Mosques Under Siege: Are ‘Respectable Hindus’ Willing to Be Held to Account?

A hundred years ago, on May 29, 1924, Mahatma Gandhi wrote an article titled ‘Hindu-Muslim Tension: Its Cause and Cure’ in Young India. In it, he referred to an incident in Haryana’s Palwal, where some Hindus threatened Muslims to prevent them from converting a kachcha (makeshift) mosque into a pucca (permanent) one. Deeply anguished, Gandhi noted that these Hindus even destroyed the pucca wall constructed by Muslims as part of their plan to strengthen the mosque. He observed that they issued dire warnings and drove the Muslims out of the area, threatening that coexistence would be impossible if they persisted in constructing a new mosque or upgrading the existing one. Those displaced took refuge in temporary huts near Rohtak.

Gandhi’s observations from a century ago hold critical significance today. Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud ordered a survey of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi to ‘ascertain its religious character’, a decision that appears to contravene the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991. This Act explicitly prohibits changing the religious character of any place of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947.

Chandrachud’s order has since set a precedent, with lower courts in Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states following suit. In Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, a judge issued an ex parte order in favour of Hindu petitioners without hearing the Muslim respondents, directing a survey of a 400-year-old mosque. Hours later, a survey team reached the mosque, triggering tensions and protests. On another occasion, a survey team arrived early in the morning, accompanied by individuals shouting “Jai Shri Ram.” Protests erupted, and five Muslims allegedly died in police firing.

In Rajasthan, a court entertained a Hindu petitioner’s claim that a temple existed at the site of the revered 800-year-old shrine of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer. While the judge issued notices to the respondents without passing an order, the case has nonetheless opened a Pandora’s box. These judicial and administrative actions directly challenge the intent of the 1991 Act, which aims to preserve the religious character of places of worship and avoid reopening historical disputes.

Also read: Sambhal Mosque Violence: Uttar Pradesh Govt Orders Judicial Probe But Questions Remain

In its Ayodhya verdict, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, of which Justice Chandrachud was a part, emphasised the constitutional commitment to secularism and the protection of places of worship. The judgment stated:

“In providing a guarantee for the preservation of the religious character of places of public worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, and against their conversion, Parliament determined that independence from colonial rule furnishes a constitutional basis for healing past injustices. This ensures confidence among religious communities that their places of worship will be preserved. The law binds both the State and its citizens, upholding the equality of all religions and secularism, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.”

Gandhi’s 1924 reflections on the Palwal incident resonate strongly in 2024. He rejected the notion that such acts of violence were merely the work of “unruly elements” or “goondas.” He argued that the responsibility lay with the so-called “respectable Hindus” who created an atmosphere conducive to such mischief. He wrote:

“It is a mistake to blame the goondas! They never do mischief unless we create an atmosphere for them. If it is true that at Palwal we have prevented the erection of a pucca mosque in place of a kachcha one, it is not the goondas who are doing it—it is the respectable Hindus who must be held accountable.”

Gandhi further warned against the dangerous idea of organising “Hindu goondas” for defence, cautioning:

“From the frying pan, they will jump into the fire.”

Today, Gandhi’s words find chilling parallels in the actions of “respectable Hindus,” including influential figures such as judges and administrators. The communal tensions in Sambhal can be traced back to the survey order by a “respectable Hindu” judge and the swift actions of state authorities. Similarly, the Rajasthan judge’s decision to entertain claims about the Ajmer shrine reflects the same mindset. As Gandhi warned, are these “respectable Hindus” not throwing India from the frying pan into the fire by fostering division in the name of faith and places of worship?

In a time when communal harmony is at stake, Gandhi’s century-old admonitions serve as both a warning and a call for introspection. The question remains: will we learn from the past, or continue to repeat its mistakes?