What’s in today’s article?

• Why in News?
• About the Sambhal Mosque Dispute
• Historical Context of the Shahi Jama Masjid
• Legal Context of the Shahi Jama Masjid
• Broader Implications of the Sambhal Mosque Dispute
• Conclusion

Why in News?

At least four people have been killed and numerous others injured in the violence that has erupted in Sambhal, western Uttar Pradesh, since a district court ordered a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid.

About the Sambhal Mosque Dispute:

• Background:
  • A petition filed in the Sambhal district court claimed that the 16th-century Jama Masjid was built on the site of an ancient Hari Har Mandir, mirroring similar claims made about mosques in Varanasi, Mathura, and Dhar.
  • The petitioners demanded a survey to ascertain the site's historical and religious character.
  • The Shahi Jama Masjid, a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, is listed as a Monument of National Importance by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
    • This makes the case legally and culturally sensitive.
• Court-ordered surveys and resulting unrest:
  • A court-ordered photographic and videographic survey was conducted peacefully with local authorities and mosque committee members present.
  • However, a second survey led to violent clashes. The arrival of a petitioner accompanied by chanting crowds sparked protests near the mosque.
  • Allegations surfaced of police firing, leading to the deaths of five individuals, including teenagers. Locals accused the police of excessive force and property damage, claims the police denied.
• Allegations of the locals:
  • Survey order issued immediately after the petition was filed, without determining whether the Hindu side’s claims were maintainable.
  • The survey began before parties could challenge the order in higher courts, bypassing critical procedural safeguards.

Historical Context of the Jama Masjid:

• Construction: During Mughal Emperor Babur's reign (1526–1530) by his general, Mir Hindu Beg, the Jama Masjid is a significant example of early Mughal architecture.
  • It is one of the three mosques built during the reign of Babur - the other two being the mosque in Panipat and the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya which was demolished in 1992.
• Architectural features:
  • Built on a hill at the center of Sambhal.
  • Features a large square mihrab hall with a dome, flanked by arches.
  • Constructed using stone masonry and plaster, resembling structures like the mosque in Budaun.
• Repaired under Jahangir and Shah Jahan in the 17th century.
• Historical debate: Some scholars argue it may have Tughlaq-era origins, with Babur adding modifications.
• Hindu beliefs: Local tradition claims the mosque incorporates remnants of a Vishnu temple, believed to be the site of the arrival of Kalki, the tenth avatar of Vishnu.

Legal Context of the Jama Masjid:

• The Places of Worship Act, 1991: The dispute has reignited debates around the Places of Worship Act, which mandates maintaining the religious character of all sites as of August 15, 1947, barring the Babri Masjid dispute.
• Key provision: Section 3 of the Act explicitly bars the conversion of places of worship into sites for different religious denominations.
• Objective: To prevent future conflicts over religious sites and preserve India's secular fabric.
• Challenges to the Act:
  • The petition in Sambhal, seeking a change in the mosque's religious character, directly contravenes the 1991 Act.
  • Petitioners cite oral remarks by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in 2022, suggesting the ascertainment of religious character may not violate the Act.
• Pending Supreme Court cases: Four petitions challenging the Act are under consideration, alongside disputes in Varanasi, Mathura, Dhar, and now Sambhal.

Broader Implications of the Sambhal Mosque Dispute:

• Legal precedents: Interpretation of the 1991 Act amid rising challenges.
• Historical accountability: Balancing archaeological studies with communal harmony.
• Communal peace: Preventing violence and ensuring coexistence among communities.

Conclusion: The Sambhal Mosque dispute case underscores the delicate interplay between history, law, and social harmony in India's pluralistic society.

Q.1. What are the main features of Mughal architecture?

Mughal buildings have a uniform pattern of structure and character, including large bulbous domes, slender minarets at the corners, massive halls, large vaulted gateways, and delicate ornamentation. Examples can be found in modern-day Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.

Q.2. What are the Monuments of National Importance (MNIs)?

MNIs are ancient and historical monuments, archaeological sites, and remains that are designated by the ASI under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act 1958. The ASI is responsible for the protection and maintenance of MNIs.

News: What is the controversy around the Sambhal mosque? | IE

What’s in today’s article?

• Why in News?
• SC Reservations and Religion
• Case Background
• Anti-Conversion Laws in India

Why in News?

