“Worrisome,” Ajmer Dargah Court Notice Creates Intense Debate Between Communities

The recent issue with the Ajmer Sharif Dargah and the Sambhal violence has created a lot of debate between communities in the country.

It all started with a petition filed by Delhi-based Hindu Sena’s president Vishnu Gupta in September at a local Ajmer court. Seeking for a survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to be conducted to verify whether a temple had existed there before the creation of the shrine.

What Is The Ajmer Dargah Case?

The petition claimed that a Shiva temple had existed on the site of the 13th-century Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti’s shrine and that it should be declared a Hindu site of worship. It further called for the cancellation of the dargah’s official registration and for an ASI survey to verify this.

Vishnu Gupta speaking with reporters said “Our demand was that the Ajmer dargah be declared a Sankat Mochan Mahadev Temple and if the dargah has any kind of registration, it should be cancelled. Its survey should be done through ASI and Hindus should be given the right to worship there.”

As per reports, Advocate Yogesh Suroloya, a member of the legal team of Hindu Sena in this case, submitted a copy of the 1911 book ‘Ajmer: Historical and Descriptive’ written by Har Bilas Sarda a former judicial officer and academician.

This book apparently mentions that “remnants from a ‘pre-existing’ Shiva temple at the site were used in building the dargah” according to reports.

Advocate Ram Swaroop Bishnoi also said “We informed the court that there were continuous religious rituals at the temple till it was razed,” while Vijay Sharma, the third counsel seeking an ASI survey sought to verify if the dargah’s dome contained “pieces of the temple” and that “there is evidence of the presence of a sanctum sanctorum in the basement”.

---

Read More: ResearchED: Why Are Some Indian States Revoking ‘Hum Do, Humare Do’ Schemes Now?

---

The Debate Started

Discourse started, however, when an Ajmer lower court accepted the petition and issued notices to the Ajmer Dargah Committee, the Ministry of Minority Affairs, and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in New Delhi.

The court led by Civil Judge Manmohan Chandel on 27th November issued the notices, sparking intense debate and discussion on the precedent this is setting.

Syed Sarwar Chishty, secretary of the Anjuman Syed Zadgan, the representative body of hereditary khadims (caretakers) of the Dargah speaking on this said “The Dargah is a symbol of communal harmony, diversity and pluralism. It promotes unity and diversity. Along with this, it is also a very big Islamic pilgrimage for people right from Afghanistan to Indonesia. It has crores of followers. This is not a joke where we will keep tolerating this. The next hearing date is on December 20.”

Chishty further commented “After Babri Masjid we swallowed a bitter pill and thought it will not happen again. But this is not stopping. Sometimes Kashi, sometimes Mathura… On June 22, Mohan Bhagwatji had said that one shouldn’t search for Shiv Lings in every mosque. This fault is of retired Chief Justice of India [D.Y.] Chandrachud. When Places of Worship Act 1991 says that apart from Babri Masjid the status quo will remain the same as 1947 for all religious places, what is the need for this?”

This notice in light of other events happening across the country, especially the violence in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh that erupted after another court ordered ASI survey of another Mughal-era shrine has alarmed the people of Ajmer becoming another place of communal unrest.

Union minister Giriraj Singh, on the other side, doesn’t feel the need for tension, claiming the survey has been ordered by the court.

He said “A court has ordered survey in Ajmer. What is the problem if court has ordered a survey? This is a truth that when Mughals came to India, they demolished our temples. The Congress government has only done appeasement till now. If (Jawaharlal) Nehru would have stopped it in 1947 itself, there would have been no need to approach the court today.”

AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi said “The Dargah Sharif has been there (Ajmer) for 800 years. Every prime minister of the country sends ‘chadar’ for the dargah during Urs. Where will all this stop? What will happen to Place of Worship Act 1991? This is being done to destabilise the country… I am saying this repeatedly that these things are not in favour of the country. These people are related directly or indirectly with BJP, RSS…”

Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti condemned the ex-Chief Justice of India (CJI) for opening a ‘pandora’s box’ with the Gyanvapi ruling.

This refers to the August 2023 order given by the former CJI DY Chandrachud led Supreme Court bench that refused to stay Allahabad High Court’s order, and thus allowed ASI to conduct a scientific survey in Varanasi’s Gyanvapi mosque to verify if there was temple that existed there before.

Mufti said “Thanks to a former Chief Justice of India a Pandora’s box has been opened sparking a contentious debate about minority religious places. Despite a Supreme Court ruling that the status quo should be maintained as it existed in 1947, his judgement has paved the way for surveys of these sites potentially leading to increased tension between Hindus and Muslims.”

Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal writing on X/Twitter also stated “Worrisome. The latest claim: Shiv Temple at Ajmer Dargah. Where are we taking this country? And why? For political dividends!”

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Sanjay Singh also stated “The Honourable Supreme Court of India should immediately intervene in the matter. The 1991 Places of Worship Act clearly states that all religious structures, be it of any religion — Hindu or Islam — must remain as they were after August 15, 1947. The entire country will see chaos if this precedent of saying that there was a mosque beneath a temple or temple beneath a mosque starts. PM Modi and the BJP want the entire country to fight and that is why I call the Bharatiya Jhagda Party.”

---