Places of worship or places of prayer? What difference does it makes?
A law that asks Hindus to forget, Places of Worship Act 1991 confronts civilisational truth.
Time and again, the ‘Places of Worship ACT 1991’ manages to make news as the Indic wing invokes the civilizational issue of correcting the historical injustice which Indian civilisation suffered in the reign of barbaric invaders.
Destroying the Holiest of the temples of Hindus and building a mosque over its ruins was one of the kinds of injustices that occurred in past, which the Indic wing claims should be corrected by reclaiming all the Holiest sites back and reinforcing their civilisational right back, most popular of them being Kashi Vishwanath (Gyanvapi masjid as it is currently known) and Mathura Eidgah (Krishnan janmabhoomi), this is exactly where “Places of Worship ACT 1991” comes into play.
What is the “Places of Worship Act 1991”?
As the statement of the act says “An Act 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 the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” The act prohibits alteration of the character of any place of worship and states that the character of any place of worship will remain the same as it was on the 15th of August 1947 except Ram Janmabhoomi - Babri masjid Ayodhya (‘Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the place or place of worship commonly known as Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid situated in Ayodhya’) and archaeological sites under ASI (‘ancient and historical monuments or an archaeological site or remains covered by the Ancient Monuments and the Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958), it also prohibits the filing of suits regarding changing the character of the place (Section 3, Palaces of Worship Act 1991). This act also overrides all other laws dealing with the same subject.
History
This act was brought into parliament when the Rathayatra and karsevak movement for the liberation of Ram Janmabhoomi was at its peak.
Fearing this might cause a chain reaction and a series of reclamation of the temples by Hindus, which might lead to communal disharmony in the country, P.V. Narsimha Rao's government decided to bring this act to the parliament, stopping Indians (especially Hindus) from retrogression into the past.
Parliament enacted the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act. Sections 3, 6 and 8 of the legislation came into force at once on the date of enactment (18 September 1991) while the other provisions are deemed to have come into force on 11 July 1991, prohibiting alteration of the character of any place of worship (temple, mosque, gurudwara, church etc).
Statement of Objects and Reasons (SOR) gives us an idea of frustration in the government about the continuously rising voices for the reclamation of holy sites and correction of historical wrongs.
‘With regards to the conversion of palaces of worship of a religious denomination into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or a different religious denomination, different controversies have been arising from time to time. It was found necessary to prohibit such controversies should be prohibited. To achieve this objective Palaces of Worship Bill was introduced in the parliament.’
Another one of them is
“In view of the controversies arising from time to time with regard to palaces of worship, it is felt that such conversions should be prohibited. In order to foreclose any controversy with respect to any place of worship that existed in 15th day of August 1947 it is considered necessary to provide maintaince of the religious charector of such places of worship as it existed on 15th day of August 1947 as a consequence there of all the suits and other proceedings pending as on 11th day of July 1991 with respect to any of such places of worship may abet and also other suits and further proceedings may be barred. However, since that case relating to the place called ram janma bhumi babri masjid forms a class for itself it has become necessary to exempt it entirely from the operation of this act. Moreover, in order to maintain communal harmony and peace matters decided by courts, tribunals or other authorities or those settled by parties amongst themselves or through acquaintance between the 15th day of August 1947 or the 11th day of July 1991 are also exempted from the operation. The 11th day of July 1991 is proposed as the commencement date of the act, as on that day the president addressed the parliament, making such a declaration. The bill seeks to achieve the above objectives.”
Clear exemption of Ram Janmabhoomi hints towards situational awareness of the government, as the Ram Janmabhoomi cause had taken the form of such a big movement that it would have been a disaster for the government to interfere with the feelings of crores of people through the legislature.
Concerns of the government regarding communal harmony in the country were valid, and the act was brought for valid reasons.
However, instead of finding solutions to the problem, the act freezes them.