The Supreme Court ruled that conversions driven solely by the intent to secure reservation benefits are impermissible, labeling such actions a "fraud on the Constitution."

While affirming the fundamental right to profess and practice religion under Article 25, the bench clarified that genuine conversions are inspired by sincere belief in the principles of the new faith, not ulterior motives like reservations.

The court highlighted that misuse of reservation policies undermines their objective to uplift historically disadvantaged communities. Granting benefits to individuals without genuine claims defeats the social purpose of reservations.

SC Reservations and Religion

• Existing provision for SC reservation
  • The original rationale behind giving reservation to Scheduled Castes was that these sections had suffered from the social evil of untouchability.
    • Untouchability was practised among Hindus.
  • Article 341 of the Constitution empowers the President to specify the castes, races or tribes etc. which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes.
• SC reservations and Dalit Coverts - Constitutional context
  • Currently, the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 stipulates that no person professing a religion different from Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism can be deemed to be a member of a Schedule Caste. 
    • The original order under which only Hindus were classified was later amended to include Sikhs and Buddhists.
  • Hence, Dalits who get converted to Christianity and Islam are not covered and they do not get the quota benefits.
    • Interestingly, the religion-based bar does not apply to converted STs and OBCs.
      • As per the government, the rights of a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe are independent of his/her religious faith.
    • Also, following the implementation of the Mandal Commission report, several Christian and Muslim communities have found place in the Central and state lists of OBCs.
• Larger constitutional question on extending SC benefits to Dalit Christians and Muslims
  • A batch of petitions were filed in the Supreme Court seeking the inclusion of Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims and the removal of the religion criteria for inclusion as SCs.
  • In August 2022, the Supreme Court had directed the Centre to submit its current position on the issue.
  • In light of that, the Union Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment issued a notification in October 2022 to form a three-member Commission to study the matter.
  • The three-member Commission is headed by former Chief Justice of India, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
• Views of previous panels on this issue
• Ranganath Misra Commission (submitted report in 2007)
  • The Ranganath Misra Commission recommended that SC status should be completely de-linked from religion. 
• Sachar Committee (2005)
  • The Sachar Committee Report observed that the social and economic situation of Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians did not improve after conversion.

Case Background

• Case matter
  • The appellant, C. Selvarani, challenged a January 2023 Madras High Court order dismissing her plea for SC status. 
  • She claimed to belong to the Valluvan caste, recognized under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964. Selvarani argued that she had been practising Hindu rituals since birth. 
• Judgment by Supreme Court
  • The judgment upheld a Madras High Court ruling denying SC status to a woman born and baptised as a Christian, who later claimed to be Hindu to avail reservation benefits. 
  • Despite holding an SC certificate, inquiries revealed her continued Christian practices, including church attendance and baptism. 
  • The court ruled her claims as fraudulent and unsupported by evidence of reconversion.

Anti-Conversion Laws in India

• Historical Context of Anti-Conversion Laws
  • India has a long history of anti-conversion laws dating back to pre-Independence, with princely states enacting acts like the Raigarh State Conversion Act (1936) and Udaipur State Anti-Conversion Act (1946). 
  • Post-Independence attempts at central anti-conversion legislation in 1954, 1960, and 1978 failed due to lack of support.
• Modern Anti-Conversion Laws
  • Several states, including Orissa (1967), Madhya Pradesh (1968), and Arunachal Pradesh (1978), enacted anti-conversion laws. 
  • These laws were upheld by the Supreme Court in Rev Stainislaus Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), which ruled that Article 25(1) does not guarantee a fundamental right to convert others.
  • The court emphasized that coercive or deceitful conversions violate the freedom of conscience.
• Relevant Precedents
  • Sapna Jacob Case (1993): Courts can scrutinize the intent behind conversions but not test the depth of religious belief.
  • Hadiya Vs Ashokan (2018): The right to choose one’s faith must be free from coercion or deceit.

Q.1. What is the Supreme Court's stance on conversions for reservation benefits?

The Supreme Court ruled that conversions solely for availing reservation benefits without genuine belief are unconstitutional, undermining the purpose of reservations and the policy's intent to uplift disadvantaged communities.

Q.2. What are the constitutional provisions on Scheduled Caste reservations?

The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, limits SC benefits to Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists. Recent petitions call for extending benefits to Dalit Christians and Muslims, with debates ongoing in the judiciary.

