Perils Of Rewriting History: Why Hindu Organizations Should Not Claim Ownership Of Mosques Built On Destroyed Temples – OpEd

In recent years, Hindu organizations have been staking claims over mosques built during the Mughal period, particularly those constructed by emperors like Babur and Aurangzeb, who are alleged to have demolished Hindu temples to build these structures.

These claims, as seen in disputes over the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, and the Shahi Eidgah mosque in Mathura, have raised questions about the broader implications for India’s religious harmony and secular fabric. While these organizations are within their rights to express concerns about historical injustices, it is crucial to argue that such claims on mosques cannot be seen as a legitimate path to correcting past wrongs.

1. Historical Injustice Cannot Be Corrected by Reversing the Past

R.F. Nariman, a respected jurist, rightly pointed out that the Ayodhya verdict, while offering a resolution to a long-standing dispute, inadvertently exacerbated tensions across the country. The focus on reclaiming religious sites destroyed centuries ago only serves to re-open old wounds and sow division. Historical grievances, especially those that date back to the 16th and 17th centuries, cannot be redressed by simply reversing the effects of centuries-old events. The destruction of temples by Mughal emperors like Babur and Aurangzeb was undoubtedly a historical injustice, but attempting to ‘undo’ this by reclaiming mosques today would only perpetuate more injustice, not heal the past.

India’s journey towards healing and unity is grounded in learning from history, not in re-enacting it. Claiming the right to destroy existing places of worship, regardless of their history, goes against the fundamental values of tolerance and coexistence that define India’s pluralistic society.

2. The Impact on Social Harmony and Secularism

The stakes in this issue are high. Hindu organizations’ claims to mosques like Gyanvapi, Shahi Eidgah, and others are not only a reflection of historical grievances but also a serious threat to India’s social fabric. As Nariman observed, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ayodhya case, while legally sound in some respects, overlooked the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. These principles are meant to prevent religion from becoming a source of division and conflict. Rewriting the past by claiming that mosques were once temples risks turning every place of worship into a point of contention, thereby undermining the secular character of the state.

The Places of Worship Act, 1991, specifically aimed to maintain the status quo of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, recognizing the importance of preventing religious polarization. The Act ensures that no place of worship—whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, or Christian—should be altered for political or religious gains. Allowing the courts to entertain claims based on the idea that ancient mosques were originally Hindu temples undermines this protective measure and sets a dangerous precedent.

3. The Dangers of Reviving Historical Conflicts

Attempts to claim mosques like the Gyanvapi and Shahi Eidgah are not just legal battles; they are symbolic struggles for dominance that fuel communal strife. In the case of the Sambhal mosque, violence erupted when Hindu organizations sought to ‘reclaim’ the site of an alleged destroyed temple. Such incidents, fueled by political or religious interests, are symptomatic of a much deeper problem—religious and political forces seeking to divide India along communal lines for short-term gain.

India’s strength lies in its diversity and in its ability to absorb, adapt, and coexist with differing beliefs. By focusing on ancient wrongs and disputes over historical sites, we risk losing sight of the present and future that should be guided by unity and mutual respect. As Syed Zainul Abidin Ali Khan, the Sajjada Nasheen of Ajmer Sharif Dargah, rightly pointed out, people of all faiths have coexisted peacefully for centuries in shared spaces of worship. The RSS itself has reportedly participated in religious observances at Ajmer Sharif, showing that interfaith tolerance is not just possible but common.

4. The Philosophy of Tolerance in Hinduism

Hinduism, at its core, is a philosophy of tolerance and respect for all. The Vedas and Upanishads teach that God resides within all beings, and this profound understanding of spirituality calls for reverence for all faiths. The teachings of Mahatma Gandhi further emphasize that India’s pluralistic identity is the key to its success. By seeking to reclaim mosques, Hindu organizations are not upholding the true spirit of Hinduism; they are undermining the inclusive nature of Indian culture.

India’s cultural and religious pluralism is what makes it unique in the world. The country has been home to a variety of religious traditions for millennia. Whether through the Sufi traditions of the Muslim world or the Bhakti and Sant traditions of Hinduism, India has always celebrated syncretism—where different religious practices and beliefs have blended to create a harmonious society. The emphasis should be on preserving this rich cultural tapestry, not tearing it apart by trying to turn back the clock.

5. The Role of the Courts and the Constitution

The Constitution of India provides for a secular state, where religious freedom is protected for all citizens. It is essential that the judiciary remains the guardian of this secularism, and the Places of Worship Act must be upheld to prevent any further division based on religious claims over places of worship.

Organizations representing Hindu and Muslim communities have filed petitions before India’s Apex Court to decide on the law. While organizations affiliated to Hindu Organizations have challenged the constitutional validity of the law, especially the cut of date of August 15, 1957, the Muslim intelligentsia have pointed out the Act was enacted to preserve the India’s social fabric and to preserve communal harmony and have opposed reopening of settled issues concerning religious sites. The case will come up for hearing on 12th of this month. It is expected that the court will be guided by the larger principles of unity and harmony and resist the pressure to allow historical grievances to dictate legal outcomes that could further fragment the nation.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

India has suffered enough from the scars of colonialism and religious conflict. The country needs a vision that transcends these historical disputes and looks toward a future of peace, unity, and mutual respect. Hindu organizations, if committed to the teachings of their faith, should focus on fostering understanding and tolerance, rather than pursuing divisive claims over ancient mosques. These organizations should remember that the essence of Hinduism lies in seeing the divine in all beings and in fostering respect for all faiths.

The history of India is rich, complex, and sometimes painful, but the way forward lies not in reviving old conflicts but in embracing the spirit of reconciliation and cooperation. It is this spirit that will allow India to continue to thrive as a pluralistic democracy—a beacon of hope for the world.