Criticisms and Data
Daughter of the Kashi Royal Family, Maharaja Kumari Krishna Priya; BJP leader Subramanian Swamy; Chintamani Malviya, former Member of Parliament; Anil Kabotra, a retired army officer; advocates Chandra Shekhar; Rudra Vikram Singh, resident of Varanasi; Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati, a religious leader; Devkinandan Thakur Ji, resident of Mathura and a religious guru and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay among others have filed the pleas in the apex court against the 1991 Act.
The main highlights of these pleas were and are, are the questions on the constitutional validity of this act, as this act denies judicial remedy to correct historical and civilisational injustices.
One of the petitions by Nitin Upadhyay, a law student, has also challenged section 4(2) of the Act that barred proceedings to change the religious character, besides prohibiting the filing of fresh cases for the same. Challenged section 4(2) of the Act that barred proceedings to change the religious character, besides prohibiting the filing of fresh cases for the same.
His petition very well highlights the issue regarding Denial of judicial remedy, The petition stated:
"The Centre has transgressed its legislative power in barring the judicial remedy, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. It is well established that the right to judicial remedy by filing suit in a competent court cannot be barred, and the power of courts cannot be abridged, and such denial has been held to be violative of basic features of the Constitution, beyond legislative power,"
A legal recourse to correct historical injustices cannot be denied in a democracy and a civilizational state like ours, which brings us to civilizational issues.
The Indian state, which we see today, is a continuation of a thousand-year-old civilisation, and we all carry the legacy of the civilisation passed down to us from ages.
Some of the key aspects of civilisation are connection and continuation.
Connection, in this sense, means a feeling of oneness, which has been continuously demonstrated by our historical figures, whether it be Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Punjab, who donated gold for a temple in Kashi or Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj whose last wish was that Holy places like Kashi and Mathura should be freed from foreign rule.
This sense of oneness is not limited only to the rulers, but it's present in common people too. Hindus have the Chardham yatra, a compulsory pilgrimage to all four dhams (equally important) located in all the directions of the country. Donations from all over the country were being made, and the whole country celebrated when pran-pratishtha was done. At all times, civilizational unity of this country has transcended beyond regional boundaries and is forged with the commonness of culture and religion.
Continuation- continuation means carrying forward the legacy, that our ancestors bestowed upon us.
Ancient civilisations like ours are not built within a night, they are built when a legacy is passed down to a generation by another generation continuously.
To protect this legacy, our ancestors fought and resisted these invaders for thousands of years, and their sense of resistance is seen in every generation. For example, Ahilyabai Holkar rebuilt the Kashi temple in 1780, for whose dome Maharaja Ranjit Singh donated 1 ton of gold in 1835, and Raghuji Bhonsle III donated silver in 1841. Not only rulers but also resistance is seen among the common people. For example, 50,000 Hindus sacrificed their lives to defend the honour of their deity in Somnath. Examples of resistance and sacrifice for the civilisation are countless.
Doesn't matter how many years of attempts it took our ancestors never quite resisting and reconquering what was lost. This feeling is perfectly summed up by Medhatithi:
“Aryavarta(Indian subcontinent) was so called, because the Aryas(Indians) sprang up in it again and again. Even if it was overrun by mlechchhas(foreign invaders), they could never abide there for long" on which R.C. Majumdar comments: “The tradition also had it that whenever a crisis arose, a chakravartin, a world emperor, would rise in the land and re-establish Dharma.”
By all this, we can understand that continuation is a key aspect of civilisation and preserving, reclaiming and protecting what our ancestors bled for, is necessary for the continuation of this civilisation and what every individual connected to this civilisation must do as it's their right to do so.
But this is exactly what this “Places of Worship Act 1991" denies, it forces Hindus to compromise, it stops Hindus from retrogression and it also takes away their right to judicial remedy.
The Act humiliates Hindus, telling them that they can't even take back what their ancestors bled for, in their own country through the judicial process.
