Claiming that the placement of two Ganesha idols in Qutub Minar complex is “disrespectful”, the National Monuments Authority (NMA) has asked the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to move them to the National Museum, reported the Indian Express. But what exactly is “disrespectful”, you ask?

“These idols were taken, apart from those of Jain Tirthankaras and Yamuna, Dashavatar, Navagrahas, after demolishing 27 Jain and Hindu temples built by King Anangpal Tomar… The way these idols have been placed is a mark of contempt for India, and needs correction,” NMA Chief and former Rajya Sabha BJP MP Tarun Vijay told Indian Express.

According to Vijay, he found during several visits that the idols come near the feet of mosque visitors, something he finds “disrespectful”. Therefore, the NMA wrote to the ASI last month stating that the idols should be given a “respectable” place at the National Museum that displays antiquities such as the “Ulta Ganesh” and “Ganesha in cage”.

While it is true that the complex was built after the destruction of 27 Jain and Hindu temples, the feeling of “disrespect” appears to be just Vijay’s opinion and does not have any grounds in history. According to a December 11, 2020 Times of India article, historian Dr Swapna Liddle said Hindu imagery was not uncommon in Muslim monuments, even before Mughal armies reached Delhi. Add to that the complex was built during some of the earliest interactions between the two communities when people were only beginning to learn of other cultures, there is no evidence of contempt or disrespect as claimed by Vijay.

The NMA Chief also compared the removal of the statues from the complex to the removal of King George V’s statue from its place near India Gate. Vijay said such statues and names were removed to erase marks of colonialism. Accordingly, the relocation of Ganesha idols to the National Museum will “reverse the cultural genocide that Hindus faced at the hands of Mughal rulers,” he said.

However, the statue of King George V that Vijay refers to was installed in the autumn of 1936 when the Indian independence movement was only gaining strength. The British ruler’s statue was damaged and draped in black cloth bearing the words “Death to the Tyrant” around January 1943. The statue was eventually moved due to political pressure but the canopy and pedestal on which it stood remains intact. Meanwhile, the Ganesha idols in question are parts of the Quwwat Ul Islam mosque’s walls. The entire compound was declared a World Heritage site by UNESCO in 1993 and given to the ASI.

Incidentally, both NMA and ASI operate under the Union Ministry of Culture. However, ASI has declined to comment on the whole issue.

Related:

Kashi Vishwanath – Gyanvapi case a national dispute: Deity’s next friend to HC

Gyan Vapi case: Allahabad HC stays ASI survey, proceedings before lower court

Why is the Right-Wing so obsessed with the Taj Mahal?

‘No Entry’ for non-Hindus at Varanasi Ghats?

The post Why does NMA want to relocate two Ganesha idols from the Qutub Minar complex? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The suit filed for restoration of temples in the Qutub Minar complex in Delhi is the latest in a line of similar suits invoking land disputes at temple sites in Mathura as well as Varanasi. After the Babri mosque demolition, the central government passed a law to save and protect the religious character of all places of worship, to avoid any such communal disturbances in the future. Then how are these suits seeking restoration of temples and reclamation of land justified? Does the law allow it? We shall deal with these questions in this article.

The suit filed in a Delhi court to restore temples in the Qutub Minar complex which also houses a mosque seems to be inspired from the suit recently filed in a Mathura court for removal of Shahi Idgah mosque which is adjacent to Krishna Janmabhoomi. While a Senior Civil Judge Chhaya Sharma had dismissed a similar suit, Mathura District court admitted the plea and the hearing is underway, with next hearing scheduled for January.

When the Ayodhya dispute was at its peak in early 1990s, right wing organisations like Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) had laid claim on two other sites: the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura, and the Gyanvyapi mosque in Varanasi. A suit pertaining to the latter was entertained by a district court in Varanasi but the order is pending in appeal at the Allahabad High Court. 

The suits in the matters of Shahi Idgah in Mathura and Gyanvyapi in Varanasi or Kashi were expected after the Ayodhya verdict came out in favour of Hindu petitioners. The slogans of “Yeh to kewal jhanki hai, Kashi, Mathura baaki hai.” (This is just a sneak peek, Varanasi and Mathura are still left) had filled the Ayodhya air when kar sevaks were marching on for the demolition of the Babri mosque.

