Last week, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court stated, on the basis of the findings of a ‘scientific’ survey conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India among other documents, that the Bhojshala complex, an 11th century structure, is not a mosque but a temple dedicated to Saraswati. The verdict has nullified, in effect, an erstwhile directive by the ASI that permitted Hindus and Muslims to offer prayers inside the contested site on different dates. The Hindu petitioners pointed to such artefacts as coins and sculptures to claim the complex was of Hindu lineage. The Muslim contestants have dismissed the ASI report, alleging that it was skewed in favour of the arguments of their rivals. What is interesting — disturbing? — to note is that reports suggest that the ASI, despite the court’s express order, had refused to conduct carbon dating to assess the nature of the artefacts. Moreover, there are allegations of the ASI not mentioning the retrieval of a figurine of the Buddha from the precincts in its report: would such a recovery have weakened the argument of the Hindu side? These, among other creases, would perhaps attract the attention of the highest court where, a Muslim cleric has said, there would be an appeal.
The legal ramifications of the verdict are of considerable import. This is because a legal precedent is now on record that bypasses the wisdom of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The latter freezes the religious character of any place of worship — the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site being the only exception — as it existed at the time of Independence. In the Bhojshala case, the high court agreed that the strictures of the Places of Worship Act were not applicable because, among other things, the Hindu side was not demanding the alteration of the religious character of the contested structure. Is such reasoning fool-proof? More pressure is likely to come the way of the Places of Worship Act that is already being challenged in the Supreme Court. Yet, this cannot undermine the legislation’s soundness. In a society marked by religious pluralism — the Bhojshala site was being claimed by a Jain petitioner too — attempts to unearth the historical veracity of religious structures are more than likely to reveal their layered histories. Can it be said with certainty that Hindu shrines do not have Buddhist or Jain antecedents?