As the president of Akhil Bhartiya Akhara Parishad, Mahant Ravindra Puri said: "When I went for a tour across India for 'dharma prachar' (propagation of religion), the dome of most of the mosques resembled that of a temple, and you will find symbols of 'Sanatan' inside them (mosques). Around 80 per cent of mosques are on temples all over India,"
There are thousands of cases in which Hindus have to silently watch a Mosque built on their temples, knowing that they can do nothing about it.
The most prominent of these cases is that of Gyanvapi, where the evidence is visible to the naked eye that it was a temple earlier, and a mosque was constructed on it.
There is no doubt that Aurangzeb ordered the demolition of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. It is written in the most authentic biography of Aurangzeb, Masir-e-Alamgiri, that in 1669. On the orders of Aurangzeb, the Kashi Vishwanath Temple was demolished. And then, one year later, he ordered the demolition of the temple at Mathura and had the idols brought to Agra to be scattered under the steps of the Begam Sahab Mosque so that they would be trodden on.
But it's not the only victim of Islamic conquest out there, there are many such Muslim constructions in the form of a mazar, mosque, dargah, eidgah and others where it is evident that they were in temple sites and/or used temple materials in construction.
However, there are many such constructions across the country where the evidence is not such obvious. In 1990, Historian Sita Ram Goel, along with other authors Arun Shouri, Harsh Narain, Jay Dubashi and Ram Swarup, published a two-volume book named ‘Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them’. In the book, Goel traced over 1,800 Muslim structures that were constructed over existing temples and/or using materials from the destroyed temples. This book has taken its sources from the inscriptions which have been deciphered and connected to their historical context by learned Muslim epigraphists. They have been published by the Archaeological Survey of India in its Epigraphia Indica-Arabic and Persian supplement, an annual which appeared first in 1907-1908 as Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica.
Which list was uploaded by OPIndia
Let's take a state-wise list of the Islamic sites
Andhra Pradesh
142 sites were recognised by the author from Andhra Pradesh alone, including Jami Masjid in Kadiri, Anantpur, Sher Khan Masjid in district Penukonda, Babayya Dargah in Penukonda, which was built by converting Ivara Temple, Idgah in Tadaptri, Datgiri Dargah in Gundlakunta, Datgir Swami Dargah built over Jangam temple in Janalapalle and others. The Dargah of Mumin Chup in Aliyabad, Hyderabad, dates back to 1322, and it was built on a temple site. Similarly, Jami Masjid in Rajamundri was built in 1324 by converting the Venugopalaswami Temple. Gachinala Masjid, built in 1729, was noted as the latest mosque in the state. It stands on a temple site.
Assam
Poa Mosque and Mazar of Sultan Ghiyasuddin Balban. Both these Islamic structures stood on temple sites in the Hajo, district of Kamrup.
Bihar
In Bihar, 77 sites were recognised where Mosques, Muslim structures, Forts, etc. were made on Temple sites and/or using material collected from destroyed Temple sites. In Bhagalpur, the Dargah of Hazrat Shahbaz was built in 1502 on a Temple site. Similarly, in Champaran, several Mazars were constructed on the ruins of Jain Temples. The Muslim Graveyard in Amoljhori, district Monghyr, stands on a Vishnu Temple site. In Gaya, Shahi Masjid in Nadirganj was built in 1617 on a Temple site. In the Nallanda district, Biharsharif, the Muslim capital, was built after destroying Udandapura, a famous Buddhist Vihar: The Majority of the Müslim structures built on the site used Temple material, including the Dargah of Makhdumul Mulk Sharifuddin of 1380, Bada Dargah, Chhota Dargah, and others. In Patna, the Dargah of Shah Jumman Madariyya was built on a temple site. Dargah of Shah Mur Mansur, Dargah of Shah Arzani, Dargah of Pir Damariya and others were built on Buddhist Viharas.
Delhi
72 sites were recognised in the book which Islamic invaders destroyed to build seven cities. The temple material used in these sites is still visible today: Qutub Minar, Quwwatul Islam Masjid (1198), Maqbara of Shamsud-Din Iltutmish, Jahaz Mahal, Alal Darwaza, Alal Minar, Madrasa and Maqbara of Alaud-Din Khalji, Madhi Masjid and more.
