The Shringar Gauri-Gyanvapi complex case has been heated, with the first action demanding the right to pray at the Gyanvapi disputed site. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain and Senior Advocate Hari Shankar Jain are representing five female petitioners in the lawsuit, which aims to restore the devotees’ right to pray. OpIndia interviewed Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who made some thrilling revelations concerning the case and the underlying concerns.
How did the plan for the case come up? As it was a dispute that persisted for a long but what made the petitioners stand up for the cause and why now?
First of all, we need to understand that a deity is permanent. If at a place, a deity or a form of energy is consecrated, that remains and exists at the same place in time. Therefore, instead of this question, I’d rather ask why the Places of Worship Act was enacted in 1991 and why it is now facing opposition. Why was the nation sleeping for 30 straight years?
There are a whole lot of things which come to be known over a period of time. I came into my profession in 2010. When I studied this case, got the opportunity to be involved in the Ram Mandir case, and studied the rights of Hindu deities, I came to know that Hindus in this country have faced a lot of injustice. One of them is the case pertaining to the Shringar Gauri temple in Kashi Vishwanath, where devotees were allowed to worship till November 1993, but the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led Samajwadi Party Government in Uttar Pradesh stopped them and seized their rights.
So, when I came to know about all this and found that the law allows me to contest this in a court of justice, I decided to go with it. If the law allows me to do this, it doesn’t matter when and how I raise this issue. Timing is not at all important. What is important is that Hindus awakened and decided to correct the injustices done to them through courts of justice and not the streets.
As you mentioned the Places of Worship Act 1991, what do you want to say about that? Do you think it should be repealed?
According to me, the Places of Worship Act is a poorly drafted and vaguely crafted legislation that is susceptible to many interpretations and is such a legal mess that it has a significant impact on Hindus’ legal rights. Whether it be the rights of the deities, or the rights of Hindus to reclaim and restore their religious sites, the bad drafting of this Act has played a vital role in hampering the rights of Hindus. I feel this act should get repealed by the central government.
Are there loopholes in the Places of Worship Act which can be used to advantage of Hindus?
That has already been done. The Act allows deciding the religious character of a site and we have applied it in trial courts in both Kashi and Mathura cases and we have had verdicts on our side.
As the merits of the Shringar Gauri case are also known to everyone including the history of Islamic tyrants destroying Indian heritage and specifically Hindu temples, what do you want to say regarding the progress of the case?
I just want to say that all the Islamic organisations are going with the narrative of the debates that occurred during the legislation of the Places of Worship Act. They need to understand that the drafting of the Act is very poor and all the promises and discussions are irrelevant if we get to see the drafting of the Act. Those are empty promises. Section 3 of the Act says that no character of a religious place will be changed but even after the law is in place, it has been violated like in 1993 when Hindus were thrown out of the Shringar Gauri temple where they had been worshipping for centuries. There was a violation of Section 3 and Section 6 has provisions for punishment but not a single person has been punished to date.
Secondly, in Kashmir after August 15 1947, or in almost every state in India, many Hindu temples have been broken and converted into Islamic sites, resulting in no action and punishment under Sections 3 & 6. Also, this needs to be understood clearly that we are not saying that we want to convert the religious character of a site, we are not saying that if a mosque is constructed at a place through proper legal ways and we want to encroach on it or convert it to a temple. This is the reason I have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 4 and not Section 3. We just want that if a place or a mosque was earlier a Hindu temple, it must be restored and reclaimed so that Hindus are able to exercise their rights. There is nothing else that we need. The Places of Worship Act 1991 does not hamper this but still, the act is open to various interpretations and can be used in different ways. I think the central government should repeal this act as a whole so that Hindus are able to exercise their rights properly. Even if this act does not exist, people will file their cases as legal suits and civil suits in civil courts and get judgments based on merits and facts. There is no point in having such a badly drafted act in place in this country.
About the Shivling, the findings of the court-ordered survey, the sealing and the Wuzukhana
First of all, when the court-commissioned survey of the premise took place on 14, 15, and 16 May, a whole lot of things were discovered from the site and I would like to put it boldly with OpIndia that this is the reason the survey was opposed at such a scale. The Secretary of the Masajid Committee openly threatened and stated that the survey can only be conducted on his dead body. This was just to conceal the truth.
