The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991, passed in the aftermath of escalating religious tensions, sought to cement India’s pluralist ethos by freezing the character of all places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. However, as recent events demonstrate, its blanket prohibition on inquiries into the religious history of these sites has turned it into a lightning rod for controversy.
In Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal, a court-mandated survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid recently ignited communal tensions, culminating in police violence that left five persons, including a minor, dead. Days later, in Rajasthan, a court accepted a petition alleging that the Ajmer Sharif Dargah was originally a Shiva temple. These developments reveal a festering grievance among sections of the majority population who feel denied the right to probe historical injustices.
The scars of India’s past conquests are both deep and undeniable. Will Durant, the American historian, famously called the Islamic conquest of India “probably the bloodiest story in history.” The establishment of the Delhi Sultanate after Muhammad Ghori’s decisive victory over Prithviraj Chauhan at the second battle of Tarain in 1192 A.D. marked the beginning of large-scale Islamization across northern India. Ajmer, Chauhan’s capital, was a victim of this upheaval. Ghori’s forces reportedly sacked Hindu temples in the region, including in Ajmer, dismantling symbols of a defeated polity.
These trends extended across north India. The Qutb Minar complex in Delhi, built by Qutb-ud-din Aibak, includes the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque, famously constructed from the rubble of 27 temples. In Varanasi, the Gyanvapi mosque stands adjacent to the remnants of a Vishwanath temple, razed during Aurangzeb’s reign.
The past, however, is not just contested—it has often been whitewashed. Marxist historians have long framed Islamic conquests as mere political struggles devoid of religious motivations. This ‘secular’ approach, while attempting to promote harmony, has often been accused of distorting historical truths.
Proponents of revisiting these contentious histories argue that the current law’s rigidity stifles legitimate historical inquiry and perpetuates resentment. They point to the incongruity of protecting sites with visible evidence of prior religious structures, such as temple fragments in mosque walls, from archaeological surveys. In their view, allowing measured, court-monitored investigations would better serve justice than letting speculation fester.
It is crucial to recognize that history cannot be undone without imperilling the present. If the law is to be amended, it must come with guardrails to prevent its misuse. Surveys, if permitted, should be conducted under the strict supervision of neutral experts and insulated from political or communal agendas.
India’s challenge lies in balancing the pursuit of historical truth without jeopardizing its future.
Comments