Diu
Jami Masjid, constructed in 1404
Gujarat
170 sites were recognised. Temples at Asaval, Patan and Chandravati were destroyed and the material was used to build Ahmedabad. Some of the monuments where temple material was used were the Palace and Citadel of Bhadra, Jami Masjid of Ahmad Shah, Haibit Khan ki Masjid, Rani Rupmati Ki Masjid etc. In district Dholka, Bahlol Khan Ghazi's Mazar and the Mazar of Barkat Shahid were built on temple sites. In Sarkhej, the Dargah of Shaikh Ahmad Khattu Ganj Baksh was built in 1445 using Temple material. In 1321, Jami Masjid was built using materials after the demolition of Hindu and Jain temple sites in Bharuch. The Mazar of Pir Hamir Khan in Botad, a mosque in Dwarka, Jami Masjid and Gumbad of Baba Guru were built on a temple site. In Rander Jains were expelled and their temples were converted into mosques.
Haryana
77 sites were recognised some of them are the Jami Masjid of 1605 in Faridabad and a mosque built in 1392 in Nuh, Bawal, Jami Masjid in Farrukhnagar, Dargah of Shaikh Salahud-Din Abul Muhammad of Balkh was built in 1246, Madrasa on the Tila in Kurukshetra and Kali Masjid in Jhajjar are the sites which are either built on temple sites or built using Temple material.
Himachal Pradesh
One site was recognised in Kangra of which the material was used to build the Jahangir Gate.
Karnataka
192 sites were recognised in Karnataka, Dargah of Muhiud-Din Chisti of Ajodhan in Dodda Ballapur, Bangalore, was built using Temple materials. Dargah of Makhdum Shah Wali in Kudachi and Mazar of Shaikh Muhammad Sirajud-Din Pirdadi were built on Temple sites. Masjid and Idgah in the ruins of Vijayanagar, Hampi, were built using Temple materials.
Kerala
Jami Masjid in Kollam and the fort built by Tipu in Palghat used temple materials.
Lakshadweep
Muhiud-Din-Palli Masjid in Kalpeni and Prot-Palli Masjid in Kavarati were built on Temple sites.
Madhya Pradesh
151 sites were recognised, among them some major ones were Jami Masjid, built by Qudsia Begum in Bhopal, which was built where once Sabhamandala Temple stood. Dargah of Ghazi Mian in Damoh was previously a Temple site. Budhi Chanderi. Moti Masjid, Jami Masjid and other structures used Temple materials. In Gwalior, the Dargah of Muhammad Ghaus, Jami Masjid, and Masjid near Ganesh gate were built on Temple sites.
Maharashtra
143 sites were recognised Amba Jogi Fort in Ahmadnagar, Gogha’s 1395 Idgah, Akot’s 1667 Jami Masjid, Karanj’s 1659 Astan Masjid, Aurangzeb’s Jami Masjid in Ritpur, and Khuldabad’s 1339 Dargah of Burhanud-Din Gharib Chishti were either constructed atop former Hindu temple sites or incorporated temple materials, and similar patterns of religious repurposing are seen in Mumbai (Mazar of Maina Hajjam and Jami Masjid), Paranda (a Namazgah built from Manakevara Temple), and several conversions in Latur (including the Minapuri Mata, Somevara, and Ramachandra Temples).
Punjab
The Mazar of Baba Haji Rattan in Bathinda was built by converting a temple; the Badshahi Sarai in Sultanpur (Jalandhar) stands on a former Buddhist vihara; the Dar and Masjid of Ali Sarmast in Ludhiana and the fort mosque in Bahadurgarh, Patiala, were both erected atop temple sites.
