Now, One of India's Oldest Mosques, Atala Masjid, Is on the Hindutva Survey Radar

New Delhi: The Atala Masjid – a 14th-century mosque located in eastern Uttar Pradesh’s Jaunpur – is among the oldest places of Islamic worship in the country that Hindutva activists are seeking to grab control of.

A suit seeking the removal of Muslims from the mosque and handing over its possession to Hindus for worship and other rituals was registered in a local court in May. Now, the Hindu plaintiffs have demanded a survey of the mosque through an advocate commissioner to ascertain if it was built after demolishing an ancient temple dedicated to “Atala Devi” goddess. The court is expected to deliver its order on the contours of the survey on December 16.

The caretakers of the mosque had recently moved the Allahabad high court pleading that the Jaunpur civil court junior division’s order (dated May 29) admitting the suit be set aside.

‘Evict Muslims’

The foundation for Atala Masjid, situated at Mohalla Rizvi, Pargana Haveli of Jaunpur city, was laid during the time of Delhi Sultanate ruler Firoz Shah Tughlaq in 1376 but the mosque was fully completed in 1408 by Ibrahim Shah Sharqi of the Jaunpur Sultanate. The caretakers of the mosque say the Atala Masjid is a Jama Masjid (where Friday congregations are held) registered with the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board as Waqf No. 85-Jaunpur.

The suit in the matter was filed by an obscure organisation called Swaraj Vahini Association (SVA) in a representative capacity through its president Santosh Kumar Mishra. The suit seeks declaration of the Atala Masjid as Atala Devi Mandir and to allow followers of Sanatan Dharma to have the right to worship at the site and perform ‘raj bhog’, seva and kirtan – acts involving distribution of food, service and religious music – in the ‘temple’.

The Hindu plaintiffs – SVA and Mishra – have also sought a mandatory injunction to evict Muslims from the site and restrain non-Hindus from entering the premises.

‘Mata Atala Devi’

In its suit, the SVA has claimed that the Atala Masjid was the site of an ancient temple of Mata Atala Devi. It said that the ‘temple’ has been a centre of faith for Hindus in particular those from Purvanchal. The temple was built by one King Vijay Chandra and since ages religious rituals and worship have been going on at the site, the suit claimed. The Hindu plaintiffs further claimed that the pillars and the walls of the mosque still have references of Hindu customs, gods and goddesses and other sacred religious symbols of ancient Hindu architecture.

In the suit, the Hindu plaintiffs also claimed that Firoz Shah Tuqhlaq had built the mosque using the pillars of the Mata Atala Devi Mandir after vandalising parts of it. His efforts to fully demolish the temple had been hindered by the strong foundation of the structure, the Hindu plaintiffs said.

This explains why the mosque does not have any minarets, said Mishra, according to whom, King Vijay Chandra installed an idol of Atala Devi through a consecration ceremony.

The Hindu plaintiffs have claimed that not only did Hindus in the ancient times pray at the site but that even today, they perform “symbolic puja” on special occasions. “In spite of the forceful destruction and alteration made therein by the Muslim invaders, the said building prima facie appears to be a Hindu temple,” the plaintiffs said.

‘What does symbolic puja even mean?’

Faiz Ahmad, the secretary of the Waqf Atala Masjid, which manages the historical mosque, found the Hindu plaintiffs’ contentions to be extremely incredible.

Talking to The Wire, he argued: “What does ‘symbolic puja’ even mean? Where did they get the permission to do such puja? Can four people just stand somewhere and claim that they are praying through allusions? Will things work according to someone’s whims? Then why do we have laws and the constitution?”

The caretakers of the mosque strongly refuted the claims made by the Hindu plaintiffs in both the lower court and the Allahabad High Court. The Waqf Atala Masjid said that the property has been “continuously” used as a mosque since 1398 and that no follower of the Hindu religion had ever performed puja or offerings there either in the past or at present. The Waqf Atala Masjid also contended that there were no signs of Hindu culture or their style of construction present in the pillars and columns of the mosque.

An illegal suit

Ahmad told The Wire that revenue records showed that the property had been registered as a mosque under British rule through a settlement in 1882. The mosque was also in use as a Muslim place of worship on August 15, 1947, the caretakers said, arguing that since the suit was barred by The Place of Worship Act, 1991, the question of the title of the mosque did not arise. The nature of the construction has been in the form of a mosque and it is being used as such till date, where Muslims offer five time prayers as well as Juma prayer, the caretakers said. The building was never in possession or ownership of any person belonging to any other religion, they underlined.

