Sita Sahu, one of the women petitioners in the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath Mandir title dispute case, has been very busy. If not court hearings or media interviews, Sahu is busy attending functions where the four women petitioners are being felicitated for their plea seeking permission to pray at the shrine of Goddess Maa Shringar Gauri which allegedly abuts the Gyanvapi Mosque in the Kashi Vishwanath Temple complex.
Since the time the petitions were filed in August 2021, Sahu has become the talk of the town. The devout and the pious are often seen bowing to the women in reverence and touching their feet in respect. Sahu is known as that "Gyanvapi mandir wali" and locals are quick to guide lost reporters to her house.
"You must've seen the 'temple' when you visited," Sahu asked this reporter. "Woh Gyanvapi Masjid nahi, Gyanvapi mandir hai (That's not Gyanvapi Masjid, it is Gyanvapi temple)," Sahu said.
During her interviews, the 44-year-old homemaker takes every chance to correct anyone who refers to the contentious religious structure as a mosque. "It is a temple," she asserted.
Also Read: India Accuses US Of Practising "Vote-Bank Politics" In Response To Minority Report
The decades-long Gyanvapi row debate is about whether a mosque used to be a temple. While Hindu devotees believe 17th Century Mughal Emperor Aurangazeb razed the temple dedicated to Lord Shiva to the ground and built a mosque in its place, Muslims assert that the Alamgiri Mosque—more popularly known as the Gyanvapi Mosque—was built by Aurangzeb's predecessor Akbar to commemorate the more tolerant Din-i Ilahi faith he propagated. Aurangazeb, who rejected this 'heretical' school of thought, renovated the mosque to reflect Islam, they say.
The petitioners and the residents of Varanasi have been on edge; the issue got plenty of attention bringing the media and politicians to the holy city. So when the district and civil court judges on May 30 adjourned the hearings in the Gyanvapi row till July, everyone heaved a sigh of relief. And just like that, the media frenzy that kicked off at the beginning of May when the hearings began, fizzled out.
The petitioners, on both sides, have decided to take the time to rest.
Two days after the court hearing, Sahu sat with her three daughters and a niece catching up. Two of her three daughters live away from home; they have come to visit her.
Also Read: Qutub Minar: Is Right to Worship A Fundamental Right? Delhi Court Asks
The issues surrounding the Gyanvapi row are three-fold. Harihar Pandey, along with Pandit Som Vyas, Ramrang Sharma and the deity Lord Adi Visheshwar through his 'friend' advocate VS Rastogi filed a plea in October 1991 seeking to reclaim the land on which the Gyanvapi Mosque is built.
A second plea was filed in August 2021 by five women devotees— Rakhi Singh, Rekha Pathak, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Laxmi Devi. They sought permission to offer prayers at the shrine devoted to Maa Shringar Gauri which is in the mosque complex.
Lastly, Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh (VVSS) chief Jitendra Singh Vishen has sought a ban on the entry of Muslims into the Gyanvapi mosque.
"I am going to completely rest now," said Sohan Lal Arya, one of the Hindu petitioners in the case. Chalking out his plans for the next two days, he said he is meeting foreign journalists for interviews. "We are taking a complete break till July. We all need it," said advocate Vishnu Jain.
The district and civil courts have offered a reprieve, for now, but the issue is far from over. Supreme Court advocate Hari Shankar Jain and his son Vishnu, who are backing most of the pleas in the Gyanvapi row, have also filed similar pleas in different courts across the country seeking to reclaim land on which mosques were built. The father-son duo have filed fresh pleas seeking the removal of Mathura's Shahi Idgah; the Teeley Wali masjid in Lucknow and more recently the Qutub Minar in New Delhi among others.
Recently, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat said there was no need to look for 'shivlings' in mosque. But the mandir-masjid row has spread to different parts of the country. On Saturday, violence erupted in Srirangapatna in Karnataka and Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh with Hindu devotees insisting that temples were razed to build mosques.
Sahu, one of the petitioners, claimed that she saw motifs and carvings that characterize Hindu temples when she saw the 'temple' from inside when she went in with the court-appointed survey team. She referred to the leaked video of the survey to assert the claim.
Also Read: Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath Temple Dispute: All You Need To Know
A timeline of the original petition and the twists and turns in between
The Gyanvapi row dates back to 1991 when locals moved the Varanasi court saying Mughal emperor Aurangazeb built a mosque after demolishing a part of the Kashi Vishwanath temple in 1669. They demanded that the mosque be removed and the land be given to the Hindus. They also sought permission to worship in the Gyanvapi Masjid area. The matter didn't gain momentum and the hearing was suspended in 1998 by the Allahabad High Court.
