NEW DELHI: The temple-mosque disputes witnessed a rise in Uttar Pradesh following the consecration of the Ram temple in Ayodhya on January 22, 2024, as reported by PTI.
These tensions culminated in Sambhal, where four people were killed during a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, which Hindu groups asserted stood on the site of an ancient temple.
Here’s a look at all the disputes:
Sambhal
Sambhal has been at the center of controversy since November 19, when a court-ordered survey of a Mughal-era mosque was conducted following claims that the site was once home to a Harihar temple.Tensions escalated during a second survey on November 24, leading to violent clashes between protesters and security forces near the Shahi Jama Masjid. The unrest resulted in four deaths and several injuries.
Justice (retired) DP Singh criticized the magistrate’s decision to order the survey in Sambhal, stating that it was against the spirit of the law.
Speaking to PTI, he said, “The ordering of the survey in Sambhal by the magistrate was against the spirit of law. The magistrate should have issued a notice to the state and the mosque, and thereafter, the lawyers or the court ameens should have been appointed for the survey work. There was no urgency.”
Differing from Singh’s stance, an advocate of Allahabad high court Ankur Saxena said, “Sooner or later, this facade and burden of secularism, which we have carried had to break at some point of time. Satyamev Jayate (Truth alone triumphs). The problem in my mind is the appeasement policy adopted by previous governments.”
Budaun
A Hindu organization approached a local court seeking permission to offer prayers at Jama Masjid Shamsi, asserting that the site was originally a temple.
The court has directed the Muslim side to conclude their arguments by December 10.
The dispute dates back to 2022, when Mukesh Patel, the former convener of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, claimed that a Neelkanth Mahadev temple once stood at the location of the mosque.
Varanasi
In the ongoing Gyanvapi case, Hindus assert that a temple once stood at the site, which was demolished in the 17th century by order of Emperor Aurangzeb.
Madan Mohan Yadav, the lawyer representing the Hindu side, said that the Gyanvapi temple, also known as the Adi Visheshwar Kashi Vishwanath Jyotirling, was destroyed on April 18, 1679.
Yadav referenced a diary by Aurangzeb’s secretary, Wazir Saqi Mustaid Khan, which documents this event and is preserved in the Asiatic Society in Kolkata.
Mathura
The Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura centers on the Shahi Idgah mosque, constructed during Aurangzeb’s reign. It is alleged that the mosque was built after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna.
However, the Muslim side, including the management committee of the Shahi Idgah and the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, has opposed the claim on various grounds.
Lucknow
In Lucknow, on February 28, the additional district judge dismissed a revision plea that challenged a lower court’s decision rejecting an objection against a civil suit.
The suit had sought the right to worship at Laxman Teela, where the Teelewali Masjid is located.
The Hindu side claims that a temple dedicated to Shesh Nagesh Teeleshwar Mahadev is situated near the mosque.
Baghpat
In February, a court in Baghpat dismissed a long-standing petition filed by the Muslim side regarding a disputed site that Hindu devotees believe to be the Mahabharat-era “Lakshagriha.”
The petitioners had argued that the site was a graveyard and the dargah of Sufi saint Sheikh Badruddin. However, civil judge junior division Shivam Dwivedi ruled that there was neither a graveyard nor a dargah at the site in Barnawa, as confirmed by Ranveer Singh Tomar, the lawyer representing the respondents.
Jaunpur
A court, on December 16, postponed its decision on the survey of Atala Masjid until March 2, following the Supreme Court’s directive for all courts to refrain from passing orders in cases involving religious sites under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
The case was filed by Santosh Kumar Mishra, president of the Swaraj Vahini Association (SVA), who is seeking to have the “disputed” property recognized as the ‘Atala Devi Mandir’ and for followers of the Sanatan religion to be granted the right to worship at the site.
