On Gyanvapi Mosque, we are debating the wrong question

Context: Recently, the Varanasi court ordered a video survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque. The implied intention was to find out whether the fundamental claim of the petitioners that the mosque has been built by destroying or appropriating a temple is correct or not.

This issue here is not about secularism or that of minority rights. The question is, how will the “true nature” of our conflicted architectural sites be defined, and who has the power to define it.

Reading architecture with political philosophy tells us that that depends on what values we adopt in state formation.

How modern values of state formation are different?

Historically, rulers derived legitimacy primarily in two ways:

– In the case of intra-state matters, the legitimacy for the king to rule came from God in the Abrahamic world and from mythology in the Pagan world.

– The case of inter-state matters, kings asserted themselves through brute force and violence. The values of pre-modern state formation were divine/mythological and violent/expansionist.

It was against these values that those rulers judged the function of architectural sites. A ruler who possessed the building by conquering the city or by becoming the king through clerical legitimacy decided what a mosque, temple or palace will be appropriated into or whether it will be allowed to exist at all.

Since the French Revolution, the legitimacy is now not derived from divinity, or any historical practice, and rejects violence. This has generated a long history of political thought and modern states were created on the values of modern morality.

What is the legal position wrt conversion of a place of worship?

As per the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the conversion of any place of worship from its religious character as that character existed on the 15th of August,1947 is prohibited.

– Basically, the Act states that if a site was a temple on August 15, 1947, it shall remain a temple and so on for all religious sites.

Reason for selecting 15th Aug 1947 as the cut-off date: The Act does so in the spirit of a modern nation-state. It means that since we resolved to become a modern nation on August 15, 1947, and realised it on January 26, 1950, we shall cut our ties with the systems of politics that defined our past.

– On the 15th of August 1947, India resolved to create a break from the past and redefine its values of political legitimacy. From that day onwards, India was to be defined by, and courts were to judge conflicts using the values of a modern state enshrined in the constitution. Not against the values of the systems of politics or mythology that existed before.

What are the issues with the court-ordered investigation in this case?

As per the Places of Worship Act 1991, we define the “true nature” of our architectural sites against the values of modernity and not those of mythology or medieval warfare. The philosophical and practical resolution to that, as understood in the Act, is to not entertain mythological claims to historical sites and to not investigate their archaeology for claims of possession. By ordering a survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque, the courts have done exactly the opposite.

By conducting such investigations into religious sites, the courts have, like they did in the case of Babri Masjid, legitimised the values of an anti-modern polity. They have acted against the values that they are supposed to uphold. Courts cannot be acting on claims of mythology or those of medieval capture.

Way forward

Despite precedents that speak otherwise, the higher courts must maintain the status quo. Architecture of today shouldn’t be defined by an arbitrarily chosen portion of its history. Such petitions need to be rejected.

Source: This post is based on the article “On Gyanvapi Mosque, we are debating the wrong question” published in The Indian Express on 18th May 22.