Bhojshala verdict validates Muslims’ fears: Jamiat
New Delhi: Note that the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order declaring the controversial Bhojshala complex a temple only validated the fears and concerns they had been raising since 2019. Ayodhya RoyJamiat Ulama-e-Hind (JUH) released a report on Friday arguing that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Places of Worship Act revealed how “deeply majoritarian politics has infiltrated legal validity”.Speaking at the event attended by senior lawyers, legal experts, former judges, researchers and intellectuals, JUH President Maulana Mahmud Asad Madani observed that the dispute over the Babri Masjid issue is not over; Rather, new controversies are now being raised regarding Gnanabapi, Mathura Eidgah, Kamal Mawla Masjid and other religious sites, reopening old wounds.The report titled ‘A Critical Analysis of the Babri Masjid Judgment and the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991’ provides a detailed analysis of key SC judgments and claims that some judicial interpretations have undermined constitutional principles relating to the protection of religious places.In particular, the report discussed the far-reaching implications of the observations made in the Ismail Faruqi case, where a mosque was not considered an essential part of Islamic practice. “As the judiciary increasingly accommodates Hindu majoritarianism, Muslim holy sites have become legally unprotected, culturally contested and politically targeted,” it said.The report states that the Places of Worship Act was enacted to fix the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. “Yet recent court rulings have interpreted this law so narrowly that new claims against mosques in Bharanasi, Mathura and elsewhere are now underway,” it said.“The arguments employed in these cases – relating to essential practices, beliefs, archaeological evidence and cultural memory – are now being recycled in ongoing cases involving the Gnanabapi Masjid in Sambal, the Shahi Eidgah in Mathura and others,” the report said.It also recommended that “communal politics and historical claims should not be allowed to become instruments of legal disputes”.
