner had contended that Kashi Vishwanath Temple was built by Maharaja Vikramaditya about 2,050 years ago, but Mughal emperor Aurangzeb destroyed the temple in 1664 and used its remains to construct a mosque, which is known as Gyanvapi masjid, on a portion of the temple land.

In 1998, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee moved the high court contending the mandir-masjid dispute could not be adjudicated by a civil court as it was barred by law. The high court then stayed the proceedings in lower court . In February 2020, the petitioners approached the lower court again to resume hearing as the HC had not extended the stay in the preceding six month

Advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi, as the ‘next friend’ of Swayambhu Jyotirlinga Bhagwan Vishweshwar, had filed an application in the court of civil judge in December 2019, requesting for survey of the entire Gyanvapi compound by the ASI. He also demanded the restoration of the land on which the mosque stood to the Hindus claiming that Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb had pulled down parts of the old Kashi Vishwanath Temple to build it.

In January 2020, defendant Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee filed an objection against the petition.

The petitioner had requested the court to issue directions for removal of the mosque from temple land and give back its possession to the temple trust. The petition contended that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act was not applicable on the suit as the mosque was constructed over a partly demolished temple and many parts of the temple exist even today.

2021

VARANASI: A local court of civil judge on Thursday allowed a survey of entire Gyanvapi mosque complex, adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath temple, by the Archaeological Survey of India to find out 'whether the religious structure standing at the present and disputed site is a superimposition, alteration or addition, or there is structural overlapping of any kind.

In its order, the court of civil judge (senior division), fast track, Ashutosh Tiwai, directed the ASI director general to constitute a five-member committee of eminent persons who are experts and well-versed in the science of archaeology, two of which should preferably belong to the minority community.

The committee shall trace whether any temple belonging to the Hindu community ever existed before the mosque in question was built or superimposed or added upon it at the disputed site, the order said.

In its order, the court also directed the DG to appoint an eminent and highly experienced person, who can be regarded as expert in the science of archaeology, to act as observer.

“Such person should preferably be a scholarly personality and established academician of any central university,” it said.

The five-member committee shall submit a report of its survey work to the observer on a daily basis.

The court further said the committee shall prepare comprehensive documentation along with the drawing, plan, elevation, site map with precise breadth and width of the disputed site, marked with hatched lines in the plaint map.

“The purpose of the archaeological survey shall be to find out as to whether the religious structure standing at the present and disputed site is a superimposition, alteration or addition or there is structural overlapping of any kind. If so, then what exactly is the age, size, monumental and architectural design or style of the religious structure, and what material has been used for building the same,” the court said.

For that purpose, the committee shall be entitled to enter into every portion of the religious structure, the order said.

The committee shall firstly resort to Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) or Geo-Radiology System or both to satisfy itself as to whether any excavation or extraction work is needed in any portion. The excavation should be done by trial trench method vertically on a very small scale, and horizontal excavation shall be done only when the committee is fully satisfied of being able to reach a more concrete conclusion regarding the archaeological remains below the ground.

YEAR-WISE DEVELOPMENTS

2021: Hindus, Muslims exchange land for Dham

Binay Singh, July 24, 2021: The Times of India

Just before the beginning of the holy month of Shravan, Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust (SKVTT) and the administration of the adjacent Gyanvapi mosque have entered a deal to exchange lands to facilitate the construction of the proposed Kashi Vishwanath Dham.

While the Gyanvapi adminitration is giving a piece of land measuring 1,700 squarefeet, for the development of Kashi Vishwanath Dham (corridor), the temple administration has given a piece of land measuring 1,000 square-feet to the Muslim community. The deal between the two parties was finalised on July 9.

However, the dispute between Kashi Vishwanath Temple (KVT) and Gyanvapi mosque regarding the survey of the entire premises by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to find out whether a temple existed in place of the mosque is still in the court.

The exchange deal was signed by chief executive officer (CEO) of Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust, Sunil Kumar Verma, on behalf of the UP governor and Abdul Batin Nomani of the Anjuman Intezamiya Masajid, the management committee of the mosque.

