THE CONTROVERSY
Though there is broad historical consensus that Aurangzeb had in 1669 ordered the dismantling of Varanasi’s famed Vishweshwara temple—not only had the Mughal emperor left a wall of the old mandir standing, it was on the plinth of the Vishweshwara that the Gyanvapi mosque was built. It seems strange that despite glaring evidence, we’re still asking if Gyanvapi was once Vishweshwara.
Since Gyanvapi’s geography has long been sacred to two religions, people of Varanasi did not find peculiar the fact that, for centuries, Hindu women would walk to the masjid’s western wall on the Chaturthi (fourth day) of every Chaitri Navratri to worship the goddess Shringar Gauri. But on August 18 last year, when a group of five women petitioned a local court, asking that they be given access to the Shringar Gauri shrine all year round, the devotees set in motion a chain of events. Once the Varanasi court ordered a survey of Gyanvapi’s premises—the petitioners had said they wanted to pray to all “visible and invisible deities within the old temple complex”—there was fear that Varanasi’s religious harmony would be threatened.
“Wherever we file a case— Mathura, Kashi, Taj Mahal…we will get positive results,” says Jitendra Singh Bisen of Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh
On May 16, the last day of the court-mandated survey, the team of Hindu litigants and lawyers claimed they had found within Gyanvapi’s wuzu-khana a shivalinga. Though the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM), Gyanvapi’s caretaker committee, insisted that a defunct fountain was being mistaken for a lingam, the Supreme Court ordered that the area where the purported shivalinga was found be protected. By ensuring that namaz in Gyanvapi could be offered without any interruption, the SC sought to “balance the rights of contesting parties” in its May 17 order. On May 20, the SC transferred the Gyanvapi suit to the court of a district judge, saying it needed the attention of a more senior judicial officer. With the case slated to be heard on July 4, tensions are expected to simmer.
WHO’S BEHIND IT
The five plaintiffs claim it was their piety that brought them together, but representing them in court is Hari Shankar Jain, a Lucknow-based lawyer who is trying hard to reclaim what he maintains are ‘Hindu’ sites—the Taj Mahal, the Qutub Minar, the Shahi Idgah in Mathura, amongst others. President of the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, Jitendra Singh Bisen often speaks on behalf of Rakhi Singh, the main plaintiff in the Shringar Gauri case. In May, he told a press conference, “We didn’t file any of these cases thinking they will drag on for 500 years. No matter where we file a case—Mathura, Kashi, Qutub Minar, Taj Mahal—you’ll see that we get positive results within our lifetimes.”
COVER STORY | The Mandir Wapsi movement
WHERE IT’S HEADED
While AIM’s lawyers cite the Places of Worship act often—on May 30, they told the district judge in Varanasi that the Act bars Hindus from praying inside Gyanvapi—petitions challenging the masjid’s authority are being admitted by local courts. On May 24, for instance, a certain Kiran Singh moved a Varanasi court on behalf of ‘Lord Aadi Vishweshwara Viraajman’, asking that Gyanvapi be removed from its present location. S.M. Yaseen, AIM general secretary, says it is defending itself against eight such petitions.