Watch: ‘By Permitting Survey of Mosques Justice Chandrachud Did a Great Disservice to India’: Dushyant Dave

The Waqf Atala Masjid has argued that the suit filed by the SVA was barred by Section 4 of The Place of Worship Act, 1991, Section 85 of the Waqf Act, Section 20 of the Societies Registration Act and by limitation.

Earlier this year, the Hindu plaintiffs, while arguing for a suit, had told a local court in Jaunpur that since they had an “apprehension” the mosque committee could cause loss of identity of the mosque through “illegal deeds,” permission be granted to them to sue in representative capacity. The caretakers of the mosque had opposed the suit’s maintainability on various grounds but civil judge junior division Sudha Sharma on May 29 directed the registration of the suit in representative capacity. The mosque challenged the order in the district court but the district judge on August 12 dismissed its civil revision petition. The mosque caretakers then approached the Allahabad High Court challenging both the orders of the lower courts.

The Waqf Atala Masjid, in its petition, described the orders of the two local courts as “manifestly illegal and erroneous,” and raised objections to it on several technical and legal grounds.

‘A long shot’ 

The mosque said the suit was defective as the plaintiff being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act was not a juristic person. This made the plaintiff incompetent to institute the suit, argued the Waqf Atala Masjid. In addition to this, the mosque said that the bylaws of the SVA floated by Mishra do not authorise the organisation to undertake litigation in the suit. The mosque also said that the suit was instituted against the Peace Committee Jama Masjid, which was a non-entity.

“They even got the name and address wrong. The plaintiff seems to have taken a long shot and filed the suit against some Peace Committee Jama Masjid without even verifying its existence whereas the management is handled by the Waqf Atala Masjid. Also, nowhere in the bylaws of the SVA is it mentioned that it will do any religious work,” said Ahmad.

In October, the caretakers of the mosque moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the rejection of the plaint on grounds that there was no evidence for it whatsoever. The mosque cited The Waqf Act and The Place of Worship Act, 1991 to argue that the suit was barred. They also submitted land records from Fasli years 1360, 1393 and 1395 (corresponding to 1950, 1983 and 1985) mentioning the mosque.

The Hindu plaintiffs argued in court that since the mosque was under the protection of the Archaeological Survey of India, the suit was not barred by the Waqf Act. They also claimed that before the settlement records were prepared during the British period, the “invaders had encroached upon” the property “with the help of the then government.”

‘Anti-social heroes’

The civil judge on October 22 rejected the mosque’s application, ruling that at this stage, the suit did not appear to be barred by the Waqf Act or The Place of Worship Act, 1991. The arguments were a matter of evidence and the case involved a “mixed question of law and fact”, said judge Sharma in her order.

Ahmad was disappointed that the Supreme Court has not effectively enforced the implementation of The Place of Worship Act, 1991 so that frivolous suits claiming ownership of established religious places were not entertained by the lower judiciary.

He says those filing such suits across UP and elsewhere are “anti-social elements” seeking publicity with the intent of entering the good books of the saffron dispensation. “They want to become heroes. But they are anti-social,” said Ahmad.

He also argued that even though the SVA was merely an association of persons and not a juristic person, the suit filed by it was illegally allowed in representative capacity.

Ahmad said he was pained to see the barrage of suits filed in courts across the country seeking to evict Muslims from their shrines and mosques that had stood there for centuries.

“The dreams about an India that we had imagined when we got freedom have been shattered. For those who love the country, it is painful to see that instead of addressing issues of jobs, education and development, we are concerned with such questions from the 14th century. “Are these the issues we want our youth to carry forward to the future,” he asked.

A court in Jaunpur is on December 16 expected to deliver its order on the application filed by the Hindu plaintiffs seeking a survey of the mosque.

December 16 court date

Ram Singh, a lawyer for the Hindu plaintiffs, said arguments were concluded on the question of adequate police protection that could be arranged for a survey. The court has reserved its order and on December 16 will decide on what date the survey would be carried out, added Singh.

The survey is expected to be a sensitive matter as recently four Muslim men were killed in violence involving police – a fifth died later – during a controversial survey of the Mughal-era Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. Also, the survey comes at a time when the Supreme Court is hearing petitions challenging the validity of The Place of Worship Act, 1991, which bars any change in the status of religious places as on the day of India’s independence.

A survey of the Sambhal mosque was hurriedly carried out by a court-appointed advocate commissioner on November 19, less than three hours after the civil judge senior division passed the order on an application by some Hindu activists claiming that the mosque was the site of an ancient temple dedicated to Kalki, the prophesised 10th avatar of Hindu deity Vishnu. A second round of survey took place on November 24, but that was marred by large-scale violence as four Muslim men were killed and more than two dozen police and administrative officials were allegedly injured in stone-pelting and brick-batting. A fifth Muslim man allegedly passed away later, as a result of injuries sustained in the violence.