In a recent development that has drawn national attention, the Hindu community has approached India's highest judicial authority, the Supreme Court, with a significant request concerning the Gyanvapi Masjid, a site steeped in religious and historical significance. This move comes shortly after the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) released a report on the Gyanvapi Masjid.

The central issue revolves around what the Hindu side claims to be a "Shivling" located in the wuzukhana (ablution area) of the Gyanvapi Masjid complex, a site that has been the subject of dispute. The Hindu community, in their application to the Supreme Court, is seeking an official directive for a comprehensive investigation of this Shivling. The application specifically requests the Supreme Court to:

“Direct the Director General of Archaeological Survey of India to make necessary investigation/survey of Shivlingam for determining the nature of Shivlingam and associated features without causing any damage to the Shivlingam situated within the sealed area in terms of the impugned order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court after removing the artificial/ modern walls/floors surrounding the Shivlingam and also to undertake survey of the entire sealed area by excavation and using other scientific methods and submit report within the time provided by the Hon’ble Court…”

This application not only calls for a detailed investigation of the Shivling but also emphasizes the importance of conducting this survey without causing any harm to the structure. The Hindu side's request includes the removal of any modern constructions around the Shivling to better understand its nature and history. Additionally, the application outlines a desire for a thorough examination of the entire sealed area, suggesting the use of excavation and other scientific methods to uncover potential historical truths.

The Hindu applicants assert that the Shivling, an object of great reverence in Hinduism, currently lies surrounded by what they describe as artificial walls. These walls, according to the Hindu side, have no religious significance for the Muslim community. The core of their argument is that these recently constructed walls might have been intentionally built to conceal the original features of the Shivling, specifically referring to its Peeth (base) and Pithika (platform). This suggestion implies that the current state of the Shivling might not fully represent its historical and religious significance, as key aspects of it are allegedly hidden.

Furthering their case, the Hindu community emphasizes the need for a comprehensive survey of the entire premises, including the areas currently under seal. They point out that although the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has conducted surveys in other parts of the complex, the sealed area where the Shivling is located has not yet been examined. The application elaborates on this point, stating:

“It is submitted that the survey of the entire premises has been conducted except the sealed area by ASI and now it is necessary that the sealed area be also surveyed by ASI, otherwise, the very purpose of survey would be frustrated as there will be no report of ASI regarding the area under seal”.

Atiq ur Rehman wants Muslims to be ‘credited’ for not ‘completely destroying’ Hindu temple underneath the Gyanvapi mosque

On January 29th, a notable Islamic scholar, Atiq ur Rehman, brought forth a provocative perspective during a panel discussion on News18 about the disputed Gyanvapi Masjid and the recent Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report. His comments focused on the historical interactions between Islamic invaders and Hindu temples in India, particularly regarding the Gyanvapi Mosque's contentious history.

Rehman suggested that the Muslim community deserves recognition for not entirely obliterating the remnants of a Hindu temple that is believed to be underneath the Gyanvapi Mosque. He stated:

“The Muslim side could have wiped off everything. Every sign of Mandir could have been wiped off but they kept it.”

This statement implies that, during the construction of mosques on sites with pre-existing Hindu temples, there was a deliberate decision to preserve some aspects of the Hindu structures. Rehman added:

“Why did they keep it? Because they were given an assurance that it wouldn’t be challenged. And they respected those artefacts,”

Here, Rehman suggests that the preservation of these remnants was a gesture of respect towards the historical significance of the Hindu temples, under the assumption that their existence would not be legally contested in the future.

Rehman further remarked:

“You should appreciate this fact instead of making an issue out of it. You should appreciate that they kept as they were historically very important monuments,”

His assertion here is that the preservation of Hindu temple remnants should be viewed positively, recognizing it as a respect for historical heritage rather than a point of contention.

The discussion took a turn when journalist Anand Narasimhan questioned the motives behind preserving these remnants. Narasimhan asked:

“Why did they keep it since 1677 CE, sir? Did they keep it because it was a mosque or did they keep it as Swami Chinmayananda said that these were victory monuments.”

Narasimhan's inquiry raises a critical point about the interpretation of these preserved elements – were they maintained as a sign of respect, or did they serve as symbols of conquest? He further elaborated:

“Did they keep it because they wanted to show that it was a victory? These are victory monuments. Waqf Board has so many properties. Masjid could have been built anywhere? Why are they built on Ram Janmabhoomi, Krishna Janmabhoomi and so on,”

Swami Chinmayananda on Victory Monuments and Atiq ur Rehman's Concession

In a 1993 interview with Ram Madhav, Swami Chinmayananda, a revered spiritual leader, expressed his views on the Ram Janmabhoomi and the disputed Babri Masjid. His perspective reflects a common narrative among certain Hindu groups regarding the historical context of these religious sites.

