The renovation of the Assayed Abdullahi Madani Mosque in Thenka Ulipady village on the outskirts of Mangaluru, the coastal district headquarters in Karnataka has sparked a new controversy hitherto unheard of. An architectural design carvings on the walls found below the Juma Masjid is the new subject for public discussion in the communally sensitive coastal districts of Mangaluru, Udupi as well as the whole state.
Going by the pictures that have been made viral, perhaps one need not become a historian, epigraphist or an archaeologist to conclude that the remains traced belong to a temple. Now these very findings have become a bone of contention between people of two different faiths trying to prove one another wrong.
The case in this connection is making rounds in the local Mangaluru court and the Bengaluru high court. As of now the Mangaluru court has consented to hear the petition filed on behalf of the Vishwa Hindu Parishat to inspect the Assayed Abdullahi Madani mosque in the Thenka Ulipady village on the outskirts of Mangaluru.
TA Dhananjaya and BA Manoj Kumar, who have filed the petition, have prayed for an inspection of the Malali mosque to verify whether the parts discovered during the recent mosque renovation belonged to a temple? In fact, they have also moved the state high court seeking a direction to the lower court for appointing a Commissioner to conduct survey of the Malali mosque.
While the mosque authorities were overseeing the mosque renovation works simultaneous pleas were filed at different courts praying for an inspection of the construction site. As a sequel of the developments many people strongly believe that definitely a temple existed at the excavation site of the mosque.
Rumors in this direction spread like wild fire in no time giving a tough time to the administration to grapple with the emerging law and order situation. On their part, the leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishat have made an appeal to the district administration to stop the renovation until the verification process is completely over. The pressure tactics worked with the Dakshina Kannada (Mangaluru) Commissionerate ordering the Malali mosque authorities to maintain the status quo until further orders. The district administration, in the mean time has also gone through the concerned land records apart from appealing the general public, adhere to peace.
KV Rajendra, Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada (Mangaluru) district Commissioner, meanwhile has clarified-“I have received information about the issue from the people on the ground and the police department. We are also taking cognizance of all old land records, entries on ownership details. We are also in the process of eliciting further details both, from the Endowment Department as well as the Waqf Board”. Both, TA Dhananjaya and BA Manoj Kumar, petitioners seeking a survey of the disputed site claim-“Let there be no doubt about the existence of a temple below the mosque and on which the present mosque into being”.
Interestingly, a Mangaluru court has given a go ahead for conducting a survey of the Juma Masjid in Malali. However, it dismissed the plea of the mosque management pleading against hearing the petition by the two Hindu activists.
The two petitioners have prayed the third additional civil court to conduct a survey of the mosque, similar to the one done in Gyanvapi mosque. The court has admitted the petition and plea while dismissing the claim put forth by the mosque management.
If, land dispute is the main issue in Gyanvapi controversy both, structure and land are put to test and scrutiny in the Malali mosque case. In its petition, the Malali mosque committee claims that the land under question pertains to the Waqf board, hence the civil court has no jurisdiction over the matter.
Irrespective of the claims and counter claims put forth before the 3 rd additional court in Mangaluru, the proceedings shall continue due to the admission of the VHP petition. As a precautionary measure, police security has been provided near the Malali mosque, so far not well known outside Mangaluru.
It may be recalled here that a tense situation prevailed in Mangaluru on 21 April following unearthing of a temple like architectural design. The situation further worsened paving way for communal clashes as well. It was only after prohibitory orders were promulgated under section 144 of IPC and round the clock patrolling was deployed the situation came under control.
MP Shenoy, lawyer for the Malali mosque management committee contends-“The admission of VHP petition and rejection of the Malali mosque petition doesn’t mean victory and defeat for both the parties. No issue like whether there has been a temple on the disputed place or if, the petitioners have the right to plead have been decided. Then how do you come to the conclusion that the VHP won and the Malali mosque lost”?
He also vehemently argues-“The Gyanvapi case and facts have nothing to do with the Malali mosque related case. It’s altogether different by whatever way you try to look into. The judgment in Gynavapi issue also has nothing to do with the initial outcome of the ongoing case. Now our only duty is to challenge the immediate judgment terming it as wrong, in the higher court”.
“As this case pertains to Waqf properties, it doesn’t come under the purview of a civil court. According to the Waqf Act, the issue needs to be resolved by the Waqf Tribunal and not the civil court. But the court has ruled jurisdiction over the matter, which we will be questioning in the higher court. If one civil court takes up such issue, hundred others will soon follow up. So, the jurisdiction issue needs to be settled first, much before the case”, he argues.
Former Bengaluru Doordarshan Director GM Shirahatti laments-“I am deeply concerned about the disputes over worshipping places and particularly Muslim worship places. I think most of them are on religious intolerance and establishing the power of governance. But the fact is that they are basically civil litigations and can be decided on mutual agreements. Hindu-Muslim meetings should be arranged in order to remove the misunderstandings against one another”. The next hearing of the Malali mosque related case will be taken up on 12 December.
-Manohar Yadavatti
Comments
Post a Comment