News: Conversion only for reservation, without ‘actual belief’, a fraud on Constitution: Supreme Court | Hindustan Times

What’s in today’s article?

• Background
• About Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
• What is the Status of the Ongoing Cases on the Gyanvapi Mosque?
• What is the Status of the Ongoing Cases on the Mathura’s Shahi Idgah?
• Why Did the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act Not Cover Gyanvapi and Shahi Idgah?

Background

• When the Babri-Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi dispute gained momentum, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other Hindu organisations took up the case of two other mosques — the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura.
• In September 1991, the P.V. Narasimha Rao government enacted a special law to freeze the status of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947.
• The law kept the disputed structure at Ayodhya out of its purview as it was then an ongoing litigation.

About Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991

• It is described as an Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship.
• The Act declares that the religious character of a place of worship shall continue to be the same as it was on August 15, 1947.
• It says that no person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination into one of a different denomination or section.
• Exemption:
  • The disputed site at Ayodhya was exempted from the Act. Due to this exemption, the trial in the Ayodhya case proceeded even after the enforcement of this law.
  • Any place of worship which is an ancient and historical monument, or an archaeological site covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
  • A suit that has been finally settled or disposed of.
  • Any dispute that has been settled by the parties or conversion of any place that took place by acquiescence before the Act commenced.
• Criticism:
  • The law has been challenged on the ground that it bars judicial review, which is a basic feature of the Constitution.
  • It imposes an “arbitrary irrational retrospective cutoff date,” and abridges the right to religion of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs.

What is the Status of the Ongoing Cases on the Gyanvapi Mosque?

• A suit was filed in 2022 in the Varanasi district court by a group of Hindu women worshippers seeking to assert their right to worship deities they claim are still found on the premises of the Gyanvapi mosque.
• The plaintiffs say they have a right to worship Ma Sringar Gauri, Ganesh, Hanuman and other “visible and invisible” deities.
• Also pending is another batch of suits filed in 1991 seeking a declaration that a part of the site of the Gyanvapi mosque belongs to Lord Vishweshwar.
• The main basis for the suits is that the Hindu side says that an old temple of Lord Vishweshwar lies at the centre of the Gyanvapi compound.
• Court’s Judgement:
  • So far, court orders have favoured the position that these suits are not barred by the Places of Worship Act.
  • On the district court’s order, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has conducted a survey of the premises.
  • The ASI’s report, submitted to the Varanasi district court, claims that a temple existed there prior to the construction of the mosque.
  • Subsequently, the court has allowed the conduct of Hindu prayers at a cellar on the premises.

What is the Status of the Ongoing Cases on the Mathura’s Shahi Idgah?

• The suits in Mathura pertain to the Shahi Idgah mosque that stands adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple there.
• These suits claim that the mosque was built over the birthplace of Lord Krishna. The mosque committee, however, denies the allegation.
• The dispute was settled through a compromise between the Sri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and the Shahi Idgah Trust in 1968, and implemented through a decree in 1974.
• As part of the settlement, the Sansthan had given up a portion of the land to the Idgah.
• The current suits challenge this compromise as ‘fraudulent’ and seek the transfer of the entire parcel of land to the deity.
• The Allahabad High Court has transferred to itself all suits pertaining to the Mathura dispute.

Why Did the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act Not Cover Gyanvapi and Shahi Idgah?

• In both disputes, the respective mosque committees sought rejection of the suits on the ground that the Places of Worship Act prohibits such litigation.
• However, court orders so far say the Act does not bar these suits and that they must go on.
• In the Gyanvapi worshippers’ case, the ruling is that the suits aimed to assert the right of worship of the Hindu deities and did not seek to convert the status of the mosque.
• The Allahabad High Court has taken the view that the Act does not define the term ‘religious character’.
• A structure cannot have the dual character of being both Hindu and Muslim, and that only an examination of evidence can determine its religious character.
• The Act cannot be an absolute bar on proceedings to ascertain its religious character, it held.
• Regarding the Mathura dispute, the district court has taken the view that the suits are not barred by the Places of Worship Act, as what is under challenge is the compromise decree based on the 1968 agreement.
• As the decree was drawn up before the commencement of the 1991 Act, it is not applicable to the case, it has held.

Source: The legal dispute over Varanasi, Mathura mosques | Explained

What’s in today’s article?

