Will the cries of the wailing mother who lost his teenage son during police firing, and other sufferers have any impact on the conscience of the authorities?
Behzad Parvez | Clarion India
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court judgment on the Ayodhya dispute has clearly emboldened the Hindutva brigade which has started laying claims on all the historic mosques across the country asserting that they were built after demolishing temples.
Things now have come to such a pass that it took a judge only hours to order the survey of the iconic Jama Masjid in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal on a petition filed last week. Strangely enough, the judge ruled on the petition unilaterally and without due process of consultation with the other party. To add to the mystery, a survey team landed at the mosque within a couple of hours and started its work.
Monday’s violence in Sambhal occurred during the sensitive survey of the Jama Masjid. Tensions escalated during the survey, resulting in violent clashes. Tragically, four Muslims lost their lives, including three young men identified as Naeem, Bilal, and Nauman, and several others, including police officers, were injured.
The haste with which the survey of the mosque was ordered, on the eve of byelections in the state, is baffling. One netizen taking to X wondered how could one claim that justice was slow in India!
“Court orders ‘survey’ of Shahi Masjid in UP’s Sambhal – to see if there was a temple there earlier. Order comes without even properly hearing both sides of the case. The physical survey begins within 2 hours of the order!” he wrote.
Large-scale violence sparked widespread condemnation of the BJP-ruled state as to how the administration and the state police failed to contain it. Ironically the men in uniform were seen pelting and firing at Muslim protesters registering their anger and frustration at the survey.
Several Muslims lost their lives, dozens were injured and scores were arrested in the police crackdown.
Both the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government need to come out openly if this is the way of fulfilling their Hindutva plan and harassing the Muslim community.
The million-dollar question is who is responsible for the tragic incident in Sambhal. The government or the court or the police department who failed to maintain law and order and stood at the other end of the protesters targeting innocents.
Asif Mujtaba, a research scholar and an activist, taking to social media said, the only person responsible for what is happening in Sambhal is the retired Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. By opening the floodgates of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, he made it simple for any lower judiciary with a Hindutva inclination to order checking the existence of a temple beneath every mosque or Muslim house. For satisfying the sadist collective Hindutva, any town can be turned into a lawless chaotic ground.
Who will listen to the cries of a wailing mother whose son was killed in the violence at the hands of police? The mother of Naeem Ahmed said, “The police shot my son and pushed him aside from the road. He died there only…He had gone to get household items.”
Prominent journalist Rana Ayyub said the life of Muslims in India has become cheap.
A social media user Piyush Rai put a video on X citing Zafar Ali, lawyer of Jama Masjid in Sambhal. During a press conference, he claimed that he was present when DIG, SP and DM were discussing opening fire on the protestors.
The incident has garnered significant political attention. Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra criticised the Yogi Adityanath-led BJP government, accusing it of exacerbating communal tensions and mishandling the situation. They called for judicial intervention to ensure justice and maintain harmony. Priyanka Gandhi also highlighted administrative failures in managing the dispute sensitively.
On the other hand, BJP leaders defended the necessity of the survey, pointing to the court order and religious claims over the site.
The situation in Sambhal remains tense but reportedly under control.
The incident underscores the delicate nature of disputes involving religious sites and the need for balanced, transparent processes to address such claims without inciting violence.
