Do you know that the first Muslim invader Muhammad bin Qasim attacked the Sindh province of India in 712 AD and created a lot of havoc. After that, his followers i.e. Muslim invaders came attacking India as per their convenience, looted important places including rich temples and markets and handed over the power here to their trusted people and then went back. Whereas the later Islamic invaders set up their camp here and seemed intent on destroying our culture.
As a result, after about 500 years, by the 12th century, India became completely a slave of Muslim kings. After that, Farrukhabadi, an open game of religious persecution and conversion started going on here. Due to the flow of time, various Hindu temples were demolished and converted into mosques. In such a situation, unlike the Muslims who freed India from British slavery and went to Pakistan with their share of land, India would have been declared a Hindu nation in 1947 and a campaign would have been launched to renovate the encroached temples. But exactly the opposite happened! Due to wrong and irrelevant policies of Nehru and Indira government, which were later continued by their successors also.
That is, due to the politics of minority appeasement, Congress declared the country secular and started making laws to protect minority interests. Most of the Hindus remained cheated by this. With that, communal riots became the destiny of Asethu Himalaya. The character of the communal riots before and after 1947 remained the same and so was the confusion in administrative policies. Amidst this confusion, the aspirations of the Hindus for the return of the temples united them, to crush which the then Congress government implemented the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991 or the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991. .
Let us tell you that this is an Act of the Parliament of India, which was passed on September 18, 1991. This Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from one faith to another and the maintenance of any monument on religious grounds which was in existence till August 15, 1947. Due to this, the question of renovation of about 1800 Hindu temples, on whose graves mosques are flourishing today, died down. At the same time, the sections of the said law will not apply to recognized ancient monuments. Therefore, now questions are being raised on this cut off date.
The question for Hindus is why the cut off date is 15 August 1947? Why is the year 712 AD not associated with the first Muslim invader? Or why not around 1200 AD, when the Delhi Sultanate was visible in its full anti-Hindu nature? Has our Parliament also started taking interest in converting Sanatan Bhoomi into ‘Islamic land’ just so that the Nehru-Gandhi family can be kept happy? At the same time, due to the need for power, RSS is also speaking the same language and saying That it is wrong to find Shivalinga in all mosques. BJP is getting political relief from this. But people’s attention is being diverted from the core issue. Factual details on the untimely demise of Hindu temples are available if you look at some books and websites.
According to media reports, in the year 1990, historian Sita Ram Goyal, along with other writers Arun Shourie, Harsh Narayan, Jai Dubashi and Ram Swaroop, wrote two volumes titled ‘Hindu Temples: What Happened To Them’. The book was published. In it, Goyal identified more than 1,800 Muslim-built buildings, mosques and disputed structures that were built using materials from existing temples and/or destroyed temples. From Qutub Minar to the controversial Babri Masjid, the controversial structure of Gyanvapi, Pinjore Garden and many others are mentioned in this book. Due to this, Hindus have got justice through the court only in the Babri Masjid case, while all other questions remain unanswered! Due to this, the parliamentary role is also in the dock of public opinion.
The surprising thing is that this Act exempted any suit, appeal or other proceeding related to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid located in Ayodhya in the state of Uttar Pradesh and the said place or place of worship, for which this Act was enacted. do not apply. However, the judicial order came in favor of Hindus and now a grand Ram temple has been constructed there. But now the encroached mosques on about 1800 encroached temples including Kashi, Mathura, Sambhal, Ajmer Sharif have been given legitimacy, which if not playing with Hindu faith then what is it? Therefore it is natural to raise questions on this.
The Act clearly acknowledged the inability to rewind the events related to the Ayodhya dispute. Keep in mind that before the demolition of the so-called Babri structure, the above mentioned law was brought by the then Congress Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao in 1991. Which is spread throughout India except the state of Jammu and Kashmir. However, any law that applies to a state must be approved by the Legislative Assembly there. But the question remains the same, why was the Muslim majority state of Jammu and Kashmir exempted from this?
Let us tell you that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 said that all the provisions will come into force on July 11, 1991. At the same time, Sections 3, 6 and 8 will come into force immediately. Section 3 also deals with conversion of places of worship. Offenses under this Act of 1991 are punishable with a prison term which may extend to three years as well as a fine. Whereas, the offense will be covered under Section 8 (as clause “h”) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, under which for the purpose of disqualifying the candidates for election, they should be sentenced to two years or more under the Act. .
It is understood that in view of the controversies that have arisen from time to time regarding change of places of worship, it has been felt that such change should be banned. Whereas, in order to eliminate any dispute in relation to any place of worship in existence on the 15th August, 1947, it is considered necessary to make provision for maintaining the religious character of such place of worship as it existed on the 15th August, 1947. Was in existence.
