Should righting historical wrongs take centre-stage?

Rev. M A Sherring in his book, 'The Sacred City of Hindus: An account of Benaras in Ancient and Modern Times,' published in 1868, refers to a census conducted by James Prinsep and puts the total number of temples in the city to be around 1,000 during the 1830s. He writes: "The history of a country is sometimes epitomised in the history of one of its principal cities. The city of Benaras represents India religiously and intellectually, just as Paris represents the political sentiments of France. There are few cities in the world of greater antiquity, and none that have so uninterruptedly maintained their ancient celebrity and distinction.

Author Mark Twain wrote in 1897 of Varanasi: "Benares is older than history, older than tradition, older even than legend, and looks twice as old as all of them put together." That is the respect that Kashi/Benares commanded always from visitors and locals. Kashi is the ultimate 'Moksha Sthali' and every inch of the Mother Earth there has the capacity to bestow liberation on our souls, Hindus always believed in it thus.

This city is not only ancient and spiritual and is treated as the Lord Shiva's own playground, but also faced several onslaughts in the past. This is the city mentioned in the ancient Hindu text 'Garuda Purana' (Chapter XVL) along with Ayodhyā, Mathurā, Gayā, Kañchi, Avantikā, Dwārāvatī as the seven cities known as the givers of liberation.

Anyway, there is too much history and antiquity to deal with. But there is news of the city, nowadays, for all the wrong reasons. 'Gyanvapi,' the pond or well of knowledge, in itself speaks volumes about its identity.

So, why is there a dispute now?

Former Congress Minister Salman Khurshid in his 'Sunrise over Ayodhya: Nationhood in Our Times' has been truthful for once. In one of the chapters on Kashi, he details how 'Gyanvapi' Mandir had been destroyed and it got converted into a mosque. The Millat Council was more forthright, perhaps in saying: "Temples were not destroyed. They were converted into mosques by the devout."

The arguments over whether what is said to be a Shivling inside the complex now or a water fountain is almost irrelevant. Maybe for technicalities and legalities, it is required in argument. Collective conscience tells us that it was a temple once like many others that had been converted in the country under the Muslim rule.

The question, however, is not about "what it was once and what it is now." AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi in one of his interviews to an English language channel admitted it was one of the historical wrongs. But, people should leave it at that because of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Some other Muslim leaders have also gone ahead to mouth warnings to the nation that they would not mind giving a 'qurbani' with their life and have asked all Muslims of the country to be prepared to defend their mosques.

That is of concern now. Where would all this lead to in the near future? Will this country be pushed into an uncertainty of law and order by such divisive forces seeking to establish their supremacy at all the holy places?

Several Acts are being questioned in the court of law and what is wrong with this one? Let the courts decide. It is not that the Bill to introduce the Places of Worship Act was not debated. But if we go through the Parliamentary debate, we will understand that there was a certain haste in thrusting the opinion of some leaders on the nation.

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 ACT NO. 42 OF 1991 [18th September, 1991], was an Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental there to. It says "No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof." The Act, however, was not to apply to Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid.

No doubt, the Act was passed. But an intense debate ensued in which Uma Bharati, an MP then, kept asking whether dialogue was a better way to resolve the dispute. She said she was happy at keeping out the Ram Janmabhoomi issue in the Act, yet sought to know the fate of Gyanvapi which she had visited a few days before the parliament session. Why did Aurangzeb allow the remnants of the temple below the mosque to remain, she pointed out and asked: "Was not the intention of...behind leaving...to keep reminding Hindus of their historical fate and to remind coming generations of Muslims of their past glory and power?"

She warned the House debating the issue that such damaged temples would keep Hindus simmering and a different solution should be sought. THE MOST PERTINENT QUESTION ASKED BY HER REMAINS UNANSWERED TILL DATE. AND IT WAS: HAS RELIGION INTERFERED WITH POLITICS HERE OR IS IT THE POLITICS THAT HAS INTERFERED WITH THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS?

Ram Vilas Paswan argued that religion was being misused to harm the country. The tolerance and communal harmony shown by the ancient Indian Rishis was no more to be seen, he said. This sounds a bit strange. Ancient Rishis and religious harmony? What did he mean? He went on to regret that everyone says: "Garva se kaho, hum Hindu hain'. Garva se bolo, hum Musalman hain'. 'Garva se bolo, hum Sikh hain'. but where is that soul-stirring slogan of 'Garva se kaho hum Bhartiya hain:? We are first Indians..."

