A few months ago I visited Mathura. The mandir is overshadowed by a monumental mosque.
This week people died at a 16th Century Mosque in Sambhal in UP State. The survey was ordered by a local court last week, hours after a petition claimed that the mosque had been built on the site of a destroyed temple.
The Ayodhya dispute, culminating in the landmark 2019 Supreme Court judgment, is among India's most contentious and historically significant legal cases. However, it is critical to understand why this case is considered unique and why similar conversions cannot be legally sanctioned under Indian law. Basically, if you thought all the Mosques built on Mandirs can be converted, you’re in for a (legal) surprise. Unless the law is changed. Unlikely.
The Supreme Court judgment on the Ayodhya dispute hinged on several legal principles, primarily the application of the doctrine of adverse possession and the consideration of historical evidence regarding the site. Here are the key legal aspects:
- The Property Dispute: The case was primarily a title suit: the court ruled that the land belonged to Ram Lalla based on historical and archaeological evidence that suggested continuous worship by Hindus at the site.
- Doctrine of Adverse Possession: The legal principle of adverse possession, which recognizes continuous and uninterrupted possession over a specific period, played a significant role in determining ownership.
- Evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI): The ASI's findings indicated the presence of a non-Islamic structure beneath the Babri Masjid, which was interpreted as evidence of a pre-existing Hindu temple.
- Secular Principles and Compensation: In its judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that the decision did not endorse any form of religious favouritism. To uphold secularism, the court directed the government to provide a five-acre plot of land in Ayodhya for the construction of a mosque as compensation for the demolished Babri Masjid.
Why Other Religious Conversions Cannot Be Permitted
The Ayodhya case is often cited as a unique instance, and its outcome cannot serve as a precedent for other religious conversions for several reasons:
- The Places of Worship Act, 1991: This legislation is the most significant legal safeguard against the conversion of religious sites. It mandates that the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, must be maintained. The only exception to this law is the Ayodhya dispute, as the case was already under litigation when the Act came into force.
- Protection of Secularism: India's constitutional commitment to secularism ensures that all religious communities have equal rights to their places of worship. Allowing conversions of religious sites would violate this principle and risk communal harmony.
- Judicial Precedent: The Ayodhya verdict was based on specific historical, archaeological, and legal contexts unique to the disputed site. The judgment explicitly stated that its findings were not applicable to other cases and that the principles applied were limited to the facts presented in this specific instance.
- Maintaining Communal Harmony: Given India's diverse religious landscape, the Places of Worship Act is crucial in preventing disputes that could lead to social unrest. Any deviation from this law would threaten the fragile balance of communal relations in the country. Before you let slip the dogs of war, think carefully what is important to you.
If you want to convert places of worship legally, you would need to convert to another faith and go to a country where that faith is constitutionally enshrined as the official religion and above others in the Constitution. That country isn’t India. You might not like that. But, that’s how democracies work. You can lobby to change the constitution. But you might as well ask the Uzbek Government for reparations for the invasion and conquest by Babur the Barbarian and creation of the Mongol Empire in India. (Pronounced ‘Mughal’ by the sophisticated elite, Mongrol is the origin of Mongol – as in ‘mongrel dog’ one which is of no determined breed – because they raped and pillaged their way across central Asia’s many racial and ethnic groups.)