1998 - The high court stayed the hearings pertaining to the Gyanvapi Row on a plea filed by Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee on the grounds that the law barred a civil court from adjudicating on the temple-mosque title dispute.
2019 - 20 years later, the case got a second lease of life in March when the Supreme Court ruled that a court's stay order on proceedings cannot exceed six months. Months later, advocate VS Rastogi one of the five petitioners from the 1991 case filed a plea on behalf of Swayambhu Jyotirlinga Bhagwan Vishweshwar seeking an archaeological survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque complex. The mosque committee opposed this plea.
2021 - In April 2021, Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ashutosh Tiwari directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a comprehensive physical survey to ascertain whether the Gyanvapi Mosque was "superimposition, alteration or addition or there is structural overlapping of any kind, with or over, any other religious structure".
Allahabad High Court in September 2021 stayed the ASI survey order and expressed its regret that the lower court judge "departed from this traditional way" in the present case and chose to examine the question himself.
2022 - The Varanasi civil court will now hear this matter on July 8.
Apart from the judicial delay, the case has undergone several twists and turns. Of the five original petitioners, only three remain: Harihar Pandey, the deity Lord Adi Visheswar and his representative advocate VS Rastogi. In recent times, however, Pandey and Rastogi have had a falling out; each has filed independent pleas in connection with the August 2021 matter filed by the five women.
Also Read: Explained: The Places Of Worship Act And Pleas Around It
The Identical Petitions
Even as the 1991 plea fell victim to judicial delays, the Gyanvapi row got fresh impetus and attention only after August 2021 when five women—now four—filed their plea in a Varanasi district court seeking permission to worship Hindu deities like Hanuman, Nandi and Maa Shringar Gauri inside the mosque.
Since August 2021, at least 12 new pleas—with more or less identical prayers—have been filed before the district and sessions judge, including Sudarshan TV's Editor-in-Chief Suresh Chavhanke who is standing in for Maa Ganga and serial public interest litigator Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
Harihar Pandey, one of the petitioners in the 1991 matter, has also filed a fresh petition seeking to implead himself in the August 2021 matter. Apart from the usual plea seeking permission to pray, he planned to file a connected plea seeking directions to get the Gyanvapi 'temple' cleaned. "Our gods and goddesses are lying in filth. The temple is kept in a deplorable condition and at least 50 trucks worth of malba (debris) has been collecting there over the years," Pandey said.
In April 2022, a district court judge appointed a court commissioner and directed him to conduct a videographic survey of the disputed portion of the mosque. Several leaked videos of the survey claimed the discovery of a "swayambhu shivling" (a shivling that appears on its own).
In May 2022, Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh (VVSS) chief Jitendra Singh Vishen filed a separate plea before a Varanasi civil court seeking a ban on the entry of Muslims into the Gyanvapi mosque; a relocation of the mosque to a different site; and interim relief seeking permission to enter a portion of the mosque to pray at the alleged "shivling" that was discovered during the court-ordered survey of the premises.
Also Read: Who Built The Qutub Minar? A New Fight Over History
While the 1991 petition is a comprehensive plea seeking to reclaim the land on behalf of the deity Lord Adi Visheswara, the new petitions filed since August 2021 are piecemeal requests asking for the same thing. "It is a strategy we have employed," Hindu petitioner Sohan Lal Arya tells BOOM. "Yeh andolan ko garmane ka pehlu hai (this is a strategy employed to keep the issue burning alive)," Arya said as he waited at his lawyer Sudhir Tripathi's makeshift office under a yellow tarpaulin at the sprawling district court complex in Varanasi in between hearings.
"We will be filing many more pleas on behalf of more people in the day to come," Arya added.
Though there are multiple actors in this suit, the majority of the pleas have been drafted or are backed by Delhi-based advocate Hari Shankar Jain and his son Vishnu. The 68-year-old advocate and his 34-year-old son are collectively representing the pleas filed by Hindu petitioners.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad—an ultra-right-wing outfit—is officially distanced from these hearings. However, representatives from the local shakhas are present on all court dates and are seen offering sage advice. "Officially, we are taking a break from andolan for other temples," a local VHP representative told BOOM. "We will not take up any other issues till the Ram Janmabhoomi is not built," he added.
On June 1, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath laid the foundation stone for the 'garbagriha' and participated in the religious ceremony that marked the construction of the Ram Mandir's sanctum sanctorum.
Also Read: 'I Skipped School': How Right Wing Groups Mobilised Qutub Minar Protest
"I Saw Idols Through The Light Of My Torch"
Harihar Pandey, the first petitioner in the case, has a tale of how he discovered evidence of the mosque being a temple. Pandey claimed he disguised himself as a Muslim devotee and sneaked inside the mosque post-midnight. This was in 1991.
