The Uttarakhand High C🐻ourt on Thursday has directed the district administration to conduct day and night patrolling to maintain law and order in Uttarkashi while keeping the court informed on the situation after a dispute over a local mosque. The mosque, built decades ago, belongs to the Sunni community but few right-wing groups have claimed that the mosque was illegally built and violence ensued in Uttarkashi last month.
This comes a day after☂ a local court in Ajmer issued notices to three parties in a civil suit claiming that a Shiva temple exists within the dargah of Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti. The suit, filed in September, seeks to resume worship at the alleged temple. The case was heard by Civil Judge Manmohan Chandel, according to the plaintiff's advocate, Yogesh Siroja.
Several opposition leaders, Muslim legislators and also Union Minister Giri🉐raj Singh have shared their thoughts on the matter. While the Opposition leaders have slammed ♔the ruling BJP government at the Centre, the Union Minister spoke about the rights of Hindus against the 'Mughal invaders".
The discussions over the mosque 💫dispute have received spotlight after four people were killed in Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh in violence following a local court ordering survey of another Mughal-era shrine, the Shahi Jama Masjid, which petitioners said was built after destroying an old temple.
Chaos Over Uttarkashi Mosuqe Dispute
An outfit, namely, Sanyukt Hindu Sangathan, allegedly resorted to stone-pelting during a protest rally demanding the mosque's demolition in October, forcing the police to use mild lathi-charge to disperse the mob𝓰.
The clashes🐓, which erupted when the police tried to divꦦert the route of the rally, left 27 persons including seven policemen injured.
The outfit claimed the m🅰osque was built illegally on government land.
What Did Uttarakhand High Court Say On The Matter?
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Vivek Bharti issued the directions to the Uttarkashi district🎀 magistrate and the superintendent of police while hearing a petition on November 27 demanding safety of the mosque on Bhatwari Road in Uttarkashi.
The petitioner said a mahapanchayat, protesting against the mosque, was proposed on December 1 and sought the court's in💝tervention not to allow it.
Appearing on behalf of the state governm🌟ent, Deputy Advocate General J S Virk submitted that the adꦏministration had not granted permissions for the mahapanchayat.
Day and night patrolling w൩as being carried out to maintain law and order and the situation in the town was normal, he claimed.
The petition filed by an organisation called Alpasankhyak Seva Samiti 🅺of Uttarkashi alleged that since September 24, some organisations had been threatening to demolish the mosque, claiming it was illegal.
Communal tens🍎ions were brewing in the town because of it, the petition said, seeking protection of the mosque.
The petition further claimed that the mosque was built on the land purchased in 196🔥9 and ☂the Waqf commissioner inspected it in 1986 and found it to be legal.
The petitioner's advocate Kartikeya Hari Gupta informed the cour♊t that provocative statements in violation of the Supreme Court order were being made by the organisations seeking the mosque's demolition.
The Supreme Court ordered all the states to file a case directly if inflammatory statements against ꦯany caste, religion or community, were resorted to, he argued.
The lawyer submitted while a failure to do so would violate the Supreme Court order, the state government had not yet filed any case against anyone in this matter v🦹iolating the SC mandate.
The next hearing is on December 5.
What Is Happening In Ajmer?
On November 27, a local court in🍰 Ajmer, known the world over as home of the dargah visited by thousands of devotees cutting across religious divides every day, issued notices to the dargah committee, Union Ministry of Minority Affairs and the Archaeological Survey of India on the plea seeking to declare the shrine a temple.
Opposition Leaders React To Ajmer Mosuqe Dispute
AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi reacted to the petition issued in Rajasthan Court seeking to declare the Mughal-era shrine a Shiva temple as he said, all Indian prime ministers, including Narendra Modi, have offered 'chadar' at Ajmer Sharif Dargah and the controversy over the claim that the Sufi shrine was a temple was directly or indirectly linked to the BJP and the RSS.
