The veneer of ‘secularism’ and ‘brotherhood’ falls off from the face of left-liberal-Islamist coterie the moment Hindus attempt to reclaim their places of worship destroyed by Islamic invaders or encroached by the converted fourth or fifth generations of their Hindu victims. The moment things slip out of their control or any court decision comes beyond the scope of their ‘approval’, the Islamo-leftists show their true bigoted and hateful colour.
While the chagrin of the Islamo-leftists over the construction of Ayodhya Ram Mandir after the decades-long legal battle has yet to subside, the court-ordered survey of Jama Masjid in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal has rattled them. On 24th November, leftist propaganda outlet The Wire’s Arfa Khanum Sherwani resorted to calling Indian courts as “Sanghi” and “liars” for allowing the survey of Jama Masjid in Sambhal over a plea asserting that the mosque occupies the site of a temple dedicated to Bhagwan Kalki.
Taking to X, Arfa Khanum Sherwani shared a news article’s screenshot with the headline “Ayodhya land exempted in Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act: Supreme Court” and said, “The Supreme Court of India’s promise to the Muslims of India was that Ayodhya would be just an exception The Muslims, with a heavy heart, sacrificed a mosque for the peace of their country. Now Sanghi courts are giving green signal to search for ‘Shivling under every mosque’ Did the Supreme Court’s promise also turn out to be false?”
भारत के मुसलमानों से भारत की सुप्रीम कोर्ट का वादा था अयोध्या सिर्फ़ एक अपवाद होगा
— Arfa Khanum Sherwani (@khanumarfa) November 24, 2024
मुसलमानों ने दिल पर पत्थर रखकर अपने देश के अमन-चैन के लिये एक मस्जिद को क़ुर्बान किया।
अब संघी अदालतें ‘हर मस्जिद के नीचे शिवलिंग’ ढूँढने को हरी झंडी दे रही हैं
सुप्रीम कोर्ट का वादा भी झूठा निकला? pic.twitter.com/eT7mqOMbRn
In her blatant attempt to portray Muslims as some sort of ‘big-hearted’ people who ‘sacrificed’ their precious Babri mosque for the sake of the country’s peace, Arfa Khanum Sherwani not only discredited the decades-long legal battle fought by the Hindu side, guilt tripped Hindus for claiming their legitimate places of worship but projected Muslims as holier than thou, contrary to the reality.
Similarly, scam-accused propagandist Rana Ayyub trained her guns against former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and blamed him for the death of four Islamist rioters during the Islamist mob violence on 24th November in Sambhal. Ayyub and Islamo-leftists are blaming the former CJI for the unrest in Sambhal since he had allowed the survey of the Gyanvapi structure in Kashi was originally the Kashi Vishwanath temple.
“Four killed in Sambal. Former CJI, Justice Chandrachud had allowed for the survey of the Gyanvapi mosque and other Islamic structures citing that it would not violate the Places of Worship Act, 1991 Who is responsible for the loss of 4 lives?” Ayyub said in a X post.
Four killed in Sambal. Former CJI, Justice Chandrachud had allowed for the survey of the Gyanvapi mosque and other Islamic structures citing that it would not violate the Places of Worship Act, 1991
— Rana Ayyub (@RanaAyyub) November 25, 2024
Who is responsible for the loss of 4 lives ?
The Wire’s founding editor Siddarth Varadarajan also blamed the judiciary for the Islamist violence in Sambhal over Jama Masjid survey and wrote, “File this under “Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Legacy of”. Three Muslims Killed as Locals Opposing Survey of Mughal-Era Mosque in Sambhal Clash With Police.”
File this under “Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Legacy of”
— Siddharth (@svaradarajan) November 24, 2024
Three Muslims Killed as Locals Opposing Survey of Mughal-Era Mosque in Sambhal Clash With Police https://t.co/FUFzQNs1XF
Ironically, while Varadrajan emphasised the Sambhal Jama Masjid’s history by calling it a “Mughal-era mosque”, he conveniently ignored the fact that historical records of Mughals have it documented that the Jama Masjid was erected after demolishing a Hindu temple.
Also, the 4 Muslim rioters in Sambhal have been hit by bullets fired from illegal guns, most likely brought by violent elements to cause injuries and deaths and falsely blame the police. The Sambhal police have stated that they were carrying only standard riot gear and rubber bullets.
While mindlessly declaring the courts as “Sanghi” and their supposed ‘promise’ a lie, itself is outrageous enough, Arfa Khanum Sherwani resorted to misinterpreting the Places of Worship Act (1991), to suit her narrative. Since Arfa, Rana and her ilk are demeaning CJI Chandrachud and blaming the judiciary for allowing the survey of some of the mosques contended to be standing on the remnants of Hindu temples, it is pertinent to understand what are the exceptions to the Places of Worship Act (1991) and how the Islamo-leftists are misinterpreting the law to further their nefarious agenda and incite Islamists against Hindus.
Places of Worship Act, the exemption and the ‘liberal’ misinterpretation
Back in 1991, the PV Narasimha Rao-led Congress regime passed the Places of Worship Act to protect the religious character of places of worship as they existed in 1947, with the exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue, which was already in court. It also provided for the preservation of the religious character of such a place of worship on that particular day.
