Muslim side says ASI’s report on Gyanvapi not final verdict: ‘Responsibility to keep mosque safe’

A survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) which said that a large Hindu temple existed before the construction of the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi, is only a report and not a decision, the Muslim petitioners in the decades-old case said on Friday, adding that they’d study the document before deciding on their next move.

The statement came even as the Hindu petitioners, lead by lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain who made the ASI report public on Thursday night, said they will approach the Supreme Court for a fresh survey of the sealed area of the mosque which contains a disputed structure, seen as a Shivling by Hindus and a ritual ablution fountain by Muslims.

SM Yasin, the joint secretary of the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee (AIMC) which manages the 15th century mosque, said the body will go through the ASI survey report, analyse it, consult experts and then decide on its next move.

“In present circumstances, it is our first and foremost responsibility to keep the mosque safe… ASI has given the report as per its reputation. This is a report and not a decision,” Yasin said.

The ASI survey — which conducted a study of architectural remains, exposed features and artefacts, inscriptions, art and sculptures, to conclude that there existed a Hindu temple prior to the construction of the existing structure — marked a decisive turn in the fractious dispute. The findings were a shot in the arm for Hindu petitioners who argue that the mosque was built by Mughal emperors after demolishing a temple and seek rights to the complex.

The report also suggested that the temple was destroyed during the reign of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. “The Arabic-Persian inscription found inside a room mentions that the mosque was built in the 20th regnal year of Aurangzeb …hence, the pre-existing structure appears to have been destroyed in the 17th century, during the reign of Aurangzeb, and part of it was modified and reused in the existing structure,” the report said.

But Yasin appeared to dispute this.

“The Gyanvapi mosque was built 600 years ago by a zamindar (landlord) of Jaunpur. It was renovated by Mughal emperor Akbar during his rule. Then the expansion and renovation of the Gyanvapi mosque was done by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb,” said Yasin.

“Muslims have been offering namaz for about 600 years ago… and will continue to do so in future too.”

Yasin said that committee was going through the report.

“The report contains 839 pages. We will read the ASI survey report. Our team of counsel will study it. Its study and analysis will take time. After analysing all the things discussed in the report, an opinion will be taken from the experts. We will decide our further legal move.”

Vishnu Shankar Jain, the lead lawyer for four Hindu women petitioners seeking regular worshipping rights in the mosque complex, said he will file a petition in Supreme Court seeking an order for an ASI survey in the sealed Wazukhana of the Mosque. The current survey had excluded that section.

“The survey is required to make it clear if the structure is a Shivling or a fountain,” said Jain.

The Gyanvapi dispute dates back decades but in August 2021, five women filed a petition in a local court demanding the right of unhindered worship at the Maa Shringar Gauri Sthal, located inside the complex that houses idols of Hindu gods.

In April 2022, the local court ordered a controversial survey of the complex, which quickly ran into protests. The survey was finally completed in May that year, but not before the Hindu side claimed that the Shivling was found in the final hours of the exercise even as the Muslim side disputed this. The court clamped security on the entire complex and ordered to seal wazukhana area inside the mosque complex, even as the Muslim side argued that the structure found was a ceremonial ablution fountain.

Then, last year, the Varanasi district court ordered an extensive survey of the mosque by ASI to ascertain whether it was built over a pre-existing temple, while holding that a scientific probe was necessary for the truth to come out. The judge, however, excluded the section over which a dispute had arisen, which remains sealed.

Another counsel for the four Hindu women plaintiffs, Subhash Nandan Chaturvedi, said that images captured by GPR system during the survey showed that the remains of several Hindu signs, symbols, idols below the ground. “We will file application to bring these remains and signs, symbols with idols out of the ground,” said Chaturvedi.

Varanasi, Mathura and Ayodhya are part of a decades-old ideological project by Hindu groups who argue that medieval-era Islamic structures were built by demolishing temples and demand rights over those structures. The Supreme Court paved the way for the Ram Temple in Ayodhya in 2019, and the Mandir opened on January 22 in a major ideological win. Cases by Hindu groups and individuals in Varanasi and Mathura are currently being adjudicated in courts across Uttar Pradesh, even as a larger challenge to the Place of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 — it preserved the religious character of all shrines, except the Ayodhya dispute — is being heard by the Supreme Court.