Tucked away in the inside pages of major newspapers was a small PTI report. On 8 December 2020, advocates Hari Shankar Jain, Ranjana Agnihotri and Vishnu Shankar Jain filed a civil suit in the Saket District Courts, Delhi, on behalf of Lord Vishnu, the Hindu God, and Jain Tirthankar Rishabh Dev. They wanted the restoration of the temples and worship to the deities in the UNESCO world heritage Qutub Minar complex, Mehrauli.
Millions of visitors to the complex pause to read the plaque of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which is the custodian of the monument. It clearly states that Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque, one of the earliest in India, was built on the wreckage of 27 Hindu and Jain temples: “It is the earliest extant Mosque in India. It consists of a rectangular courtyard 43.2 M by 32.9 enclosed by cloisters which were erected by Qutbuddin Aibak with the carved columns and other architectural members of twenty-seven Hindu and Jain Temples.” Looking around the premises, it is clear that the demolished shrines were used to build the mosque.
Several Hindu and Jain motifs, images and artefacts are still evident in the structure and masonry of the mosque. In 1960, a large, black stone image of Vishnu was also reputedly found on the premises by the ASI. For those who are more historically oriented, additional proof of the demolition may be found in Qutbuddin Aibak’s inscription on the eastern gate, now the main entrance, which announces of the destruction of the temples and the building of the mosque on the site: “This fort was conquered and this Jami Masjid was built in (the months of) the year 587 (1191-2 CE) by the Amir, the great and glorious commander of the army, (named) Qutb-ud-daulatwa-ud-din, the Amirulumara Aibak Sultani, may God strengthen his helpers.
The materials of 27 temples, on each of which 2,000,000 Deliwals has been spent, were used in (the construction of) this mosque.” Aibak was the Mamluk slave-general of Mohammad Ghori, who defeated Prithviraj Chauhan in 1192 to establish the Delhi Sultanate. “Quwaat ul-Islam”, the very name of the mosque, which means “Might of Islam,” shows its purpose. To announce the superiority of faith of the conquerors. Ironically, the “mighty” mosque also lies in ruins today.
If anyone still has doubts, the Qutub Minar itself should set them to rest. It is a victory tower to commemorate and give thanks for the establishment of Muslim rule in North India. It bears a family resemblance to other victory towers wherever Islamic conquests occurred. Apart from victory towers, it was standard practice to take over the principal temple or church and turn it into the congregational mosque. Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is an example as is the Mesquita in Cordoba.
How long will we in India still deny or, at the very least, whitewash or airbrush this history of violent conquest and vandalism? The lawsuit in question seeks a decree “in the nature of mandatory injunction, directing the Trust, to be created by the Central Government, to manage the affairs of 27 Hindu and Jain temples with Iron Pillar … within the area of Qutub Complex”. It also requests a “permanent injunction” against the Central government and ASI from interfering in repair and construction works or “arrangements for pooja, darshan and worship of deities”. It claims that “there existed huge and lofty Hindu and Jain temples of Lord Vishnu and Lord Rishabh Dev as presiding deities along with Lord Shiva, Lord Ganesh, God Sun and Goddess Gauri and Jain Tirthankars along with constellations, within the precincts”.
On 24 December 2020, Judge Neha Sharma, on hearing the submissions of the petitioners on behalf of Lord Vishnu and Tirthankar Rishabh Dev, raised several points of law. Questioning the “locus of the plaintiff and maintainability of a civil suit”, she sought to know “whether the court had the right to form a trust in the civil suit” or direct the government to do so. The honourable judge also asked how the right to worship could be accorded without establishing the ownership of the land in question.
A similar issue was germane to the Ayodhya dispute, the judgment in which case was also mentioned in the petition. But the question of Justice Sharma must also be considered. Can a devotee, simply by being one, claim the right to worship at a site even if it does not belong to him or her?—that is the legal question at stake. The next hearing is set for 6 March 2021, after the petitioners submit a reply.
The petition, which is well-informed and competently presented, opens a Pandora’s box for Hindus and Muslim believers alike, not to mention the government and the judiciary. India was invaded and conquered over a period of centuries by Islamic armies and rulers.
They destroyed or converted many shrines. Who owns these sites today? Who has the right to worship in them? Throughout human history, conquerors have asserted their rights over conquered peoples and territories. Restoration to original owners sometimes involves not just particular sites, but entire continents, such as the Americas or Australia. As we head into the new year, it is customary to try to leave behind the past, with all its woes and burdens, and to embrace a new future with hope and joy. That may be easier said than done.
The past doesn’t go away. It haunts us with its hurts and pains. But seeking revenge or restoration may not be the way forward. The wrongs of history cannot be righted by future retribution. We must move on. Dwelling in the past cannot be the way. At the same time, the past cannot be forgotten or ignored. The present dispute is sub-judice and the litigation may be protracted. But the best way forward might be to recognise what happened, to create the resources for present and future generations to understand and appreciate it. Not indulge in denialism.
For a country with an ethos such as ours, to provide multi-faith prayer places, in addition to detailed and impartial museum galleries, in what are admittedly secular, tourist spots today might be one solution. The Ministry of Culture might appoint a committee to look into similar cases and frame a policy. That will save us from much litigation, not to mention heartburn in the future.
Makarand R Paranjape (Tweets @MakrandParanspe)
Director, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla. Views are personal