The Viraat Hindustan Sangam claims that over 1,600 mosques and dargahs nationwide are originally Hindu temples
Team ClarionÂ
MUMBAI – Despite the enactment of the 1991 Places of Worship Act which aims to maintain the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, Hindutva organisations continue to push for surveys of mosques and dargahs, alleging they were originally Hindu temples. These claims have sparked a nationwide controversy, with legal and social implications threatening communal harmony.
The latest list of contested religious sites includes prominent mosques and dargahs in Mumbai and other cities of Maharashtra. Among these is the iconic Jamia Masjid in Mumbai’s Crawford Market, which a Hindutva group has labelled a Hindu temple. In response, the Jamiat Ulema Maharashtra Legal Cell, associated with Maulana Arshad Madani, filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to protect these places under the existing law. This petition is scheduled for a hearing on Thursday.
The petition, filed by Jamiat Ulema Maharashtra in 2022, highlights the activities of the Viraat Hindustan Sangam, a Hindutva organisation led by BJP leader and former Union Minister Dr Subramanian Swamy. The organisation claims that numerous mosques and dargahs across India were originally Hindu temples. The petition attaches a list prepared by the group, identifying 143 such sites in Mumbai and Maharashtra alone. Prominent locations include the Jamia Masjid, the Mahim Dargah, and the Minhaj Dargah.
This list is not confined to Maharashtra but includes religious sites in states across India. According to the petition, the Viraat Hindustan Sangam claims that over 1,600 mosques and dargahs nationwide are Hindu temples. These include:
• Uttar Pradesh: 299 sites
• Kashmir: 192 sites
• Madhya Pradesh: 151 sites
• Gujarat: 170 sites
• Delhi: 72 sites
• Bihar: 77 sites
• West Bengal: 102 sites
High-profile cases include the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura, and the Ajmer Sharif Dargah. Recent claims also target the Sambhal Jama Masjid in Uttar Pradesh and several mosques in Lucknow, such as the Tiley Wali Masjid. The allegations often hinge on the assertion that Muslim rulers demolished Hindu temples to construct mosques, a narrative disputed by historians and legal experts.
The 2022 petition by Jamiat Ulema Maharashtra urged the Supreme Court to intervene against these claims. The court had issued a notice to the central government but did not receive a response, causing prolonged adjournments. During this time, incidents such as the Sambhal mosque’s unilateral survey exacerbated tensions.
Jamiat’s counsel, Shahid Nadeem, expressed concern over the lack of timely hearings. He stated, “We approached the Supreme Court again after reviewing the claims on the Ajmer dargah. Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna has now directed a three-member bench to hear the case on December 12.”
The three-member bench will comprise Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan. The hearing will also consider petitions by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Vishwabhadra Pujari, and Purohit Maha Singh, who have similarly argued that certain mosques and dargahs are built on Hindu temple sites.
Representing Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, senior advocates Raju Ramachandran and Vrinda Grover will argue against the claims. They are expected to cite the 1991 Places of Worship Act. The Act explicitly prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and penalises violations.
The ongoing disputes raise concerns about their impact on communal harmony. Religious scholars, social activists, and political leaders warn against the potential for unrest. Legal experts argue that revisiting historical claims could open a Pandora’s box, disrupting societal peace and challenging India’s secular framework.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments, the stakes are high for preserving India’s pluralistic values. The Jamiat’s petition underscores the urgency of addressing these claims within the framework of the law. The December 12 hearing will be pivotal in determining whether the judiciary upholds the spirit of the 1991 Act or allows historical claims to dictate the present