Swami Chinmayananda referred to the Babri structure, often a focal point of religious and political discourse, saying:

“That building (Babri) is called by misnomer that it is a mosque. It is not. There were no minarets. They had not offered their prayers. Why did they build it? They broke down our Rama temple and built it there as a victory monument.”

His statement challenges the identification of the Babri structure as a mosque, arguing that it lacked key architectural features of Islamic places of worship and was not used for Muslim prayers. He proposed that it was constructed on the ruins of a Hindu temple, not as a place of worship but as a symbol of triumph.

Regarding the Gyanvapi mosque, Swami Chinmayananda stated:

“First let us have this Rama Temple. Afterwards, there are two more monuments which are built upon our Krishna’s birth place and Kashi Viswanath.”

This comment indicates his broader view that several significant Hindu sites have been overshadowed by structures built by Islamic rulers. His mention of the Ram Temple, Krishna’s birthplace, and Kashi Viswanath signifies a desire to reclaim these sites.

In the same context, Islamic scholar Atiq ur Rehman, during a panel discussion, conceded a crucial point about the Gyanvapi Mosque:

Atiq ur Rehman had conceded during the panel discussion that Muslims cannot offer Namaz at Gyanvapi Mosque as the mosque was built atop a Hindu temple.

Rehman’s admission implies a recognition of the historical context in which the Gyanvapi Mosque was constructed. However, he then posed a question about the rights of Hindus to offer prayers at the mosque, which led to a response from journalist Anand Narasimhan, clarifying that the site is not disputed for the Hindu community.

Narasimhan added:

He added that even though the temple was defiled, the deity underneath had perennial rights. And as such, Hindus have the right to pray at the site given that the Hindu temple was not constructed atop a mosque.

Denial of ASI Report on Gyanvapi Masjid: A Clash of Historical Perspectives

The ongoing discourse surrounding the Gyanvapi Masjid took a new turn on January 25th with the public release of a report by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). This report brought to light the existence of a large Hindu temple structure beneath the current disputed structure of the Gyanvapi Masjid, adding a complex layer to the already intricate historical and religious narrative of the site.

This revelation, however, has been met with skepticism and outright denial by some members of the Muslim community, particularly those involved in the legal aspects of the dispute. The response from this group reflects a steadfast commitment to the preservation of the Gyanvapi Masjid as it stands today.

SM Yasin, the Joint Secretary of the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee (AIMC), voiced a strong position on this matter. Emphasizing the importance of protecting the mosque, he commented on the ASI's findings, saying:

“It is our first and foremost responsibility to keep the mosque safe… ASI has given the report as per its reputation. This is a report and not a decision.”

Yasin's statement indicates a recognition of the ASI report's significance while also underscoring that it does not constitute a final verdict on the matter. He implies that the ASI's findings are part of a longer process and should not be viewed as conclusive.

Further, Yasin provided a historical account of the Gyanvapi mosque to support his stance. He traced the mosque's origins back to a zamindar (landlord) from Jaunpur approximately 600 years ago. He also noted the mosque's renovation and expansion under the Mughal emperors Akbar and Aurangzeb, emphasizing the mosque's long history and the continuous practice of offering namaz (prayers) by Muslims there. Yasin stated:

“The Gyanvapi mosque was built 600 years ago by a zamindar of Jaunpur. It was renovated by Mughal emperor Akbar during his rule. Then the expansion and renovation of the Gyanvapi mosque was done by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. Muslims have been offering namaz for about 600 years ago…and will continue to do so in future too.”

Inscription of Aurangzeb’s Order for Mosque Construction was Erased

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has disclosed a significant finding in their 850-page detailed report concerning the Gyanvapi Mosque. The report uncovers that deliberate attempts were made to modify an important historical inscription related to Aurangzeb’s order for constructing the mosque in place of a Hindu temple.

This inscription was discovered on a loose sandstone slab, recovered from the lower room of the south corridor of the mosque. The slab contained texts in Arabic and Persian, with phrases such as "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) and "Bismillahi – Ar- Rahman-Ar-Rahim" (In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful). However, a crucial part of this inscription was found to be tampered with. The report states:

“However, in the 6-line text on the slab, the lower two lines have been erased.”

This alteration is particularly significant as it involves the part of the inscription that presumably detailed Aurangzeb's directives regarding the mosque's construction.

Interestingly, the ASI had previously photographed this same stone slab in 1965, at which time all the text was intact. This photo, preserved in ASI's records from 1965-66, indicates that the slab was damaged or altered after this year. The report observed:

“But the ASI had photographed the same slab earlier in 1965, in which all the text was intact. The report noted that the photograph of this stone inscription was recorded in ASI records in the year 1965-66. Which shows that the slab has been damaged after 1965.”

The report further elaborates that the erased portion of the inscription contained information about Aurangzeb’s order, including the timeline of the mosque's construction and subsequent expansions. Historical records suggest that the mosque's initial construction occurred in 1676-77 CE, and it underwent repairs with the addition of a sahan (courtyard) around 1792-93 CE.