Pandey, who calls himself 'anti-Muslim', says his lone Muslim friend helped sneak him in. The friend also helped Pandey with appropriate clothes like a white kurta, salwar (which ended above the ankles) and a skull cap; and a torch. "I slipped inside the mosque during a power outage and over the course of two hours, I saw that the area was everything a Hindu temple should be. I saw idols carved inside the stone through the light of my powerful torch," he added.
His eyewitness account helped his advocates draft a 'solid' plea which has remained unchallenged, Pandey said. "The 91 petition we filed is one of the most comprehensive and no one can challenge it," he added.
Sitting in his living room, Pandey narrated the history of the Gyanvapi 'temple' and how his mother inspired him to enter the fray. "God-willing the mosque will be demolished while I am still alive, and a temple will be built in its place. If not, then my heirs are willing to carry on the fight," Pandey said.
Pandey insists this is not a fight between religions. "Hindu ek dharam hai, aur Islam ek Mazhab. Isko kaise compare kar sakte hai (Hindu is a Dharam, and Islam is a sect. One cannot compare the two)," he said. Experts believe dharma is not a religion, rather it is a part of one. It represents duty, righteousness or honour. Mazhab, on the other hand, is largely considered to be a school of thought. "Christianity is also a mazhab," Pandey added.
"The Gyanvapi temple predates the arrival of goddess Ganga. Lord Shiva gave knowledge to his wife Ma Parvati and thus, this area is named 'Gyanvapi'", Pandey said.
Also Read: Do Deities Have Rights? All You Need To Know
"Outsiders trying to break Hindu-Muslim harmony"
Syed Mohammed Yasin, as the joint secretary of the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid committee (the Gyanvapi mosque committee), has been representing the mosque committee in all pleas since 1991. While the Hindu petitioners are excited and more than willing to speak to the media, Yasin sahab, as he is popularly called, needs slight cajoling.
On a muggy June afternoon, Yasin can be found at his desk in the wood factory. He appears unflappable and unperturbed with the disruption the case may have caused in his personal life.
Yasin believes the petitions filed in August 2021 and all those that followed are the work of outsiders. "The court was already dealing with this issue since 1991," Yasin explained. The new pleas smack of political agenda, he added. "Outsiders have come in and fronted locals. It is these outsiders who are ruining the atmosphere," he said.
Is there a concern that the Gyanvapi Mosque may go the way Babri Masjid did in 1992? "No," Yasin replied. "Locally, I don't believe the situation has changed much despite the efforts of the outsiders to spoil the atmosphere, he added.
Yasin explains that legally their position is strong. He pointed out that several legal factors will play in his favour, starting with the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
In fact, the October 1991 petition led by Harihar Pandey was filed a month after the parliament passed the Places of Worship Act. In 1991 when religious fervour had gripped the country following Ayodhya's Babri Masjid dispute, seers and the VHP had laid claim to the Gyanvapi Mosque and Shahi Idgah. Against this backdrop, the PV Narasimha Rao government passed the PWA that froze the religious character of a structure as it was on August 15, 1947. Ayodhya was the sole exception.
The Muslim side has told the court that the Places of Worship Act applies and thus the petition seeking the removal of the Gyanvapi mosque is not maintainable.
If that argument fails, Yasin said a 1936 civil court order will apply.
In 1936, when the Britishers banned namaz at the Gyanvapi Mosque, Muslims went to court in protest. A civil judge ruled that the Mosque and the courtyard within the land belonged to the Wakf. The High Court in 1941 upheld this order.
"So even if the court's interpretation of the Places of Worship Act goes against us, the courts cannot overlook this 1936 order," Yasin said.
However, Yasin agrees that the leaked video of the survey is concerning. "The courts must take cognisanze of this lapse. If they fail to do the same, then we will file a petition," he said. The Muslim side has been opposing video surveys on the grounds that it will become a security threat. In 1993, the entire area surrounding the mosque was declared a red zone (prohibited zone). Varanasi's District Magistrate and Uttar Pradesh Home Secretary had filed an affidavit assuring the court that they would maintain the sanctity of the structure. "We fear, with this leak the security has been hampered Yasin said.
Imitiaz Ahmed, who looks after the fountain—which the Hindus believe is actually a 'shivling'—is also present. He asserts that the fawwara (fountain) is made of concrete dated 1840, and is not a 'shivling'.
Though the heatwave remains, the Gyanvapi fervour in Varanasi is on a temporary break with the potential to return in July when the hearings resume.
Also Read: Case Filed On Behalf Of Lord Krishna Against Shahi Idgah In Mathura