The ancient city of Varanasi, sacred to Hindus for millennia, now finds itself at the heart of a contentious saga unfolding within the confines of the Gyanvapi mosque complex. The controversy hinges on a fundamental question: did a Hindu temple predate the mosque at this very site, and if so, what does it mean for the future of both structures? The recent Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report has added fuel to the fire, prompting a closer examination of historical evidence and igniting passionate debates.
Unearthing the Past: The ASI Survey and its Findings
The ASI, tasked by the Varanasi court to determine the mosque’s origin, has concluded that a “large Hindu temple existed prior to the construction of the existing structure.” Their report, based on “scientific studies and observations,” details the discovery of numerous Hindu motifs and architectural elements within the mosque complex. These include 55 sculptures depicting deities like Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, and Hanuman, fragments of pillars and walls, and even inscriptions in Sanskrit. The report further corroborates this with textual evidence, primarily from Saqi Mustaid Khan’s “Maasir-i-Alamgiri,” a chronicle of Emperor Aurangzeb’s reign.
The Shadow of Aurangzeb: Demolishing Temples and Asserting Power
Aurangzeb, known for his strict Islamic orthodoxy, implemented several policies that historians consider discriminatory towards Hindus. The 1669 “farmaan” (decree) stands as a stark example. The document called for the destruction of Hindu schools and temples, aiming to suppress “the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these misbelievers.” This decree tragically led to the demolition of prominent temples, including the Vishwanath temple in Varanasi, supposedly on the very site where the Gyanvapi mosque now stands.
Historians offer varying interpretations of Aurangzeb’s motives. Some, like Richard Eaton, argue that the decree targeted specific institutions promoting “certain kinds of teaching” deemed subversive, rather than instigating indiscriminate temple destruction. Others, like Satish Chandra, view it as a deliberate assault on Hinduism, with temples seen as potential hubs for spreading “unacceptable” ideas. The possibility of political retaliation against rebellions, like Chhatrapati Shivaji’s escape, further complicates the narrative. Regardless of the precise motive, the historical record undeniably points to Aurangzeb’s role in the temple’s demise.
Building upon Ruins: The Gyanvapi Mosque and its Ambiguous Origins
While the ASI report confirms the temple’s pre-existence, it doesn’t delve into the details of the mosque’s construction. Unlike the Shahi Eidgah in Mathura, built over the ruins of another demolished temple and attributed to Aurangzeb himself, the Gyanvapi mosque remains shrouded in some mystery. Its exact date of construction and the identity of its patron remain unknown. It doesn’t find mention in official Mughal documents, adding to the intrigue. Some speculate that it emerged in the 1670s or 80s, possibly incorporating parts of the ruined temple as a symbolic assertion of Mughal power.
The Kashi Vishwanath Temple: Rising from the Ashes
Amidst the ruins of the demolished temple, a testament to resilience was born. Queen Ahilyabai Holkar, in the 18th century, commissioned the construction of the present-day Kashi Vishwanath temple, standing adjacent to the Gyanvapi mosque. This new temple offered a sanctuary for worshipers and preserved the legacy of the lost structure.
Unfurling the Knot: Implications and a Moving Forward
The Gyanvapi saga, beyond its historical complexities, carries immense emotional and religious weight for both Hindus and Muslims. The presence of Hindu motifs within the mosque complex fuels the demand for access to worship certain deities enshrined there. On the other hand, Muslims assert their right to practice their faith within the mosque, a structure that has stood for centuries.
Also Read : Political clash is Kerala: Governor Khan protest again CM Vijayan
As the legal battle unfolds, navigating this sensitive terrain requires both historical understanding and empathy. The ASI report, while offering valuable insights into the past, doesn’t erase the reality of the present mosque and its significance for the Muslim community. A path forward, perhaps, lies in acknowledging the layered history of the site, finding ways to respect both faiths, and fostering coexistence. This could involve solutions like shared access to certain areas or the creation of designated spaces for worship within the complex.