Explained |The Ajmer Dargah Controversy

💃The management of the Sufi shrine of Khawaja Moinuddin Chisthi, Ajmer, has criticised the move where a civil court in Ajmer issued notices based on a petition filed by Vishnu Gupta, the national president of Hindu Sena, seeking a survey of the Ajmer Sharif Dargah (mausoleum). The claimed that there was originally a Shiva temple at Ajmer Sharif Dargah like “in Kashi and Mathura.”

✱In view of purported evidence for the existence of an ancient temple to Lord Shiva at the site, on Wednesday (November 27), a civil court in Ajmer sent notices to the Ajmer Dargah committee, Union Ministry of Minority Affairs and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

What did the petition say?

💦The petition filed by Gupta reads, “There is Shiva Linga underground, in the passage leading towards the courtyard between the Buland Darwaza and the inner courtyard. There are cellars of an old Hindu building, of which many rooms remain intact in the main Dargah complex. Hindu devotees are also deprived to worship the deity beneath the underground passage leading to the cellar (main complex)”.

♛The petition further claims, "After the demolition of the Mahadev temple, the structural materials were used for the construction of the dargah."

The petitioner, Vishnu Gupta, told Outlook🍸, “We have submitted all the evidence along with the petition. The Court only accepted it and further sent notices to all the concerned after it was satisfied with our demands. An ASI should be conducted to decide who can pray inside the premises.”

ﷺThe petition quotes one of the books of Har Bilas Sarda, a politician and academic during British Rule. The petition mentions that in 1910-11, he wrote about the presence of a Hindu temple on the same site.

🍎“Sarda, in his book, clearly mentioned an image of Mahadeva in a temple, on which sandals used to be placed, still maintained by the dargah. Sarda’s words should be taken seriously as he was an essential figure after whom even the roads were named in his name.

🃏Our only demand is that a survey be carried out objectively so that the facts are out. We have proofs suggesting that before the 11th century AD, a Shiva temple and a Jain temple existed in Ajmer Dargah. Originally, Ajmer was known as Ajaymeru. It is originally the birthplace of Prithviraj Chauhan, and Moinuddin Chishty arrived here much later along with Muhammad Ghori, who was an advisor at that time,” added Gupta while claiming that the property is in question, which is why the Muslims never got the ownership rights.

൲The next hearing of the case is slated for December 20.

Dargah administration calls notices baseless

“Every year, crores of pilgrims from around the world, irrespective of religion and nationalities, visit the shrine of Khwaja Moinuddin Chisty, a symbol of communal harmony and diversity. What ‘they’ are doing with old mosques and ancient structures is visible to all. Earlier, it was Babri Masjid, followed by Mathura and Kashi. And now the notices were sent just after three days when young Muslim men who were opposing a survey of the Mughal-era Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh were killed in a clash with the police” Syed Sarwar Chishty Syed Sarwar Chishty, secretary of the Anjuman Syed Zadgan, (a representative body of hereditary caretakers) at the Dargah told Outlook.

ওSyed Nassiruddin, the son of Dargah Dewan of Ajmer, Syed Zainulabeddin, told Outlook, ‘We are holding meetings to determine a further course of action, and such nonsense and baseless claims shall not be entertained further.’

🀅A month ago, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led government in Rajasthan renamed Hotel Khadim, an undertaking of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation, Ajaymeru.  The demand was put in by the present speaker of the Rajasthan assembly and MLA from Ajmer district, Vasudev Devnani. Devnani, in several speeches, claimed that Ajmer was known as Ajaymeru during the rule of Prithviraj Chauhan, a warrior king in the 12th century.

The Dargah is a temple in direct violation of Indian law: PUCL

🧸The People’s Union for Civil Liberties also stated that the Dargah had existed for 800 years of the city’s 1,200-year history and has been a place of faith for people of all religions, attracting millions of devotees over the centuries.

ꦍ“The Dargah’s development owes contributions not only to Muslim rulers but also to Hindu kings. Unfortunately, a person unfamiliar with Ajmer’s history, traditions, and harmony is attempting to gain cheap popularity by claiming that a temple exists beneath the Dargah. This baseless claim has sadly been entertained by the judiciary. No such claims have ever been made in Ajmer. The Dargah exemplifies communal harmony, with Jain processions, Jhulelal processions, and even RSS path marches receiving flower showers as they pass by the site”, said Kavita Srivastava, National President of PUCL.

The statement reads, “The Places of Worship Act, 1991 clearly prohibits altering the religious character of any place of worship. Section 4 of the Act mandates that "the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, shall be maintained. In the case of M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhoomi Temple) vs Suresh Das (2019), the Supreme Court ꦕupheld the constitutional validity of this Act, emphasising its role in preserving communal harmony and protecting India’s pluralistic heritage. The Court further stated that the Act reflects the secular fabric of the Constitution and prevents misuse of historical claims for political or religious gains.

🎉Mentioning that the management of the Ajmer Dargah is governed by the Dargah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955, enacted by the Government of India, which explicitly designates the Dargah of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti as a Muslim religious site, the statement further adds, “ It is the government's responsibility to instil a sense of security among minority communities and safeguard the secular character of the nation. The central and state governments should take Suo moto action against those spreading such baseless claims that foster societal unrest. PUCL has also urged the Supreme Court to direct lower courts not to entertain claims that contravene the provisions of the 1991 Act.