- Thursday, November 28, 2024
The plea seeking directions to start worship in the temple at the site of dargah was filed in September and the next hearing is on December 20
By: Shajil Kumar
‘WORRISOME’, ‘painful’, ‘what is the problem’… the rift over a claim that the famed shrine of Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti was built over a Shiva temple widened on Thursday with politicians, community leaders and others weighing in on the potentially volatile issue.
On Wednesday, a local court in Ajmer, known the world over as home of the dargah visited by thousands of devotees cutting across religious divides every day, issued notices to the dargah committee, the Ministry of Minority Affairs and the Archaeological Survey of India on the plea seeking to declare the shrine a temple.
The notice came just days after four people were killed in Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh in violence following a local court ordering survey of a Mughal-era shrine, the Shahi Jama Masjid, which petitioners said was built after destroying an old temple. And set off fears that Ajmer could become another communal tinderbox.
While dargah committee officials declined to comment, Syed Sarwar Chishti, secretary of the Anjuman Syed Zadgan, a body representing the khadims (caretakers) of the Ajmer dargah, described the petition as a deliberate attempt to fracture society along communal lines.
He said the dargah which he described as a symbol of communal harmony and secularism comes under the Minority Affairs ministry and the ASI has nothing to do with it.
“The community accepted the decision in the Babri Masjid case and we believed nothing will happen after that but unfortunately such things are happening again and again. The example of Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh is in front of us. This must stop,” he told PTI.
He added that the Anjuman be made party to the case.
The plea seeking directions to start worship in the temple was filed in September and the next hearing is on December 20.
“Our demand was that the Ajmer dargah be declared a Sankat Mochan Mahadev Temple and if the dargah has any kind of registration, it should be cancelled. Its survey should be done through ASI and Hindus should be given the right to worship there,” plaintiff Vishnu Gupta told reporters.
The Hindu Sena president has referred to a book by academic Har Bilas Sarda to support his claim that there was a Shiv temple where the dargah was raised.
He claimed he had conducted research for two years and found that there was a Shiva temple which was destroyed by Muslim invaders and a dargah built.
As debate – and concerns – escalated, Union minister Giriraj Singh wondered why.
“A court has ordered survey in Ajmer. What is the problem if court has ordered a survey? This is a truth that when Mughals came to India, they demolished our temples,” he said.
At the centre of much of the debate was The Places of Worship (special provisions) Act, 1991, which fixed August 15, 1947 as the cut-off date for status quo on the character of religious places.
According to SQR Ilyas, spokesperson for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, such claims were a “blatant mockery” of the law and the Constitution, especially in light of the Places of Worship Act.
The law, enacted by Parliament, clearly specified that the status of any place of worship as of August 15, 1947, shall remain unchanged and cannot be challenged, he said in a statement.
The intent was clear, to prevent any further targeting of mosques or other religious places following the Babri Masjid case, he said.
Muzaffar Bharti, president of the United Muslim Forum Rajasthan (UMFR), also contended that the petition was a “sheer violation” of the 1991 Act.
He noted that Prime Minister Narendra Modi offers a ‘chadar’ at the dargah during the annual Urs, a tradition started by Jawaharlal Nehru.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) said in a statement that the civil court’s decision to entertain the petition is unwarranted and has no legal standing.
“It goes against the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which decrees that no legal dispute can be raised on a religious place that existed prior to August 15, 1947,” it said.
“The violation of this Act has already resulted in the flawed decision with regard to the survey of the masjid in Sambhal…,” the party added, asking the Supreme Court to immediately intervene.
PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti also cited the act.
“Thanks to a former Chief Justice of India a Pandora’s box has been opened sparking a contentious debate about minority religious places.
“Despite a Supreme Court ruling that the status quo should be maintained as it existed in 1947, his judgement has paved the way for surveys of these sites potentially leading to increased tension between Hindus and Muslims,” said PDP president Mehbooba Mufti.
She was apparently referring to an order by a bench led by then CJI D Y Chandrachud allowing the ASI to conduct a scientific survey of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi to determine if it was built on a pre-existing temple.
The bench comprising then CJI Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, however, asked the ASI to carry out the survey through “non-invasive methodology”.
“Worrisome. The latest claim: Shiv Temple at Ajmer Dargah. Where are we taking this country? And why? For political dividends!” Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said in a post on X.
“These things are very painful. Some people have lost their cool after 2024 (Lok Sabha) election results as they didn’t get the majority. These people want to target a particular community to please the majority,” added Samajwadi Party MP Mohibbullah Nadvi.
Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti was a Sufi saint from Persia who made Ajmer his home.
During his reign, Mughal ruler Akbar made a pilgrimage to Ajmer every year. He, as well as Shah Jahan, built mosques inside the shrine complex. (PTI)
