Post the violence at Sambhal, the response of the newspapers vary from blaming the petitioners to blaming the court itself for allowing the survey; but through all of this, one thing is common to all the newspapers, i.e. none of them blame the actual perpetrators of the violence.
History and Background
Sambhal is as unequivocally central to the faith of millions of Hindus in India as Ayodhya has been for centuries now and this can be clearly seen by how long the place has captivated the attention of the devotees of Lord Vishnu. This is the place, believed by millions, to be the future place of birth of the tenth and final incarnation of Lord Vishnu – Kalki – who is supposed to bring the end of the dark age of Kaliyuga. As such, the devotees of the God, had built the Harihar Temple in Sambhal in around 1223 CE, which later suffered the fate that thousands of other temples did under the sword of Islamic conquests, i.e. it was usurped, broken and a mosque – The Shahi Jama Masjid – was built atop it.
Historical proof of the destruction of the Harihar Temple can be found in both authentic text records as well as in the memory of its residents who have not only maintained an unbroken custom of prayers at the site of the destroyed temple just like in the Ram Janmbhoomi case in Ayodhya but also still refer to the structure as Harihar Mandir.
As for written records, Baburnama notes on the 10th of July, 1529:
‘It may be noted here that in 933 ah. he transformed a Hindu temple into a Mosque in Sambhal ; it was done by Babur’s orders and is commemorated by an inscription still existing on the Mosque, one seeming not to be of his own composition, judging by its praise of himself.’
The Ain-i-Akbari acknowledges the importance of this site for the Hindus and states on Page 281:
‘In the city of Sambal is a temple called Hari Mandal (the temple of Vishnu) belonging to a Brahman, from among whose descendants the tenth avatar will appear in this spot.’
In 1920, the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) presented a list of historical places that came under the protection of the ASI. The Harihar Temple was listed at serial number 250 of that list. However, due to no actual on-ground presence of the ASI in Sambhal, the site was taken over by the majority community in the area.
The current petitioners, Adv. Vishnu Shankar Jain and others, requested the court for the restoration of the management of the site to the ASI, post which an archeological survey could be carried out to determine the religious character of the site.
However, post the arrival of the ASI Survey Team and the Police, alongside the lawyers of both parties involved, on the site, there was stone pelting and even firing at the police despite the earlier imposition of Section 144 in the area which prohibits more than 4 people assembling together. Under these circumstances, the police opened retaliatory fire as well.
Blaming the Court and Legal Arguments
Unfortunately, the stance that many newspapers have taken under these grave and distressing circumstances has been utterly appalling. Instead of condemning the violence and its root issues, newspapers have taken to blaming the court for allowing for a survey at all.
The view that the courts have taken on the matter is simply a matter of Indian Law, which allows for the determination of the religious character of any place of worship. As mentioned above, the Harihar Temple was listed under a list of protected sites of the ASI. Under Section 4(3)(a) of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, places that are protected by the ASI are exempt from the ambit of the said law thereby removing all such bars from them.
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall apply to,–
(a) any place of worship referred to in the said sub- sections which is an ancient and historical monument or an archaeological site or remains covered by the Ancient Monuments andArchaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958.) or any other law for the time being in force;
(Excerpt from the Places of Worship Act, 1991)
Additionally, the May 2022 judgement of the Apex Court delivered under the Former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud also makes it clear that determining the religious character of any place of worship, without causing any damage to the structure, is an acceptable outcome.
Paragraphs 116 and 117 of the Ayodhya Judgement from 2019 also make it clear that once a piece of land has been dedicated to the service of a particular deity, the religious character of the land is set to remain the same in perpetuity even if the idol or the structure dedicated to such idol were itself to be destroyed.
With these legal standpoints, it becomes more than clear that the court has followed the directives set under the Indian Laws for decades now.
Blaming the Petitioners
The next phenomenon is blaming the petitioners themselves. Social media has played a massive role in propagating that the video clip of the lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain followed by Hindus shouting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ is the reason for disharmony and later, stone pelting. However, one look at the facts and it becomes clear that the said video is from the time of the team exiting the masjid (with stone pelting already happening by the time) and not entering it whereas the sloganeering by the Muslim community had already started at about 8:30 AM.
What is also distressing is that Vishnu Jain’s reputation itself is being called into question. Backed by historical and archeological facts, Vishnu’s team has filed multiple cases over the years for the reclamation of temples. Wherever surveys have been held on ground (Gyanvapi recently), Jain’s points have proven to be true. We need to ask ourselves if we are comfortable to live in such times where a simple ask to the court that the management of a property be reverted to the ASI team, that has had the right to protect and manage it on paper for over a century, and a subsequent investigation into its religious nature becomes a subject of violence. It is concerning to see the number of physical harm threats that have been issued against Adv. Jain and portend a repeat of the Nupur Sharma case.
Conclusion
To say that it has been concerning to see various biased, historically inaccurate, and blame-shifting narratives peddled out by media outlets and newspapers is to undermine the worrisome direction that the ‘fourth pillar of democracy’ is taking.
What, however, this whole narrative clearly shows is: