The religious places dispute, presently sub judice in the Varanasi Courts is manifestation of religious misadventures of a barbaric ruler, during the seventeenth century. The case is actually against the ruler who is long dead. During the past three and half centuries, nearly fifteen generations of one community living in the vicinity have been paying their obeisance at the mosque. They were not even remotely party to the mischief of demolition of temple. Now, if they are denied prayers at this mosque, they shall be victims of a cruel ruler’s deeds of pre-independence era.
On the other hand equal number of generations of the other community have not had the opportunity to pay their obeisance at the temple, as it was demolished on the dictates of the same earl. Generations of this community have suffered and denial of relief to them now, will further aggravate their wounds.
The alleged incident of constructing a mosque after demolishing an existing temple at the site is nearly four centuries old. Technically, both the erstwhile temple and the mosque, have been sacrilesed. Temple got contorted and remnants were continually subjected to abuse as refuse from washing area smeared it. The mosque is ab-initio indicted and bears the stigma of having been constructed over a temple, broken to make place for it.There are only two possibilities. Either such an incident actually occurred or its imaginary. If there was no temple at that place and nothing was demolished to construct the mosque, the dispute shall fall flat in courts of law and the issue will settle like the froth on water, after some precipitation by the over active and bewitching media and religious activists. We need not worry, soon, this too shall pass.
The problem will manifest, if it is established that the reported incident is true. Then there shall be two options. Either a temple can be constructed at the site after demolishing the mosque, or remnants of the erstwhile temple can be relocated and the mosque continues to exist as hitherto-fore. If the mosque is demolished, one community will be happy while the other will be disturbed and vice versa, if the remnants of the temple are relocated. Thus, none of the two possible outcomes of the case in the courts, will be just and fair.
This dispute is only a tip of the iceberg. The outcome of this case will decide the destiny of hundreds of similar cases that are already simmering in the pot. A district judge may not be competent to address this vexed issue that shall have serious national ramifications. We, the living, neither fight the dead nor the courts have laws to try rulers who died centuries ago. Therefore, the courts and national leaders have to be very careful and think out of box .
It is suggested that a jury of up to fifty eminent citizens with impeccable credentials should be constituted to address the issue. It is high time to actualise ‘Ganga Jamuni Tehjib’, a cliche often used to highlight isolated incidents of brotherhood and bonhomie between the two communities. This adversity can be converted into an opportunity if the biligrant groups unite amicably and the site is possibly rechristened as ‘Sarv Dharam Sthal’. The religious teachers for conducting the prayers and other religious ceremonies for both the communities can be appointed on deputation from the armed forces where this concept is already in vogue. The carefully selected Religious Teachers who are graduates from the ‘Institute of National Integration, Pune’, should be adequately incentivised. Detailed standing operating procedures can be drawn to ensure that the two communities do not step on each others toes; rather the procedures should compliment their co-existence. If this experiment succeeds, ‘that it shall’; ‘Sarv Dharam Sthal’ shall be a unique initiative for the world to emulate.
Comments