Now coming to the findings, the alleged Masjid has more than substantial proof of it being a Hindu temple. Under the domes of the mosque, there are Shikhars of a Hindu temple. We have seen them and it has been recorded and submitted to the court too. The Shikhar of the Hindu temple has been damaged and it has been covered with the domes of the mosque. There are small windows in the domes through which we can clearly see the semi-broken Shikhar.
After this, several signs and emblems of Hindu culture and tradition have been found on the walls of the disputed structure. Signs like Trishul, Damru, Swastik and many others are clearly visible on all the walls of the disputed structure. There is a Gyanvapi calendar below the central dome and behind that is a Swastik symbol engraved on the wall. This shows how efforts were made to conceal the truth. There are Sanskrit Shlokas written on the pillars and the walls of the mosque.
There are also semi-destroyed statues of deities on the walls. In the basement, there are sub-shrines all around. During the survey, we came across the Wuzukhana and found a well-like structure in the centre of the Wuzu pond. I told Aijaz Bhai, the caretaker of the premise, to drain the water so that we can check what is inside. They kept denying giving various reasons but we insisted on our demand. Finally, they drained it and what we found was astonishing! A huge Shivling came up to be visible in the centre of that pond which they claimed to be a fountain.
So, we filed an application to get that Shivling tested scientifically. They are even opposing this move. If they say that this is a fountain then why get worried? Let the truth come out.
This is so disgusting to find that the Shivling was concealed in a Wuzukhana where Muslims went to wash their feet and rinse their mouth. This is how they played with the emotions of Hindus. They even went to the Supreme Court insisting that they should be allowed to do Wuzu in the same pond. I am very much thankful to the Solicitor General and the Union government who stated in the court that if someone even touches the Shivling, it will be a law & order problem.
This is ludicrous to find that Aurangzeb did not make a single original structure during his reign and constructed this fountain that too adjacent to a millennia-old temple! Aurangzeb did not make a single mosque during his reign and just demolished temples and converted them into Islamic places of worship.
All the threats being issued from the Muslim side are just to ensure that the truth doesn’t come out in the public domain. The truth can only come out through a scientific evaluation of the site and through expert opinion, and not through public opinion or plebiscite. This is a matter of justice, and it cannot be decided in any parliament. This can only be decided in a court of justice, in a court of law. These people are even threatening courts, which is just out of imagination. I feel that the administration should come heavily on them.
Coming to the scientific evaluation thing, why has carbon dating been demanded from the side of Hindus?
I have much to explain regarding this. The fact around carbon dating has been peddled as a misnomer by the other side. There has been a very big conspiracy to derail the entire case from the track. Before answering this question, I’d like to lay emphasis on the background of this case.
On May 5 this year, we met with all five petitioners in Varanasi and the route map for the survey was decided. However, on May 8, a representative of Rakhi Singh, one petitioner among five, filed an application in the court that she wants to withdraw the case. Then, the other four petitioners stated that they will not withdraw the case at any cost and if Rakhi Singh wants, she can withdraw from her side.
Later, all four petitioners were invited to a hotel room by the representative of Rakhi Singh and they were told that if they withdraw the case, they will be benefitted in a way. All four petitioners denied the proposal and stated that they will not withdraw the case even if they are forced to consume poison. Following this, the court ordered a survey and it was completed on 14, 15, and 16 May 2022. Rakhi Singh made numerous efforts to derail the functioning of the commission and made unwarranted statements in the media even after the admonition of the administration to make no public remarks.
Following all this, frivolous campaigns were run in the media that I and my father were removed as the counsels of the Hindu side from this case. This was all being done as part of a controversy. The Muslim side is well aware that they cannot win this case until we represent the petitioners. I and my father received multiple death threats to abandon the case and save our lives. But we were adamant. We are adamant and we will win this case for sure with the blessings of Mahadev.
Now coming to carbon dating, we, as the Hindu side, never asked for it. We never asked for this in court. We asked for a scientific evaluation of the site but as per a conspiracy, it was peddled in the public domain that we were demanding carbon dating. We never ever demanded carbon dating, and I want this to reach the masses through OpIndia.
As per a conspiracy, it was insinuated in the public domain that we wanted carbon dating of the Shivling and it would result in harming the Shivling physically. It should come to public notice that the affidavit of Rakhi Singh and the Muslim side was completely the same and both of them opposed the scientific evaluation of the site. Rakhi Singh is compromised. We only want a scientific evaluation of the site and it is up to the court to decide what kind of tests are needed to be done to evaluate the age of the Shivling.
(This interview of lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain was taken before the judgement by the Court on the carbon dating of the Shivling found in Wuzukhana)