World News – US – In Mathura, Ayodhya playbook is deployed again to claim Hindu rights to Idgah mosque


After the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in December 1992, Hindutva activists adopted a new slogan: « Ayodhya to sirf jhanki hai, Kashi aur Mathura baaki hai » Ayodhya is only a teaser Kashi and Mathura are gone

After the Supreme Court in November allowed Hindus to start building a Ram temple on the site where the Babri Masjid stood, many feared this would bolster calls for similar campaigns against the Kashi and Mathura mosques

Timely civil action last week was filed in a court in Mathura to recover a site described as the birthplace of Krishna, an incarnation of the god Vishnu The complaint alleges that Mughal Emperor Aurangazeb destroyed part of the temple which marked Krishna janmasthan The mosque in Idgah is now there He wants the mosque, which is next to the Krishna Janmasthan temple, removed

The lawsuit was brought by six worshipers led by lawyer Ranjana Agnihotri, who claims to be « friends » of the deity and his place of birth or janmasthan

The lawsuit argues that a compromise reached between Hindus and Muslims regarding the disputed site in 1968 was not legally valid because it was obtained through bogus submissions

The costume is eerily similar to the narrative used by Hindutva supporters to claim the site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya In this case, they alleged that the mosque was built on the very spot where the god Ram was born after the Mughals demolished a temple there Even the evidence before the court in the Mathura case followed a similar line to the Ayodhya case

The Mathura court will start the trial on September 30, the same day a Uttar Pradesh criminal court delivers the verdict on the Babri Masjid demolition case in which veterans of the Bharatiya Janata party such as LK Advani are accused

Will this retrial of Mathura lead to another protracted religious and political battle or will the court dismiss the complaint?

Mathura, Hindus believe, is Krishna’s birthplace According to belief, Kamsa, the evil ruler of the Vrishni kingdom, had confined his sister Devaki and brother-in-law Vasudeva to a prison in Mathura due to a prophecy that their eight sons would end the king’s life Kamsa killed six of Devaki’s children before divine intervention protected his seventh and eight children – Balarama and Krishna

Balarama, according to belief, was transferred from one womb to another by divine grace Krishna was born in a prison in Mathura and was transported to Gokula by Vasudeva There he was razed as the son of Yasodha and Nanda

Echoing the claim made in the Ayodhya conflict that Ram janmasthan is holy, the lawsuit in the Mathura case argues that Krishna janmasthan has a sacred place in Hindu tradition and was named the one of the parties

The janmasthan area in Mathura is called Katra Keshav Dev It would cover 1337 acres, according to the complaint

In Ayodhya, it is claimed that the first Mughal emperor Babur destroyed a large temple and built the Babri Masjid there in the 16th century Based on archaeological findings, the Supreme Court admitted that there was a structure under the mosque But the court clarified that there was no evidence on the record to suggest that the temple was demolished in an attempt to build a mosque In fact, the court pointed out that there was a four-century gap between the date of the alleged temple under the mosque and the construction of the Babri Masjid

In Mathura’s case, the complaint alleged that it was Aurangazeb, a descendant of Babur, who destroyed part of a temple to build the Idgah Mosque

« Whether it is a matter of fact and history that Aurangzeb ruled the country from 31071658 to 3031707 AD and he was a staunch follower of Islam had issued orders for the demolition of a large number of Hindu religious places and temples, including the standing temple at Lord Shree Krishna’s birthplace in Katra Keshav Dev, Mathura in 1669-70 AD Aurangzeb’s army partially succeeded in demolishing the Keshav Dev temple and a building was forcibly lifted showing the might of power and said the construction was named Idgah Mosque »

The complaint goes on to say that there are official documents from the Mughal administration from 1670 which establish this claim.In addition, as in the case of the Ayodhya dispute, the complaint also places as evidence of the destruction of the temple records European travelers, like the Italian Niccola Manucci who wrote about the Mughal court in his book Storia do Mogar and claims to have described the demolition of the temple by Aurangazeb

According to the complaint, in 1770 the Marathas defeated the Mughals and drove them out of Mathura The mosque was removed and the temple was restored, according to the complaint

However, in 1803 the British defeated the Marathas and took control of the area According to the complaint, the 1,337 acres of land constituting the Krishnajanmasthan were auctioned by the East India Company in 1815 and were sold to Raja Patni Maal de Benaras Over the following years, the complaint said there were disputes over ownership of the land, with Muslims taking the case to court

But, according to the complaint, the courts, including the High Court of Allahabad in 1932, have always ruled in favor of the descendants of Raja Patni Maal

In 1944, the legal heirs of Raja Patni Maal transferred the title deed for a consideration of Rs 13,400 to the Hindu members of the Mahasabha Madan Mohan Malviya, Goswami Ganesh Dutt and Bhikhen Lalji Aattrey The sum was paid by Jugal Kishore Birla, an industrialist from the famous Birla family

In 1951, Birla established the Shree Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust and the deed of ownership transferred to him According to the complaint, Birla intended to build a temple for Krishna on the site considered to be his birthplace

However, the complaint claims that despite Birla’s clear motive, the trust failed in its duty He disappeared in 1958

In May 1958 another company called Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh was formed In the 1970s it became the Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan This company managed the land in trust