India has had a dark history dealing with temple-mosque disputes. The Babri Masjid demolition and the subsequent communal riots that followed and have scarred an entire generation of both communities. It was to prevent any such further disputes, the Narsimha Rao government, which was in power when Babri Masjid demolition was carried out in all pomp and show, passed the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act

The purpose of the law was 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 August 15, 1947. The law kept the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute out of its purview, without citing any reasons for the same but probably because the case was sub-judice at that point in time.

The section 3 of the Act clearly states, “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 objective of the law was clearly to maintain communal harmony in the future. 

“We see this Bill as a measure to provide and develop our glorious traditions of love, peace and harmony,” the then-Home Minister, S.B. Chavan had said in the Lok Sabha on September 10, 1991. “The country’s tradition of amity and harmony came under severe strain during the pre-Independence period. After Independence, we have set about healing the wounds of the past and endeavoured to restore our traditions of communal amity and goodwill to their past glory,” he had said, reported The Hindu.

The law states that all suits, appeals or any other proceedings regarding converting the character of a place of worship, which are pending before any court or authority on August 15, 1947, will abate as soon as the law comes into force. But there are exceptions to this as well, any place of worship referred to in the said sub-sections which is an ancient and historical monument or an archaeological site or remains covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 is not declared to maintain its religious character. It is unclear why this was done.

One then wonders why are there suits in courts in this day and age making attempts to reinvigorate Hindu temples and why were they being entertained in courts if the law does not allow it? The language of the Act is clear when it states that no suit shall lie on or after such commencement (of the Act) in any court for conversion of the religious character of any place of worship, existing on the 15th day of August, 1947. So, clearly, it is not just a penal law that provides punishment for contravention but also disallows suits that seek to challenge places of worship.

All of these suits rely on history which clearly states that temples were destroyed, and mosques were built in their place, by invaders as a mark of victorious conquest. Historians slammed the Qutub complex plea and stated that history was being taken out of context in suits like these. Professor and historian Harbans Mukhia said, “History is not a matter of public opinion. Historical events take place in their context. You can’t isolate a 12th century fact from its context and present it in 21st century and claim victimhood. Where does logic find a place in all this?”

Destruction of temples in history

Notion of temple desecration was a very politically motivated action in the context of pre-modern India, prevalent from even before the advent of Islam into India, as argued by History Professor Richard Eaton. Royal temples housing the state deity symbolised the sovereignty of the king. Temples have been desecrated in inter-dynasty conflicts as well. In 642 A.D, the Pallava king Narasimhavarman attacked the Chalukyas and destroyed their royal temple looting their state deity from their capital. Such actions of destroying royal temples and looting the central deity were carried out with the explicit aim of detaching a vanquished king from the most visible sign of his former legitimacy. 

Thus, the act of temple desecration was well established within the Indian political rhetoric. While history records that Aurangzeb did destroy temples like the famed Vishwanath temple at Varanasi and the Keshav Nath temple at Mathura, there was no instruction given regarding the general desecration of all temples throughout the empire and in fact, he has been documented to have patronised temples and their functionaries. The Vishwanath temple (built by Jai Singh) was destroyed as punishment for Jai Singh’s complicity in facilitating Shivaji Maharaj’s escape from Aurangzeb’s prison. To confuse this to be an expression of his faith would be a historical anachronism.[1]

Related:

History taken out of context: Historians slam Qutub Minar plea
Suit for restoration of temples in Qutub Minar Complex claims “National shame must be vanished”

The post “Temple restoration” suits on the rise; what about the Places of Worship Act? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Historians have spoken up against the suit filed in Delhi’s Saket court for restoration of 27 temples in the Qutub Minar Complex.  The plaintiffs, which includes Lord Vishnu and Tirthankar Rishabh Dev, apart from humans (their devotees), claim that these temples were dismantled, desecrated and damaged under the command and orders of Qutub-Din-Aibak, a commander of invader Mohammad Gauri, who established “slave dynasty” and to show the ‘Might of Islam’, raised some construction at the same very place of temples naming it as, ‘Quwwat-Ul-Islam Mosque’.

Professor and historian Harbans Mukhia said, “History is not a matter of public opinion. Historical events take place in their context. You can’t isolate a 12^th century fact from its context and present it in 21^st century and claim victimhood. Where does logic find a place in all this?”