As per this Act, a site of worship’s religious character must remain the same as it was on August 15, 1947. The law also says that nobody ever shall translate any religious denomination’s holy site into one of a distinct denomination or section. In addition, the law asserts that each and every lawsuit, appeal, or other proceedings pertaining to changing the character of the area of worship pending before any court or authority on August 15, 1947, will be terminated as soon as the legislation becomes effective, meaning there cannot be any further legal proceedings. Furthermore, the act also imposes a positive obligation on the state to maintain the religious character of every place of worship as it existed at the time of independence.
However, the Act also mentions a crucial exception. Legal proceedings can be filed under the Places of Worship Act of 1991 if the change of status occurred after the August 15, 1947 deadline. This prevents judicial proceedings, litigation, and appeals over the possibility of status that occurred after the cut-off date. Furthermore, the law exempts any place of worship that is an ancient and historical monument or archaeological site protected by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958. This means that if a place of worship of any religion is designated as an ancient and historical monument or archaeological site, it may be exempt from the Places of Worship Act.
Perhaps that is why, the petitioners including Supreme Court lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain highlighted the administrative history of the Jama Masjid which the petitioners argue is Hari Har Temple. In their petition, the plaintiffs mentioned the role of ASI and its failure to provide public access to the “temple” which allowed the Masjid committee to restrict access to the site. Notably, on the 22nd of December 1920, the disputed site was declared a protected monument via a notification issued by the Secretary to the Government of United Provinces under Section 3(3) of the Act. The petitioners argued that it placed the site under the supervision and control of the ASI. Thus, ASI should be the legal custodian responsible for the upkeep, management, and facilitation of public access.
It is thus, evident that the Islamo-leftist propagandists are deliberately misinterpreting the Places of Worship Act (1991) to suggest that somehow only Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi was an exemption and villainising the once liberal ‘hero’ ex-CJI Chandrachud for correctly interpreting the law. The Islamists posing as liberal secularists are trying to deflect attention from the fact that if a place of worship of any religion is designated as an ancient and historical monument or archaeological site, it may be exempt from the Places of Worship Act, as in this case. While the matter is sub-judice, the Islamists fear that after Babri structure, if any other temple-turned-mosque is reclaimed by Hindus, it would open a pandora’s box since there is not one Sambhal Jama Masjid but Gyanvapi, Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi and numerous such sites which were originally Hindu temples but were demolished by Islamic fanatics and converted into mosques.
Did Muslims give ‘Qurbani’ of Babri structure to preserve peace in the country?
Not only Arfa Khanum Sherwani but the entire left-liberal ecosystem has long been thumping its chest and claiming that Muslims gave ‘Qurbani’ of Babri ‘mosque’ for the sake of ‘peace’ in the country. It is the same as them peddling the lie that Muslims chose to stay back in India after partition. If the Muslims actually had any intention of ‘sacrificing’ Babri to uphold peace and secularism, a decades-long legal battle would not have ensued. If the Muslims wanted to uphold peace and brotherhood over clinging to claiming ownership of a mosque erected by Islamic tyrant Babur, hundreds of karsevaks would not have been killed in indiscriminate firing and the wave of Islamist mob violence, there would have been no nationwide anti-Hindu riots, and no Godhra massacre. The hatred, angst, vengeance and violence against Hindus stemmed from the very intention to not give up or ‘sacrifice’ the Ram Janmabhoomi land Babri structure stood on until razed by the heroic karsevaks in 1992.
Apart from anti-Hindu violence, the Muslim side perpetually attempted to subvert the process during the Ram Janmabhoomi case. From asserting claims of land ownership despite archaeological findings suggesting the presence of a pre-existing Hindu temple beneath the Babri structure, filing multiple petitions and appeals in both lower and higher courts over the years contributing to a protracted timeline of the case with one single motive of delaying an eventual judgement in favour of Ram Mandir, running propaganda and internationalising the dispute to inflict external pressure on the judiciary and the governments and giving the dispute a “minority khatre mein hai” spin to displaying deliberate inflexibility during negotiation efforts, the Muslim side used every trick at hand to prevent the construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya at the Janmabhoomi site.
So no, Arfa, Muslims did not ‘sacrifice’ Babri. In fact, the Muslim appeasing and Islamist politicians continue to cry “Babri Zinda hai” and vow to restore Babri one day when the ‘Nizam’ changes [read BJP goes out of power in Centre]. It took more than 70 years of legal battle and centuries of struggle for Hindus to reclaim the rightful birthplace of Lord Ram. It is the Hindus, who have been sacrificing always to preserve the farcical one-way secularism and brotherhood. Despite this, the Islamo-leftists propagandists like Arfa peddle their sinister narrative wherein the Hindus are presented as monsters while the Islamists are depicted as perennially victimised innocent minorities suffering at the hands of “Sanghi courts”, governments and Hindus.
Notably, the court-ordered surveys, be it in the Sambhal Jama Masjid case or the Gyanvapi case are open to objections in the court and even cross-examination. In fact, these surveys are like fact-finding missions with the aim to determine the historical veracity of the claims made by the petitioner and not to alter the religious character of the disputed sites. The Places of Worship Act (1991) does not prohibit the courts from examining historical claims in cases wherein new evidence emerges. Surveys are only a part of the process of assessing the archaeological or documentary evidence and not to arbitrarily ‘take away’ mosques from Muslims. But, the Islamo-leftists propagandists are well aware of that and are deliberately skewing the understanding of the law and relevant processes with the intent to prevent the courts from letting the disputed sites like the one in Sambhal be surveyed as they fear that its findings if proven its Hindu origins, the court ruling may not essentially come in favour of the Muslim side.
