What is 'trishul' doing inside Gyanvapi mosque, questions Adityanath, asks Muslim side to rectify 'historic blunder'

Vibha Sharma

Chandigarh, July 31 

A couple of days ahead of the expected Allahabad High Court judgment on an application filed by the Gyanvapi mosque committee challenging the Varanasi district court’s order for an ASI scientific survey, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has made a significant statement over the controversial religious case, questioning what a ‘trishul’ (trident) was doing on its premises.

Asking the Muslim side to rectify the “historic blunder”, Adityanath said the government too wants to resolve the long-standing issue. “If we call it a mosque, then it will be an issue…What is the ‘trident’ doing there in the mosque? We did not keep it. There is a ‘jyotirling’ and deities are there…I think there should be a proposal from the Muslim side to fix the blunder. We want a solution to this mistake,” News agency ANI quoted him as saying.

HC decision on survey on August 3

Last week, the High Court reserved its judgment on the scientific survey for ascertaining whether the “present structure” was “constructed over a pre-existing structure of a Hindu temple” till August 3.

“The judgment has been reserved. It will be pronounced on August 3,” advocate SFA Naqvi, who appeared on behalf of the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee, the caretaker of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, said while outlining arguments made in the court.

The Muslim side also contends that the suit filed by the group of Hindu women in the Varanasi court was not maintainable as it was barred by the Places of Worship Act, according to which the religious character of any religious place must remain the same as it was in 1947 at the time of Independence.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who is representing the women, also presented the findings of the last year’s survey before the High Court. Petitioners also contend that Hindus worshipped at the Shringar Gauri (mosque’s western wall which, they say, is a Hindu temple site) even after the enactment of the Act in 1991.

Places of Worship Act

The Act prohibits “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 the 15th day of August 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.

However, even though the Act is in place, across the country matters are being litigated on similar issues. A string of suits have been filed at various places, including Varanasi and Mathura, to reclaim Hindu places of worship.

Meanwhile, cases are also pending before the Supreme Court regarding the Act—some challenging its validity and others demanding its stringent enforcement.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court observed that it cannot order a blanket stay restraining other courts from hearing cases related to disputed religious sites.

“There is no stay on the Act. Mere pendency of the plea (before the Supreme Court challenging the Act) is not a stay (on the Act). We cannot in general stay the proceedings before other courts without knowing what they are,” the apex court was quoted as saying.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has also given the Centre time till October 31 to clarify stand on the validity of the Act

Gyanvapi case

Like the cases revolving around the Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya and the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura, this case, too, revolves around a place of religious significance—that of the Gyanvapi mosque adjacent to the famous Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi.

The issue has been carrying on for long with petitions filed in the courts seeking permission to worship in the mosque complex that Hindus claim was built upon the original Kashi Vishwanath temple.

In 2022, the confidential court-mandated Gyanvapi mosque complex survey took place amid interruptions and protests and Hindu petitioners claimed the discovery of a ‘Shivling’ close to the ‘wazukhana’–the water tank used to perform ritual ablutions before ‘namaz’.

On July 21, the Varanasi court gave the go-ahead to the ASI to conduct a “detailed scientific survey”, including excavations wherever necessary, to determine if the mosque was built at a place where a temple existed earlier.

However, the mosque’s ‘wazukhana’—where the Hindu side claimed that a ‘Shivling’ exists—was not to be part of the survey following an earlier Supreme Court order protecting the spot in the complex.

Gyanvapi—the politics

Adityanath has spoken on the issue which, observers say, is “primarily because of the stature he enjoys”.

Otherwise, the BJP seems to be treating the Gyanvapi issue in the manner it had the Ram Janmabhoomi issue. “The party believes the matter is in the court and should be resolved according to the law of the land. So far as giving statements is concerned, it is individual,” sources explain.

The fact is the issue has the potential to sway sentiments, especially in Uttar Pradesh that sends as many as 80 representatives to the Lok Sabha.

Last year, Gyanvapi became a major political flashpoint with saffron groups pointing to “similar cases” in other parts of the country. Opposition parties accused the ruling BJP of sponsoring people to create a rift to digress attention from “real issues like inflation and unemployment” and creating an “Ayodhya-like dispute for political mileage”—charges that the saffron party dismissed.