After several rounds of litigation, in which Muslims claimed ownership of parts of the land, a settlement was reached in 1968 It was decreed by the court in 1974 The Compromise divided the land and asked the Seva Sangh and the leadership of Shahi Masjid Idgah to stay away from each other’s sections

The complaint alleged that there was no mosque structure on the disputed land until 1915 Only a dilapidated building stood there, the complaint claims But a superstructure was built on the land by the Muslims with the claim that it is a mosque, although this could not be the case as the land was not wafq property or land given in the name of God, the complaint says

This also matches the arguments of the Ayodhya case, in which the Hindu side raised the question of whether Babri Masjid was in fact a mosque The Hindu parties claimed that the mosque which was built after allegedly demolishing a temple was against the principles of Islam They also claimed that no prayers had taken place in the structure for a long time

At the heart of the new complaint filed last week is the claim that the Seva Sangh had no locus standi to make a deal with the mosque leadership It was the Shree Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust and the deity who owned the land, the lawsuit says, and the 1967 lawsuit was not filed in the name of the trust

« That it is relevant to mention that Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh has no ownership or ownership rights over the Katra Keshavdev property which was vested in the deity and the Trust. Costume No 43 from 1967 was filed by Shri Bhagwan Dass Bhargava, the co-secretary of the Society, namely Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and said lawsuit had not been filed by or on behalf of Shree Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust The compromise of 12dix1968 was made between Shree Krishna Janmasthan Sewa Sangh and Trust Alleged Shahi Masjid Idgah Shree Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust was not a party to the aforementioned compromise dated 12dix1968 « 

The complaint claimed that the prison in which Krishna was born is located under the disputed site and this fact will be established if a search is carried out He stated that the Janmabhoomi trust was bound by the deed of trust entered into during his creation in 1951, which specified that the land was to be used only for the construction of a temple

It remains to be seen whether Mathura court will accept a lawsuit that was brought decades after the case was deemed settled

In 1993, an action was brought against the Seva Sansthan claiming that he acted against the purpose of the Janmabhoomi trust and an order was sought to remove the trustees However, the lawsuit was dismissed by both the Civil Court and the Allahabad High Court on appeal over maintainability issues, as the appropriate trustees were not included in the lawsuit as defendants.

However, according to the complaint filed last week, the High Court reiterated in its judgment in the 1993 trial that the Seva Sansthan and the Janmabhoomi trust were different entities The Seva Sansthan was formed by the 15 trustees of the Janmabhoomi trust but also included other people La Seva Sansthan had no legal basis to make an agreement with the Muslim side as it had no legal rights to the land, according to the complaint

For a civil lawsuit to be brought there must be a cause of action The plaintiffs claim in the lawsuit that they visited Krishna Janmasthan in January and were « shocked » to find the structure of the mosque Apparently, they met with the leadership of the mosque and asked them to hand over the whole site to the temple.The claim in the lawsuit was that the part of the land which belongs to the trust and the deity is illegally occupied by the mosque Therefore, the cause of action, according to the complaint, accumulates every day

In Indian law, a deity is considered a legal person, even if it is a minor The person or body responsible for the management of its properties is called a « shebait »

In the Ayodhya verdict, the Supreme Court stated that a third person / devotee can only bring an action as a friend of the deity if it can be established that the shebait acted against the interests of the divinity In the case of the Ayodhya deity, the Supreme Court ruled that Ram Lalla had not been properly represented for decades in the dispute Therefore, the lawsuit brought by members of the Sangh Parivar as a friend of the deity was lasting

In the Mathura case, the same strategy was used.The complaint stated that the trust lapsed after 1958 and the Seva Sansthan failed to protect the interests of the deity and its properties Therefore, the ‘intervention of the faithful as friends of the divinity was necessary

However, this will not be an easy task as the Seva Sansthan is bound to argue that he is the true shebait They are likely to note that they did not act against the interests of the deity, for whom a temple has already been built in 1982

In addition, the law on places of worship (special provisions) must be taken into consideration Adopted in 1991, the law stipulates that the religious character of any place of worship must be maintained as it existed in August 1947 The conversion of any place of worship to something else is prohibited The only exception to the law was Ayodhya, as this dispute was at the time before the High Court of Allahabad The complaint in the Mathura lawsuit claims the law does not apply to this dispute, but does not explain why

In 1947, Muslims had both religiously and legally claimed part of the Mathura site which had a mosque

In the Ayodhya case, the Friends of the Deity complaint was filed in 1989 The Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindutva supporters on December 6, 1992, a crucial event which many believe led to the Supreme Court to deliver its judgment in November handing over the site to Hindus because it was not necessary to order the relocation of a mosque But in Mathura’s case, the mosque exists.The lawsuit urged the court to order the structure to be removed

Shri Krishna Janmasthan Temple, Mathura, Mathura, Krishna, Hinduism, Mosque, Eidgah, Vishva Hindu Parishad, Babri Masjid, Ayodhya

World News – United States – In Mathura, Ayodhya playbook rolled out again to claim Hindu rights to Idgah mosque



Donnez votre point de vue et aboonez-vous!



Votre point de vue compte, donnez votre avis

[maxbutton id= »1″]