Risky 'rewriting'

Ever since the Supreme Court of India ruled in the favour of Ram Temple in Ayodhya vis-à-vis Babri Masjid—which was followed by a nationwide celebration spearheaded by none other than the State—similar claims and legal battles have surfaced with considerable frequency. The ‘secular’ credentials of India have long been a thorn in the flesh for the incumbent Union government ruled by the BJP-led NDA. The construction and inauguration of Ram Temple in Ayodhya is still counted as one of the most towering ‘achievements’ of the NDA government at Centre. It has, apparently, emboldened the Hindutva groups and hardcore individuals to seek the same route in similar, hitherto unarticulated claims. It has to be remembered that the Supreme Court, while delivering the Ayodhya verdict, had put the case almost as an exception by maintaining that it cannot be cited as a precedent for similar claims in the future. The caveat, however, has not deterred hardcore Hindutva followers from initiating a bunch of similar legal proceedings throughout the country. The Supreme Court has been forced to intervene once again to halt the proceedings in the Shahi Mosque case in pursuit of peace. It is a welcome move but the ease with which such cases gain traction in lower courts raises concerns. The judiciary must be extremely cautious while entertaining claims that could violate the Places of Worship Act and disturb communal harmony.

The Shahi Mosque in Sambhal is reported to be a Mughal-era mosque which was built in 1526 during Emperor Babur’s reign. It has been a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) since 1920. However, recent claims by a Hindu group that the mosque was constructed over a Harihar temple have led to the controversy simmering presently. It has also led to lethal violence in the area—the chronology and mechanism of which is yet to be confirmed through investigation. The situation escalated after a local court ordered a survey of the mosque, based on a Hindu group’s claims without, ostensibly, hearing from the mosque’s management committee. This decision not only ignored the sensitivities involved but also seemed to sidestep the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which protects the status of religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947.

The ASI’s role in this controversy has been complicated. While it is responsible for the preservation of the Shahi Mosque, it has faced resistance from the mosque’s management and local residents in carrying out inspections and surveys. Allegedly unauthorised modifications to the structure by the mosque committee, such as the installation of railings and changes to its structure, have made things more tangled. The ASI argues that such changes compromise the monument’s historical integrity and should be prevented. On the other hand, the mosque committee has denied any wrongdoing, claiming that the alterations were either made long ago or were necessary, such as creating a police outpost after an imam’s murder. The committee has acknowledged the mosque’s protected status but insists that there was no deliberate attempt to defy regulations.

On a broader scale, the case reflects a growing trend of disputes over historical-religious sites, which is often fuelled by aggressive narratives seeking to rewrite history. Similar controversies have arisen around mosques in Varanasi and Mathura, as well as the Ajmer Sharif Dargah, with some groups claiming these structures were built over Hindu temples. Such attempts to misuse Hindu majority to rewrite history are dangerous. In the first place, they undermine the secular credentials of the country. Secondly, they propagate a narrow perspective of an all-encompassing Indian history, which, in its vastness, is nearly unmatched across the globe. The denial of the composite Indian history to recreate a façade of the same might be a dirty trick that would do more harm than good—it would sever India’s roots from its rich culture, and cocoon it in a monochromatic mirage of fake self-pride, meant only for a section and not the whole. The country’s rich and diverse heritage should serve as a bridge, not a divide, in building a harmonious future.