Conflict
Although there is wide historical consensus that Aurangzeb ordered the demolition of the famous Vishweshwar Temple in Varanasi in 1669 – not only did the Mughal emperor leave a wall of the old temple standing, it was on Vishweshwar’s plinth that the Gyanvapi Mosque was built. was. It seems strange that despite the clear evidence, we are still asking whether Gyanvapi was ever Vishveshwara.
Since the geography of Gyanvapi has long been sacred to the two religions, the people of Varanasi did not find it strange that, for centuries, Hindu women visited the mosque to worship the goddess Shringar on the Chaturthi (fourth day) of every Chaitri Navratri. Walked on the western wall. Gauri. But on August 18 last year, when a group of five women filed a petition in a local court demanding that they be allowed to enter the Shringar Gauri temple throughout the year, devotees started a chain of events. Once a Varanasi court ordered a survey of the premises of Gyanvapi—the petitioners said they wanted to pray to “all visible and invisible deities within the old temple complex”—fearing that Varanasi’s religious harmony would be threatened. Will happen.
Jitendra Singh Bisen of Vishwa Vaidik Sanatan Sangh says, “Wherever we file cases—Mathura, Kashi, Taj Mahal…we will get positive results.”
On 16 May, the last day of the court-mandated survey, the team of Hindu litigants and lawyers claimed that they had found Gyanvapi within wudu food One Shivling, Although the caretaker committee of Anjuman Intejamiya Masjid (AIM), Gyanvapi, insisted that a defunct fountain was being mistaken for a lingam, the Supreme Court ordered that the area where it was allegedly Shivling found to be protected. By ensuring that prayers at Gyanvapi can be offered without interruption, the SC in its May 17 order sought to “balance the rights of the contesting parties”. On May 20, the SC transferred the Gyanvapi suit to the court of a district judge, saying it required the attention of another senior judicial officer. The tension is expected to rise further with the matter coming up for hearing on July 4.
who is behind it
The five plaintiffs claim that it was their piety that brought them together, but representing them in court is Hari Shankar Jain, a Lucknow-based lawyer who works hard to reclaim ‘Hindu’ sites- the Taj Mahal, the Qutub Minar. are doing. , Shahi Idgah in Mathura, among others. Jitendra Singh Bisen, president of Vishwa Vaidik Sanatan Sangh, often speaks on behalf of Rakhi Singh, the main litigant in the Shringar Gauri case. In May, he said at a press conference, “We didn’t file any of these cases thinking that they would drag on for 500 years. No matter where we file Mathura, Kashi, Qutub Minar, Taj Mahal – You will see that we get positive results in our lifetime.”
cover story , temple return movement
where is it going
While AIM’s lawyers frequently refer to the Places of Worship Act—on May 30, they told the district judge in Varanasi that the Act prohibits Hindus from praying inside Gyanvapi—pleadings challenging the right to the mosque were accepted by local courts. are going For example, on 24 May, a certain Kiran Singh moved a court in Varanasi on behalf of ‘Bhagwan Adi Vishweshwara Virajman’, asking that Gyanvapi be removed from its present location. AIM general secretary SM Yasin says he is defending himself against eight such petitions.