Claims have been made by lawyers representing Hindu litigants in the case of the Gyanvapi Masjid that evidence of a large temple predating the mosque has been discovered. Inscriptions and other materials suggest that a Hindu temple stood where the current mosque is located and was allegedly destroyed in the 17th century. The mosque’s custodians argue its existence dates back 600 years, with repairs noted during Akbar’s era. This finding could potentially bolster the Hindu claims in the ongoing dispute over the site in Varanasi.
The relevance of this archaeological find raises two critical questions. First, the significance of the survey vis-à-vis the 1991 Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act which safeguards the religious status of places of worship as of August 15, 1947, from alterations. Second, there’s an ongoing debate on whether or not historical and archaeological facts should be used to resolve faith-based disputes. The Ayodhya case is a precedent where the Supreme Court had to rule on a faith dispute to bring about a resolution, despite parties previously arguing for decisions rooted in faith or judicial process.
Using history and archaeology to address past grievances in India, with its layered past, poses difficult challenges. The Places of Worship Act aims to prioritize present-day prosperity over rectifying historical religious claims, but the Act itself has come under scrutiny and awaits a potential review by the Supreme Court. The court has yet to decide on the admissibility of the Gyanvapi case, while smaller judicial bodies have permitted actions that might contradict the Act’s intentions. Prompt clarification from the Supreme Court could set a clear precedent for future religious place disputes and reduce tensions which can escalate from protracted litigation.
Politically, the tide appears to have turned in favor of Hindu claims to such contested historic sites, paralleling the rise of Hindutva politics in India. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decisions on these matters hold significant implications for the nation.
According to the Archaeological Survey of India’s report, there is evidence supporting the existence of a Hindu temple preceding the Gyanvapi mosque. The findings from the survey report are not yet formally accepted as evidence until objections from the Anjuman Intezamia mosque committee are addressed and ruled upon by the court. Meanwhile, the mosque’s advocates are preparing to challenge the survey’s conclusions, which noted architectural features indicative of a Hindu temple and inscriptions that suggest the prior structure was demolished during Aurangzeb’s reign, with elements being incorporated into the later mosque.
The ASI report dives into the ‘Nature and Age’ of discovered remains, noting that a specific Arabic-Persian inscription points to the mosque being constructed in the 10th regnal year of Aurangzeb. Numerous inscriptions in Sanskrit and Dravidian found on the site indicate a timeline from the 12th to the 17th century, supporting the theory of the temple’s destruction and subsequent reuse of parts for the mosque’s construction. This assessment is a critical factor in the ongoing legal debate as petitioners seek rights to pray at a shrine located behind the mosque’s western wall, where the temple is believed to have once stood.