Talking to TOI on Friday, divisional commissioner Deepak Agrawal said, “The property given by the Muslim side was owned by the Waqf Board and the Gyanvapi-KVT control room was situated on this land. Since the land was needed for the development of Kashi Vishwanath Dham, we offered a piece of land to them (Muslim community).”

Kashi Vishwanath Corridor

2018: 43 hidden temples discovered

Rajeev Dikshit, Lost and found: Varanasi temple route gets longer, November 28, 2018: The Times of India

One of the 43 hidden temples discovered in the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor in 2018.
From: Rajeev Dikshit, Lost and found: Varanasi temple route gets longer, November 28, 2018: The Times of India

In April, when hundreds of houses were demolished in Varanasi to build a corridor between Kashi Vishwanath temple and the Ganga ghats, both the administration and experts had not expected to come upon a trove of architectural marvels so rich. Seven months into the project, so many 18th century temples — several in immaculate condition — have been found in the bylanes of the holy city that the authorities are now planning to throw them open for worship once again.

Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has already identified 43 of them for prayer and preservation. These will be made part of the larger Kashi Vishwanath pilgrimage route.

The finds have been considered so valuable that the detailed project report of the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor (KVC) project has been amended to include these temples. “Our team is preparing a list of these structures with their architectural details in order to finalise a conservation plan,” said Niraj Sinha, in-charge of ASI’s Varanasi office. After a conservation plan is finalised, the temples will be opened for the public to conduct rituals and worship, a senior Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust official said.

Work on the KVC project had begun earlier this year. The biggest hurdles for the corridor were the houses on the narrow lanes leading from the temple to the river. Approximately 296 private residences and commercial buildings were identified for demolition.

While a few old temples were found in the first round of the demolition drive, their number surged in the second round, which started in November. Most of these have been identified as 18th century temples. Inside dingy houses, buried under layers of concrete and plaster are beautiful brick and stone temples. One of the temples had been covered up for a house and had a toilet built on top of its ‘shikhara’ (pinnacle).

Shringar Gauri 

The case: 1984- 2022

Rajeev Dikshit, May 23, 2022: The Times of India

Varanasi:The genesis of the Shringar Gauri worship case that has spawned a welter of legal and other complexities goes back 38 years, long before the five women plaintiffs approached a Varanasi court in April last year seeking the right to unhindered worship of the goddess and other deities along the outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque complex.


Among those at the vanguard of the campaign from the start is Sohan Lal Arya, vicepresident of VHP’s Kashi chapter and husband of one of the plaintiffs, Laxmi Devi. “I was inspired by the late Mahant Paramhans Das’s role in placing Ram Lalla under the central dome at Ram Janmabhoomi, and started looking for ways to resume worship of deities at the mosque complex,” he said.


Clarifying that VHP had no role in the case, Arya said, “In 1984, I started meeting people who I presumed could help collect facts to start court proceedings. But that didn’t work out. Finally, I met a senior shastri of the Vedic study centre, who told me about the ground realities of the Gyanvapi complex”.

Temples in the nagara style of architecture have eight mandaps — Ganesha, Aishwarya, Bhairav, Gyan, Tarkeshwar, Mukti, Dandapani and Shringar, Arya said. “When the Aadi Vishweshwar temple was attacked by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in 1669, he destroyed the Aishwarya and Mukti mandaps along with the sanctum sanctorum of the temple to build a mosque. ”

The Ganesh, Shringar and Dandapani mandaps in the west and the Bhairav, Gyan and Tarkeshwar mandaps could not be destroyed, Arya said.

“In 1995, a petition was filed in the district court with the same demands. The court also appointed a commission, which surveyed the outer area in May 1996. But the survey of the internal area of Gyanvapi could not be done due to protests. ”

Arya was in Mathura in 2018-19 when he met Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh (VVSS) chief Jitendra Singh Visen, who happened to know advocates Hari Shankar Jain and his son Vishnu Shankar Jain

Visen’s niece Rakhi Singh, Arya’s wife Laxmi Devi and Varanasi natives Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak filed a petition in the court of the civil judge last year, seeking permission for daily worship of Shringar Gauri, Ganesh, Hanuman and Nandi, besides steps to prevent damage to the idols.