As a result, all suits or other proceedings pending till 11th July, 1991 in respect of any such place of worship shall stand abated and any further suits or other proceedings shall be stayed. However, since the matter relating to the place commonly known as Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid is a class in itself, it has become necessary to completely exempt it from the effect of this Act.
Further, for the purpose of maintaining communal harmony and peace, cases decided by courts, tribunals or other authorities between 15th August, 1947 and 11th July, 1991, or settled by the parties mutually or by consent, will also be covered by this Act. Are free from influence. At the same time, July 11, 1991 has been proposed as the commencement date of the Act, because on the same day the President made such announcement while addressing the Parliament. This Bill aims to achieve the above objectives.
Place of worship in this context means a temple, mosque, gurudwara, church, monastery or any place of public religious worship of any religious sect or any section thereof, by whatever name called. At the same time, no person shall convert the place of worship of any religious sect or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious sect or a place of worship of any different religious sect or any section thereof.
At the same time, with regard to the religious character of some places of worship and prohibition of jurisdiction of courts etc., it has been declared that the religious nature of the place of worship existing on August 15, 1947 will remain the same as it was on that day. At the same time, if any suit, appeal or other proceeding is pending before any court, tribunal or other authority regarding the change in the religious nature of any place of worship existing on 15th August, 1947 at the commencement of this Act, then the same will be abated and No suit, appeal or other proceeding in respect of any such matter shall lie in any court, tribunal or other authority at or after such commencement.
Provided that if any suit, appeal or other proceeding instituted or filed on the ground that there has been a change in the religious character of any such place after the 15th August, 1947, is pending at the commencement of this Act, such suit , appeal or other proceeding shall not be so abated and every such suit, appeal or other proceeding shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1).
Any place of worship specified under this Act which is an ancient and historical monument or archaeological site or is covered under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958) or any other law for the time being in force; or any suit, appeal or other proceeding in respect of any matter referred to in that sub-section which, before the commencement of this Act, has been finally decided, settled or disposed of by any court, tribunal or other authority; any dispute in respect of any matter which has been settled between the parties before such commencement; Any change of place made by approval before such commencement; Any change made before such commencement which is not capable of being challenged in any court, tribunal or other authority and which is barred by limitation under any law for the time being in force.
This is why the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is often seen in relation to the Krishna Temple in Mathura and the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Masjid issues, apart from the Ram Temple issue which has been resolved in subsequent years. This is why the Supreme Court once sought a response from the Center on a petition challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which maintains the status of places of worship as it was as of August 15, 1947.
But it is important to note that if the change in the religious character of a place of worship is made after the cut-off date of August 15, 1947, legal proceedings can be initiated. Additionally, the Places of Worship Act imposes a positive obligation on the State to maintain the religious character of all places of worship as it was at the time of independence.
At the same time, any place of worship which is an ancient and historical monument or archaeological site which comes under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. At the same time, any dispute which has been settled by the parties or any change of place which has taken place by consent before the coming into force of the Act. At the same time, a case which has been finally settled or settled. Let us tell you that when this law was introduced in the Lok Sabha, the then Home Minister had commented that this law was introduced “as a measure to provide and develop our glorious traditions of love, peace and harmony”. .
In the 2019 Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi verdict, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court upheld the law and said it reflected secularism in the Constitution of India and that it prevented regressivity.
At the same time, the petition related to the Places of Worship Act 1991 states, “The Center has banned measures against illegal encroachment on places of worship and pilgrimage sites and now Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs cannot file cases under Article 226.” Therefore, they will not be able to restore their places of worship and pilgrimage sites including temple endowments in the spirit of Articles 25-26 and the illegal occupation of the invaders. The barbaric acts will continue for eternity.”
The petition also said that this law violates the principle of secularism enshrined in the Constitution. At the same time, some people argue that “pilgrimage places” or “cemeteries” come under the state list and the Center has no right to make laws on it. However, the Center had argued that it could do so under the residuary power in Entry 97 of the Union List.
Therefore, it would be better if both the Parliament and the Supreme Court reconsider this emotive issue of changing the barbaric history and intelligently convert the injustice done by force into justice, as it has done in the Ram Mandir case of Ayodhya. It would be better if there is a judicial inquiry into these 1800 cases and if the allegations of Hindus are true, then the temple should be restored here. This is also the demand of natural justice. This will also curb the trend of demolishing temples in future. Without this, the meaning of the independence achieved in 1947 would not be clear to Hindus. No secularism can be restored at the cost of Hindutva, because India is their native land.
– Kamlesh Pandey
Senior journalist and political analyst