"Th♚e Dargah Sharif has been there for 800 years. Every prime minister of t🦩he country sends 'chadar' for the dargah during 'Urs'. Official delegations from neighbouring countries come there, Indian diaspora from all over the world visit the dargah... Now suddenly you are raising this issue..." Owaisi added.
While dargah committee officials declined to comment, Syed Sarwar Chis🃏hti, secretary of the Anjuman Syed Zadgan, a body representing the khadims (c🔥aretakers) of the Ajmer dargah, described the petition as a deliberate attempt to fracture society along communal lines.
He said the dargah which he described as a symbol of communal harmony and secularism comes under the Miღnority Affairs ministry and the ASI has nothing to do with it.
"The community accepted the decision in the Babri Masjid case and we believed nothing will happen after that but unfortunately such things are happening again and again. The example of Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh is in front of us. This must stop," he told PTI.
Samajwadi Party's Rampur MP Mohibbullah Nadvi said the petition on Ajmer Dargahꦗ was "pa💙inful".
♕"Some people have lost their cool after the 2024 (Lok Sabha) election results as they didn't get the majority. These people want to target a particular community to please the majority. This is their misbelief," he told reporters outside Parliament.
Saharanpur MP Imran Masood said an atmosphere of hatred has been created in the country. "They did it in Sambhal yesterday. Now they did it in ༺Ajmer. What𝔍 is this drama?" he said.
"BJP and the government should think, this country cannot be run by hatred, you cannot sideline 25 crore people. How would the country develop without their contribution? We are very clear, your party may become stronger by creating hatred, but it is not good for the country," the Congress leader said addressing reporters outside P🦹arliament.
"Worrisome. The latest claim: Shiv Temple at Ajmer Dargah. Where are☂ we taking this꧟ country? And why? For political dividends!" Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said in a post on X.
Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram) MP from Nagina in Uttar Pradesh, Chandra Shekhar said these incidents create🅷 a trust deficit in the country.
"What if a Buddhist says there is a Bud꧒dhist temple under Hindu temples and demands a probe? Those who are encouraging this should also answer what would be the outcome... Employment, price rise, health, educat🥀ion, farmers, women... these are the issues, should we talk about these issues or religious places?" he asked.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) said in a statement that the civil court's decision to entertain the petition is unwarranted and 🐻has no legal standing. "It goes against the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which decrees that no legal disput🍰e can be raised on a religious place that existed prior to August 15, 1947," it said.
"The violation of this Act has already resulted in the flawed decision with regar🔥d to the survey of the masjid in Sambhal...," the party added, asking the Supreme Court to immediately intervene.
PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti also cited the act. "Thanks to a former Chief Justice of India a Pandora's box has been opened sparking a contentious debate about minority religious places. Despite a Supreme Court ruling that the status quo should be maintained as it exꦏisted in 1947, his judgement has paved the way for surveys of these sites potentially leading to increased tension between Hindus and Muslims," said PDP president Mehbooba Mufti.
Union Minister Responds
Union minister Giriraj Singh on Thursday responded to the issue stating that hindus have the right to approach courts and seek surv🍬ey of m✃osques because it is a truth that many of them were built on ruins of temples demolished by Mughal invaders, .
He also said Hindus would not have to knock on the doors of courts seeking relief 🌊had former prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru taken steps to end such disputes after Independence.
"What is the problem in it? It's a truth that the Mughal invaders had demolished our temples… A drive to build mosques on the (ruins of) temples had been carried out by the invaders," he told reporters in Parliament complex when asked for comment on a petition filed in a lower court seeki♚ng a survey of the Ajmer Sharif dargah in Rajasthan.
"And now, if you ask me that about how many mosques I would say𒐪 so. Then I will say the Congress government was doing appea💮sement," he said.
Had Nehru taken steps to end such disp⛄utes after Independence, "we would not have needed to file a petition in the courts today", Singh further said.