Rajasthan
170 sites were recognised Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra mosque (1199) built using Hindu and Jain temple materials and possibly a Sanskrit college on its foundations, In Tijara, the Bhartari Mazar was created from a converted temple; Bayana’s Nohara Masjid was carved out of the Usha Temple; Kaman’s Kamyakesvara Temple became the Chaurasi Khamba Masjid; Jalor’s Topkhana Masjid (1323) reused Parvantha Temple materials; Shergarh Fort incorporated stones from Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain shrines; and additional mosques and mazars in Loharpura, Salawtan (1625), and Nagaur were similarly built atop former temple spaces or with reclaimed temple masonry.
Tamil Nadu
In Tamil Nadu 175 sites were recognised, several Islamic structures were built on former Hindu temple sites or using temple materials: in Chingleput, the Mazar of Shah Ahmad; in Kovalam, the Malik bin Dinar Dargah; on Pancha Padyamalai (now Maula Pahad), a cave temple’s central hall became a mosque; in Coimbatore, Tipu Sultan re-used temple stones to repair Annamalai Fort and built a mosque atop a temple; and in Tiruchirapalli, the Dargah of Natthar Shah Wali replaced a Shiva temple, with its lingam repurposed as a lamp-post.
Uttar Pradesh
299 sites are mentioned, the Classic one being the Babri Masjid (which has now been demolished), built on the Ramjanmabhumi Temple site and the Masjid at Gyanvapi. Besides that The Kalan Masjid (1521) and parts of Agra Fort, including its riverside section, were constructed with temple or Jain temple materials; additionally, Humayun-ki-Masjid, Jahanara’s Jami Masjid, and the Maqbara of Akbar all occupy former temple sites. In Allahabad, Akbar’s fort and Akbar’s Maqbara were built atop earlier temple foundations. The mausoleums of Mian Maqbul and Husain Khan Shahid, and the mosque in Patthar Mahalla (converted from Lakshmi Narayan Temple), also stand on temple sites.
West Bengal
102 sites were recognised in West Bengal, Ghazi Ismail Mazar in Lokpura was erected over a Venugopala temple; in Birbhum Siyan, the 1221 Makhdum Shah Dargah used temple materials; in Suata, the Sayyid Shah Shahid Mahmud Bahmani Dargah incorporated Buddhist temple stone; and the 1342 Alaud-Din Alaul Haqq Masjid in Bania Pukur was built using temple masonry.
These examples are some among many, According to J.Sai Deepak and Vikram Sampath, this number is as high as 40,000. This indicates that the act does not follow historicity. This also shows that the act applies to everyone, but history is one-sided.
Places of worship and Places of prayer
Despite the Places of Worship Act 1991 still intact, petitions and cases for the reclamation of holy sites still make their way through courts. It seems that the act has some loopholes which are being used by lawyers and Advocates. The loophole is about the interpretation and definition of places of worship and their declaration before 1947.
For understanding this we will have to first understand the difference between Places of worship and Places of prayer.
The place of worship is linked to a particular spot, to a particular deity and is pious.
The place of prayer can be any place, any time, anywhere.
For Hindus, the place itself is holy regardless of the structure existing in the place, and temples are a reflection of the divinity of that place. That's why we see in many cases, like Ram Janmabhoomi and Gyanvapi, that even after the structure of temples got destroyed or altered, Hindus still continued to worship there.
On the other hand, for the muslims, mosque is a place of prayer and congregation; there is nothing holy about the mosque itself. Some of the mosques, like Alaksa mosque, may be places of worship, but all the other mosques are Places of congregation and prayer.
This is perfectly reflected in the British argument of the District Collector Watson in his letter which was written 200-plus years ago on 30th December 1809. He said :
Since the place was deemed so sacred by the Hindus, also dating back to scriptural text, while in comparison, there was nothing exceptionally sacred in it for the muslims, the latter should be evacuated out and the place reclaimed for the Hindus in the larger interest of enduring communal emity between the two contesting fates.
This was written in the context of the Kashi Vishwanath temple (Gyanvapi), in which he advocated for the transfer of the site back to Hindus, as it belonged to them and their worship continued even after destruction by Aurangzeb.
Let us take a look at the Gyanvapi case to understand the argument better.