Another Historian Dr Swapna Liddle told TOI, “Nobody denies the fact that temples were destroyed in a moment of war. But this was not because they were symbols of a rival faith but because they were symbols of power of the regime that was supplanted. That context is important.”

Explaining the Hindu motifs, Professor Catherine Asher stated that Ghazanavids and Ghurids employed Hindu artisans for a long time before their armies entered Delhi. So, there was a familiarity with Hindu imagery.

Liddle spoke to TOI, “You will find the lotus and kalash at Muslim monuments. Look at maulana Jamali’s tomb (Jamali-Kamalil mosque). Right above the mihrab, there is a kalash with Allah written on top of it. Look at Gandhara art, for example. Today, we only see specimens of it in museums. But these Turkic people came from those same lands where Gandhara art was practiced. Islam is a religion accepted by so many different cultures. But architecture was cultural. They grew up in that culture, so they were familiar with it. Why is it so difficult for us today to understand that?”

Related:

Suit for restoration of temples in Qutub Minar Complex claims “National shame must be vanished”
Krishna Janmabhoomi: Plea in Allahabad HC to remove Idgah Mosque
Bihar: BJP victory procession allegedly attacks local mosque

The post History taken out of context: Historians slam Qutub Minar plea appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A suit has been filed at Saket Court, Delhi to restore 27 Hindu and Jain temples in Qutub Minar complex. The plaintiffs, which includes Lord Vishnu and Tirthankar Rishabh Dev, apart from humans, claims that these temples were dismantled, desecrated and damaged under the command and orders of Qutub-Din-Aibak, a commander of invader Mohammad Gauri, who established “slave dynasty” and to show the ‘Might of Islam’, raised some construction at the same very place of temples naming it as, ‘Quwwat-Ul-Islam Mosque’.

The plaintiffs claim that the walls and pillars of the mosque have images of Hindu gods engraved, and the inner and outer outlook of the building complex symbolise ancient Hindu and Jain temple Architecture. The suit also asserts that the Qutub Minar was erected at a sacred place of temple, dedicated to Lord Vishnu with Lord Shiva, Lord Ganesh, Lord Sun and Goddess Gauri and also the temples dedicated to Jain Tirthankaras and constellations. The suit also states that the pillar was constructed during the rule of King Chandra, probably under the kingship of Chandra Gupta Vikramaditya and has been misconstrued as having been built by Sultan Qutubuddin.

The plaintiffs rely upon Arabic inscription on the inner eastern gateway of Quwwatul-Islam Mosque, states that it was built by using the materials of 27 demolished temples and also upon Archaeological Survey of India report for the year 1871-72-Volume IV and some other uncited historical records to substantiate their claims. The plaintiffs state that “The construction was named as Quwwat-ulIslam which means might of Islam and purpose was to humiliate / dishonor and degrade Hindu Deities and demoralize their devotees.”

The plaintiffs state that after the Ayodhya verdict, they visited Qutub Minar purchased books from the Book sale counter and “were shocked to see a large number of pictures of mutilated idols at the pillars of the building and came to know about the barbaric action of first Mohammedan Sultan Qutubdin Aibak to show ‘Might of Islam’ partly demolished the temples and constructed a structure and termed the same as mosque.”

The plaintiffs seek appropriate relief against vandalism and barbarian action of an invader by applying the law applicable to such deity and temple property. The suit also states that “a number of temples with deities were existing within the temple complex before the construction of the alleged Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque but nature of Hindu religious property continued and the Muslims never declared the place as Waqf property before or after the construction raised under the command of Qutub-din Aibak and therefore the construction could not be used as Mosque at any point of time”.

The suit states that lakhs of Hindus visit every year at the place called Quwwatul Islam Masjid considering the area as place of worship dedicated to Lord Vishnu and Trithankars and worship there in restricted manner.

“The broken and mutilated deities are shame for the nation and they are showing our weakness and cowardness from invaders. This National shame must be vanished without any further delay,” states the suit. The plaintiffs have pleaded for mandatory injunction directing a Trust be created to manage the affairs of 27 Hindu and Jain temples with Iron Pillar.

Related:

Krishna Janmabhoomi: Plea in Allahabad HC to remove Idgah Mosque

Bihar: BJP victory procession allegedly attacks local mosque

All In the Name of the Prophets

The post Suit for restoration of temples in Qutub Minar Complex claims “National shame must be vanished” appeared first on SabrangIndia.