A comparison between the two versions of the inscriptions led to a significant conclusion:

“On comparing the two inscriptions, it was established that ‘attempt was made to erase last two lines of the inscription mentioning about the construction and expansion of the mosque.’”

Idols of Hindu Gods Buried in Gyanvapi Cellars, Blocked with Debris

The Archaeological Survey of India also brought to light a significant discovery in the Gyanvapi Mosque complex, revealing the concealment of artefacts related to a Hindu temple. These findings, located in various cellars within the complex, offer a glimpse into the site's historical layers and modifications.

The ASI report details that in the eastern part of the Gyanvapi complex, there are a total of six cellars, three each on the southern and northern sides, flanking the sealed area. Additionally, there are two more cellars situated on the northern side, closer to the main structure.

These cellars were constructed below ground level during the modification and expansion of the pre-existing structure towards the east. Originally serving diverse purposes, the report notes that most of these cellars were found to be blocked, either completely or partially. The ASI undertook a thorough cleaning of these cellars, removing a substantial amount of debris. This effort led to the recovery of several indicators pointing to a pre-existing Hindu temple.

The report highlights the southern cellars, labeled S1, S2, and S3, as being of particular importance. It was observed that the five entrances from S2 to S1 were all obstructed with lakhauri bricks or stone blocks set in lime mortar. Similarly, all entrances to S3 were blocked, filled with soil or obstructed with stones and architectural materials.

A significant discovery was made when the ASI teams managed to clear the entrances to cellar S3. Upon entry, they found that the cellar had been intentionally filled with soil and debris. Holes were made in the ceilings, through which soil and debris were dumped, effectively blocking the cellar.

Discoveries in Cellar S2 of the Gyanvapi Complex: Unearthing a Hidden Past

The Archaeological Survey of India's (ASI) report on the Gyanvapi Mosque complex reveals fascinating discoveries made in cellar S2, shedding light on the historical and cultural layers of the site. This cellar, used as a storage area, held a diverse array of objects that, upon excavation, unveiled their historical significance.

Cellar S2 was initially found to be a dumping ground for a wide variety of items, including bamboo, terracotta and metal pots, doors and windows, and various architectural members. Many of these items were strategically stacked over the blocked entrances of the western wall, suggesting a deliberate effort to conceal what lay beyond.

The removal of debris from cellar S2 led to a remarkable discovery. Hidden beneath layers of soil and rubble, the ASI team uncovered objects of significant historical and religious importance. The report describes this uncovering:

“A miniature shrine with sculptural depiction of deities is another noteworthy find,”

This miniature temple, found within cellar S2, is a crucial discovery, providing tangible evidence of the religious and cultural practices that once flourished at this site. In addition to the miniature shrine, the excavation revealed several sculptures. Among these were figures of Vishnu, Shaiva Dwarpala (a guardian figure in Shaiva temples), Hanuman, and other stone objects, as well as terracotta figurines. These artifacts collectively paint a picture of the religious diversity and artistic richness of the site's past.

Further, the report mentions the discovery of Shiva lingas and Yonipattas in significant numbers in cellar S2 and the adjacent western wall area. The presence of these artifacts, integral to Hindu worship, suggests the area's historical connection to Hindu religious practices.

The report also notes the finding of two sculptures of Vishnu in cellar S2:

“Two sculptures of Vishnu were also recorded from cellar S2, one of which is a complete image and another one is only the parikara part of an image depicting the figure of seated Vishnu.”

Islamists, Left-Liberals Allegedly Call 'Shivling' a Fountain in Wuzukhana

The revelation of a Shivling in the wuzukhana (ablution area) of the Gyanvapi Masjid in May 2022 ignited a storm of reactions across social media. This discovery, significant in the context of India's religious and cultural history, was met with varied responses, particularly from groups identified as left-liberals and Islamists.

In the aftermath of the discovery, it was reported that some individuals from these groups took to social media to express their views in a manner that stirred controversy. There were claims that the Shivling was deliberately mischaracterized as a 'fountain' by some, an action perceived as an attempt to downplay its religious and historical significance. This narrative suggests that there was a concerted effort by certain individuals to challenge or refute the authenticity of the Shivling found in the mosque.

Furthermore, the discourse around this discovery was not limited to debates over its historical authenticity. It also spilled over into areas of cultural sensitivity and religious respect. It was observed that some of the comments made online carried undertones of Hinduphobia, with alleged mocking of Hindu deities and symbols. These remarks appeared to target the Hindu community's reaction to the discovery, particularly their celebration and assertion of cultural and religious heritage.

The situation was further exacerbated by the involvement of individuals known for their critical stance towards Hindu practices and beliefs. According to reports, these individuals used the discovery as an opportunity to mock and criticize Hindus on public platforms like Twitter. They were accused of ridiculing the Hindu community for their pride in cultural and religious heritage, especially in the context of the Shivling found in the Gyanvapi Masjid.