At a time of significant communal tension, when diehard communalists were openly and actively mobilising support for the demolition of the Banri Masjid, the Government of India enacted the “Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991”, ostensibly to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. However, this Act specifically excluded the Babari Masjid / Ram Janmabhoomi matter, keeping the option open for the legitimisation of the demolition of that religious structure and the building of a temple devoted to Ram in its place.
The demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1992 was one of the most outrageous acts of violence directed against a place of worship in recent years. It was not spontaneous, as claimed in official records, but pre-planned and supported by those in power. The Lieberhan Commission, set up shortly after the demolition, took 17 years to submit its report, holding 68 people guilty, including prominent BJP leaders. Despite this, a Special CBI Court acquitted all the accused in 2020 due to “lack of evidence.” The Srikrishna Commission confirmed the involvement of BJP, Congress, and Shiv Sena leaders in inciting the communal violence which accompanied and followed the demolition. Yet, none of them have been punished even after three decades, exposing the complicity of the ruling establishment. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of building a Ram temple at the site, effectively legitimising the demolition of the historical mosque.
The campaign for a Ram temple at the Babri Masjid site was driven by political motives, aimed at dividing Hindus and Muslims at a time when people were demanding solutions to pressing issues like unemployment and poverty. The ruling establishment used communal polarisation to weaken the unity of the masses and distract them from their failures.
The ruling circles in India have used the time tested, colonial policy of “divide and rule” ever since power was formally handed over to them by the British colonialists in 1947. The people of India, however, utterly despise this policy.
According to a news report last updated on April 1, 2025, on the website of the Economic Times, the Supreme Court refused to hear a plea against the Places of Worship Act. The plea challenged the validity of a provision of the act which `…preserves the character of religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947’. The petitioners have argued around the freedom of worship and various constitutional provisions to safeguard these.
The question that needs to be asked is this: What really is achieved when a place of worship is sought to be “reverted” supposedly to its former state? Those in favour of converting the Gyan Vapi Mosque in Varanasi or the Krishna Janmabhoomi complex in Mathura to their supposed earlier Hindu religious places of worship claim that numerous temples were destroyed during the reign of Mughal emperors and other Muslim dynasties, and that many of them were converted into mosques or other places of importance to Islam. They say that the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb’s reign was one in which numerous temples were destroyed. It may be opportune to note at this time that Aurangzeb’s nearly half-century reign came to an end with his death over 300 years ago.
India has long been home to many religions and schools of thought—Buddhism, Jainism, various Hindu traditions, Islam, Christianity, and Sikhism. Over the centuries, dynasties with different faiths rose and fell, building and reshaping places of worship. Given this complex history, it is often impossible to determine the “original” religious identity of a particular site. Such questions, more often than not, reflect selective memory and political motives rather than historical fact.
But more importantly, what exactly would be achieved by establishing this? We now live in times where freedom of religion is guaranteed to all, at least on paper. Freedom of conscience in the broader sense is something that we still need to achieve, though.
What is sought to be achieved by claiming that a particular mosque was once a temple, or vice versa that a particular temple was earlier a mosque, and by insisting that the place of worship be reverted to the “original” religion?
We have the example of the Babri Masjid demolition of 1992. The demolition was preceded by communal tensions across large parts of India. And it was followed by large scale riots in many parts of India in which hundreds of people died, and thousands were injured and lost their homes. Worse, it helped to divide the polity on religious grounds – divisions that have only become worse over the decades.
Whether it is the Gyan Vapi Mosque in Varanasi or the Krishna Janmabhoomi complex in Mathura or the mosque in the town of Sambhal in western Uttar Pradesh that was built in the 16th Century, one thing is common. Tension is built up between the communities. Four people were killed in firing following the tension in Sambhal. Thus, the matter of whether a place of worship that is now a mosque was a temple earlier is not an academic one. It is one which is calculated to divide the polity, create tensions and can lead to large-scale violence and deaths and destruction.
It is for this reason that challenges to the “Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 are to be eschewed and even condemned. A civilisation like the one in India which is very old is one in which various philosophies arose and fell, various peoples from around the world came to, and peoples from here went to other places, all of which are well known and well understood historical processes. It is not possible to somehow `correct’ history and one needs to move on from here. We must take stock of the situation and strengthen the resolve to unite the people of India to solve their common problems, rather than to fall prey to tactics of division and hate.
Source of image: https://images.app.goo.gl/1q1ySr1WbQKobrKWA
by BA and Venkatesh Sundaram