A struggle between both parties for control of the site for centuries, it was only in the 1930s that this struggle entered the judiciary fully (before that there were some cases of minor importance).
The first case for the control of land was filed by Deen Mohammad for the control of land from the British government. This case was filed against the state and the Hindus were not made a party in it. We can say that this was a non-representative sample, because of this the conclusion of this case was not binding to Hindus. 5 Muslims, including Deen Mohammad of the Hanafi sect of Islam, filed this suit for control of premises/complex on the site for praying namaz during Ramadan, which the British magistrate denied because Hindus offered their prayers in the complex, because of which they dragged the British government to the court.
In this case, the British Secretary of State argued that there was never a mosque on this site in the first place. He said that there was no dedicated record of the mosque being a waqf property and a waqif (doner) donating it. We have the records of Aurangzeb destroying the temple, but for a mosque to be built, it requires land donated to the waqf by the waqif (doner), which Aurangzeb never did in the case of Gyanwyapi. In this case, we witnessed that continuous religious ceremonies and processions were being carried out, despite the mosque being present there and the manager of the mosque would allow this in exchange for some money. Deen Mohammad lost this case in both the district court and the Allahabad High Court.
After 1991 the case was revived, in which the Kashi Vishwanath board was established and Kashi Vishwanath made a legal entity like Ram Lalla Virajman in the Ramjanmabhumi case. Vijay Rastogi filed this case on behalf of Vishveshwar and demanded that the place be evacuated, so that devotees can worship. This case stayed in Indian courts for 22 years.
Of all these cases most important and interesting one is the one which was filed in 2021 by 5 Indian women for the Shringar Gauri pooja, because they were denied worship of Shringar Gauri in the temple premises, which they were doing continuously till 1993, after 1993 Mulayam Singh's government barricaded the temple premises. This act stopped their worship and they were given permission only once a year to do pooja.
While the other petitions are in criticism and for the removal of the Places OF Worship Act 1991, recognising the religious character of the existing place can't be changed as long as this act exists. On the other hand, in this case, they argued that they are not affected by the act. They argued that Hindus worshipping there doesn't go against the Places of Worship Act because Hindus have always worshipped there despite the temple being destroyed (as we have seen in the above examples). They also argued that there was no declaration from the past of the mosque being there, as Aurangzeb didn't give the land to the waqf for the construction of the mosque, and there are no documents from the British time that there was a mosque.
This also pointed out the issue that whose (religion and sect) place was it before 1947, if there was no clear declaration of its character before 1947? This means that, if there is no declaration of the religious character of a place before 1947, who will decide its religious character after 1947?
This was also observed by Justice D.V. Justice D.V Sharma. Justice D.V. Sharma observed as follows:
“1 (c). Section 9 is very wide. In absence of any ecclesiastical Courts any religious dispute is cognizable, except in very rare cases where the declaration sought may be what constitutes religious rite. Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not debar those cases where declaration is sought for a period before the Act came into force or for enforcement of right which was recognized before coming into force of the Act.”
Supreme court Interpretation of his statement is as follows:
“Justice D V Sharma postulates in the above observations that the Places of Worship Act will not debar cases of the following nature being entertained namely:
(i) Where a declaration is sought for a period before the enforcement of the Places of Worship Act; or
(ii) Where enforcement is sought of a right which was recognised before the enforcement of the Places of Worship Act.”
So far, this case, which is being fought by Adv. Hari Shankar Jain and Adv. Vishnu Shankar Jain has turned out to be the most successful of all the other cases, This case led to so many twists and turns which led to the advocate commissioner survey in 2022 and they eventually found out Shiv Linga (which is called fountain by the other side) in wazu kahan which eventually led to the Survey report by ASI which came out in January 2024. The latest technologies like ground penetrating radar, differential global positioning system, hand-held X-ray fluorescence spectrometer etc. were used in this Survey. The report has turned out to be around 800 pages and slams various false claims of the side which rejects existence of a temple there.