The ‘de-religiosification’ of Hinduism by India’s judiciary has allowed the forces of Hindutva to pose Hinduism as a supra-religious order that naturally makes available to its adherents, unquestionably, the best moral code of conduct, argues Shubham Sharma.
—
INDIA, or more precisely, north India, has been gripped by a frenzy. A frenzy of temple construction. Even more obnoxious is the fact that the latter bit is being accomplished by staking claim upon existing mosques.
Courts in India, which should ideally be the sentinels of the constitutional doctrine of secularism, are actively aiding and abetting such acts. Three decades ago, Justice J.S. Verma pronounced that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life.
This ‘de-religiosification’ allowed the forces of Hindutva to pose Hinduism as a supra-religious order that naturally makes available to its adherents, unquestionably, the best moral code of conduct.
Secondly, the judgment made the term immune from scrutiny under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which deemed the use of religion in elections as a ‘corrupt practice’.
Courts in India, which should ideally be the sentinels of the constitutional doctrine of secularism, are actively aiding and abetting a temple construction frenzy.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)–Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) combine has made the best use of this. From Advani to Modi, all have shielded themselves from the allegations of political usage of Hinduism by saying that it is not a religion but a way of life.
The recent judgment by Justice R.R. Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court on the Gyanvapi mosque issue has opened a Pandora’s Box. In an act of legal acrobatics, Justice Agarwal has found a new way to undermine the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
The Act unequivocally stipulates “the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947”.
Also read: Allahabad High Court green lights Gyanvapi suit
The Supreme Court, in its Ram Mandir judgment, had argued that ‘‘the Places of Worship Act is intrinsically related to the obligations of a secular state. It reflects the commitment of India to the equality of all religions… [T]he law speaks to our history and the future of the nation.
“Cognisant as we are of our history and of the need for the nation to confront it, independence was a watershed moment to heal the wounds of the past.’’
It must be remembered that when the Bill was being debated, some BJP members of Parliament (MPs) questioned 1947 as the cut-off date, arguing that the real cut-off date should be the 12th century.
Justice Agarwal in his judgment has argued that the court has the prerogative to define the “religious character of the place of worship”. The court further said that the plaintiffs have not demanded the “conversion of any place of worship”, hence it is a title suit.
One wonders what the religious character of a mosque, temple or church may be, if not a mosque, temple and church, respectively. Justice Agarwal seems to be making an undue distinction between forms of worship practised in the place of worship vis-à-vis the ‘character’ of the said place.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines the word ‘character’ as “the particular combination of qualities in someone or something that makes them or it different from others”.
Going by this definition, a mosque has a combination of architectural, ritualistic, and religious qualities quite different from a temple or a church, which makes its character distinct.
However, the syncretic history of India has examples of mosques being constructed in the Hindu architectural style. For instance, the Cheraman Juma Mosque in Kodungallur, the oldest mosque in South Asia, had hanging oil-lit lamps.
The mosque still burns an oil lamp which is believed to be over 1,000 years old. People of all faiths bring oil for the lamp as an offering, thereby underlining the secular and pluralistic tradition of India.
Another example of pluralistic Indian tradition that is often forgotten is the Sikh Guru Arjan Dev’s invitation to Mian Hazrat Mir, a Muslim Sufi saint, to lay the foundation stone of the Golden Temple in Amritsar.
In an act of legal acrobatics, the judgment by Justice Agarwal has found a new way to undermine the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
Considering Justice Agarwal’s judgment, one wonders what the ‘religious character’ of the Cheraman Juma Mosque and the Golden Temple would be if not a mosque and a gurudwara respectively adorned by a centuries-old quilt of syncretism.
The judgment has done nothing but fanned the fires of communal notoriety. The court’s injunction to the lower court to deliver its final judgment within six months has chimed with the 2024 general elections. This is nothing but the biggest cause of worry for all secular forces in the country, especially the biggest religious minority of India— the Muslims.
This whole business of temple construction and mosque destruction has at its base the logic of authoritative majoritarianism. India is not alone in this. Turkey’s strongman leader Recep Erdogan also marked the conversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque as a great step towards reclaiming the lost glory of the Ottoman caliphate.
The difference between India and Turkey is that such acts in the latter would not endanger the existence of religious minorities. Turkey is a 99 percent Sunni Muslim country.
In India, Muslims account for 14.5 percent of the population (approximately 20 crore in number) and account for 11 percent of the world’s Muslim population. Therefore, the ramifications would be much larger and harsher.
This brings us to the question of ‘historical mistakes’. It must be understood that Mughal India was not a democratic State with mass-participatory democracy. Aurangzeb did not contest elections. Rulers, both Hindus and Muslims, ruled by the sword. State policy was nothing but the monarch’s will.
Aurangzeb’s destruction of the temples in Varanasi, Mathura and Thatta had deep political reasons. Mathura was for long the region of the Jat peasantry’s rebellion against the extractive Mughal State. Another reason for Aurangzeb’s wrath towards Mathura’s Krishna Dev temple was that it had been patronized by Dara Shukoh, his major rival for the throne.
Also read: Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991: A shield for Indian secularism?
According to Saqi Mustaid Khan, a historian who wrote after Aurangzeb’s death, “In 1669 the king learned that at Benares, deviant Brahmins were teaching false books at their established schools. Curious seekers— Hindu and Muslim alike— traveled great distances to gain depraved knowledge from them.”
Historian and Aurangzeb’s latest biographer Audrey Truschke has noted, “Aurangzeb evinced concern with elite Brahmins deceiving common Hindus about their own religion and was perhaps especially alarmed that Muslims were falling prey to charlatans.”
The Mughals had given grants to many temples. Aurangzeb himself had given grants and gifts to Hindu temples. For instance, in his ninth year of reign, Aurangzeb conferred land upon the Umananda Temple in Guwahati, Assam.
In 1687, the emperor gave some empty land on a ghat in Benares (which was, incidentally, near a mosque) to Ramjivan Gosain to build houses for “pious Brahmins and holy faqirs”.
The Mughals had given grants to many temples. Aurangzeb himself had given grants and gifts to Hindu temples. For instance, in his ninth year of reign, Aurangzeb conferred land upon the Umananda Temple in Guwahati, Assam.
In 1691, Aurangzeb conferred eight villages and a sizable chunk of tax-free land on Mahant Balak Das Nirvani of Chitrakoot to support the Balaji Temple.
In 1698, he gifted rent-free land to a Brahmin named Rang Bhatt in eastern Khandesh in central India.
The list goes on and includes temples and individuals in Allahabad, Vrindavan, Bihar and elsewhere.
Imagine if Indian Muslims started retaliating against the temple frenzy of the Hindus by demanding the re-possession of land grants to Hindu temples by the Mughals. India would not be a liveable place anymore.