He went ahead and urged the members to understand international repercussions on Hindus if non-Hindu religious places were to be uprooted or demolished. Supporting the Bill, he said the country had to curb the growing communalism. India belonged to all and everyone's religion had to be respected.

Mani Shankar Aiyar, a Congress MP, preferring to speak in English at this juncture, hoped that the BJP members in the House would understand him. On being told that they would, he added "hope they understand as much the Indian culture, too." He said, "if I say India is the first Hindu country in the world, then I would also say, India is the second Muslim country in the world. After Indonesia, the Muslim population in our country is far more than their population in any other country which includes all the Gulf countries from Iran to Morocco – Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Libiya, Algeria, Morocco etc. Please count all these, The Muslim population in these countries is less than the Muslim population in India.

"What I mean to say is that as we cannot think of India without Islam, in the same way we cannot think of Islam without India. Islam and India are linked in the same way as both myself and Uma Bhartiji have links with humanity.

"Sir, since I am a Member from Tamil Nadu, I do not know that Hinduism which is called Sanatan Dharm was perhaps brought to India by the Aryans some 5, 6 or 7 thousand years ago. They came here after crossing the Hindukush. After coming here they adopted the Dravida culture and especially worshipped Lord Shiva. They linked the worship of Shiva with Sanatan Dharm. What were the results? It is there in Indian History. Then the first synthesis of Indian culture was done. As a result of that synthesis with Dravid civilization, its language and religion, the Sanathan Dharm, is surviving in this country even after several thousands of years.

"There is no Hindu in Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria. Hitler used to say in Germany that they were Aryans. Even there too, there is no Hindu...the Bharatiya Janata Party wants to impose the Hindu religion today. We are surviving here because we have always asserted that we will keep our mind open. All of our windows will remain open and our doors will remain open to all. We have full confidence in ourselves. We will accept any influence from outside if it is good, but we can not admit if it has any flaw.

"Lord Buddha and Mahavir Jain were born in this country. They were so much disillusioned with the Hindu religion that they pronounced to evolve a new religion. What did the Hindus do? They adopted the philosophy of Lord Buddha and Mahavir, why did we adopt it? When Jesus Christ died as a martyr, he had his 12 followers who are called 12 apostles. St. Peter journeyed towards Rome and St. Thomas came to India. St. Thomas visited India before St. Peter reached Rome. The oldest church of the world is in India. This church in India is older than that of the Catholics church in Rome. The present form of Hinduism was introduced by Adi Sankaracharya."

Ghulam Nabi Azad intervenes after sometime to state that one should accept that Hindu fundamentalism, Sikh fundamentalism and Islam fundamentalism all exist in the country.

Several of these leaders supporting the Bill cautioned the country against the spike in the feelings of fundamentalism. But the BJP leaders were steadfast in their opposition to the Bill, warning the Parliament of the consequences of ignoring the historical wrongs.

The fresh litigations to claim ownership and prayer rights at historical sites of Gyanvapi Masjid at Varanasi and of Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Masjid in Mathura by Hindu parties have brought the limelight back to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, which was framed to put a closure on all such disputes over religious places by maintaining the position as existed on August 15, 1947. There are multiple petitions before the court challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. One such petition was filed by Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh through Vishnu Shankar Jain in July 2020. In March 2021, BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay challenged the cut-off date of August 15, 1947, in the Supreme Court.

Whatever be the litigation's outcome, whatever further claims and counter claims it might lead to, the only thing clear as of now is that politics will no more be about development in this country – at least, a good portion of it. It is going to be acerbic. The challenges are going to be caustic. Unfortunately, none of the voters will have a choice in judging the political parties by any other yardstick. Religion could take a centre-stage.

As for the Parliament, our enlightened members will only repeat 1991. Stand taken by the members while introducing the Places of Worship Bill will continue to dominate the concerns.

Has the Bill and thereby the Act shown a solution to the country or has it only complicated the matters further? Was it really a foresight and farsight to enact the Act?

Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir dispute enforced a certain ghettoization of Indian society. Now, what will this three-decades-old Places of Worship Act do to this country?