Court notice on Ajmer dargah plea sparks sharp reactions in political, religious circles

BJP State president Madan Rathore says decisions in such matters should be taken on the basis of history in order to maintain goodwill in the society; AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi says claims on Ajmer dargah an attempt to ‘destabilise the country’

A day after a civil court in Ajmer issued notices on a suit claiming that a Lord Shiva temple existed at the site of the 13th Century dargah of Sufi mystic Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, political and religious leaders across the country reacted sharply on the issue on Thursday. There were conflicting views on the attempts to redefine the religious character of the historic shrine which attracts devotees of all faiths.

Civil Judge Manmohan Chandel had on Wednesday issued notices to the Dargah Committee, the Ministry of Minority Affairs and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the plea seeking to declare the dargah a temple. Plaintiff Vishnu Gupta has sought a survey through the ASI and the grant of right to Hindus to worship at the shrine.

While there was no official reaction from the Dargah Committee – a statutory body established under the Dargah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955 – the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party leaders said a controversy was being created over a judicial process with the intention to promote the “politics of appeasement”. The court’s decision should be acceptable to everyone, said the BJP leaders.

The civil suit seeking directions to start Hindu rituals at the dargah was filed in September and the next hearing was scheduled on December 20. The notices have come in the aftermath of a similar controversy in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal, where four persons were killed in the violence following a court-ordered survey of Shahi Jama Masjid. The plaintiffs in Sambhal have also claimed that the mosque was built after destroying an old temple.

BJP State president Madan Rathore said here that the decisions in such matters should be taken on the basis of history in order to maintain goodwill in the society. “Several such buildings were damaged and captured by Mughals [in the past], but the courts gave judgements after a probe. We have full faith in judiciary… whatever the decision is, we will welcome it,” he said.

Mr. Rathore said the Congress had treated Muslims as a vote bank and indulged in appeasement. “If special opportunities and benefits are given to a particular class of people, it is bound to create resentment and hatred among others. We must stay united… If Mughals were expert in constructing monuments, such buildings would have been found in Middle East as well, but the architecture like India is not visible there,” he said.

While Union Minister Giriraj Singh asked what was the problem in taking such matters to the courts, as these controversies were not resolved in 1947, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen president and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi said every Prime Minister of the country had been sending chadar (sheet of cloth draped on a grave as a mark of respect) to the Ajmer dargah during Urs (observance of the death anniversary of the Sufi saint). “Where will all this stop? What will happen to the Place of Worship Act, 1991? This is being done to destabilise the country,” Mr. Owaisi said.

In Ajmer, the Anjuman Khuddam Syedzadgan, a representative body of khadims (caretarkers) at the dargah, has sought to be impleaded as a defendant in the court case. Anjuman’s secretary Syed Sarwar Chishti said the suit was a deliberate attempt to fracture the society along communal lines. He said the ASI had nothing to do with the shrine, which was a “symbol of secularism and communal harmony”, as the people from all communities visited it.

Chishti Foundation’s president Salman Chishti said the courts were hastily entertaining the petitions devoid of constitutional values while ignoring the broader implications for communal harmony and national unity. United Muslim Forum Rajasthan’s president Muzaffar Bharti contended that the civil suit was a “sheer violation” of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) sought an immediate intervention of the Supreme Court in the matter in order to put an end to such legal proceedings in line with the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which the apex court itself had upheld in the Ayodhya judgment of 2019. “The violation of this Act has already resulted in the flawed decision with regard to the survey of the Masjid in Sambhal,” the party said in a statement released on X.

The People’s Union for Civil Liberties-Rajasthan called upon the Union and State governments to take stringent action against those creating animosity in the society by making baseless claims. PUCL-Rajasthan president Bhanwar Meghwanshi said creating a sense of security among the minority communities and protecting the country’s secular character were basic responsibilities of the government.

Published - November 28, 2024 10:27 pm IST