• Why in News?
• Ammu Swaminathan (1894-1978)
• Annie Mascarene (1902-1963)
• Begum Qudsia Aizaz Rasul (1909-2001)
• Dakshayani Velayudhan (1912-1978)
• Renuka Ray (1904-1997)

Why in News?

On Constitution Day (November 26), President Droupadi Murmu highlighted the contributions of women in India’s Constituent Assembly. 

The 299-member body included 15 women (two later resigned), representing diverse regions and perspectives. Prominent figures like Sarojini Naidu, Sucheta Kripalani, and Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit were joined by lesser-known women who actively engaged in debates on critical issues such as gender, caste, and reservations.

This article highlights the contributions of five of these women.

Ammu Swaminathan: A Pioneering Voice for Women in the Constituent Assembly

• Swaminathan, from Palakkad, Kerala, married Subbarama Swaminathan in her teens, setting conditions like independence in daily life. Among her children was Captain Lakshmi Sahgal of the Indian National Army.
• Her political interest stemmed from opposing restrictive widowhood practices she witnessed her mother endure. 
• Swaminathan contested elections on a Congress ticket and, as a member of the Constituent Assembly, advocated for the Hindu Code Bill and gender equality, despite resistance from the male-dominated House.
• Post-independence, she was elected from Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, and served as India’s goodwill ambassador to countries like Russia, China, and the US.

Annie Mascarene: Advocate for Universal Franchise and Local Autonomy

• Annie Mascarene (1902–1963) was born into a Latin Christian family in Travancore, considered the lowest caste tier. 
• Despite societal barriers, she excelled academically, studied law, and became an educator. 
• Influenced by caste and gender reforms initiated by Travancore royals, she became politically active during the region's upheaval.
• Mascarene joined the All Travancore Joint Political Congress and later the Travancore State Congress, championing universal adult franchise and enduring violence from opponents. 
• As a member of the Constituent Assembly, she advocated for a strong Centre while supporting local government autonomy.
• After leaving the Congress due to state factionalism, she won as an independent candidate from Thiruvananthapuram in 1952, marking a significant achievement in Indian politics.

Begum Qudsia Aizaz Rasul: A Trailblazing Woman in Politics

• Begum Qudsia Aizaz Rasul (1909–2001), born into Punjab's royal family, pursued formal education despite opposition, including a fatwa against her convent schooling. 
• After marrying Nawab Aizaz Rasul, she discarded the purdah and entered politics, winning a non-reserved seat in 1936 despite conservative criticism.
• As a member of the Muslim League, she campaigned for women’s issues and opposed separate electorates based on religion. 
• While initially seeing potential benefits for Muslims in the idea of Pakistan, she ultimately chose to stay in India, concerned for poor Muslims left behind post-Partition.
• She later joined the Congress, served in the Rajya Sabha from Uttar Pradesh in 1952, and contributed to promoting women’s hockey in India.

Dakshayani Velayudhan: A Pioneer for Dalit Rights and Equality

• Dakshayani Velayudhan (1912–1978) achieved multiple milestones as the first Dalit woman to graduate in science in Cochin and serve in the Cochin Legislative Council. 
• Belonging to the Pulaya community, considered "slaves" at the time, she defied caste barriers, enduring discrimination, such as being excluded from practical experiments in college.
• After working as a teacher, she married a social worker in a simple wedding officiated by a leprosy-afflicted person in the presence of Mahatma Gandhi and Kasturba. 
• Elected to the Constituent Assembly in 1946, she opposed Ambedkar's call for separate electorates, arguing it promoted division and hindered nationalism.
• Financial struggles prevented her from pursuing a sustained political career, although she remained active in the Dalit movement. 
• She returned to politics in 1971 but finished fourth in the Lok Sabha elections as an independent candidate.

Renuka Ray: A Trailblazer for Women’s Rights

• Renuka Ray (1904–1997), born in Pabna (now in Bangladesh), hailed from a distinguished family. 
• Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi in 1920, she left college to join the freedom struggle, raising awareness through grassroots efforts and briefly staying at Sabarmati Ashram. 
• She later pursued studies at the London School of Economics, where she met her future husband, Satyendra Nath Ray.
• After returning to India, Ray championed women’s rights, focusing on divorce and inheritance laws. 
• Representing women’s organisations in the Central Legislative Assembly in 1943, she joined the Constituent Assembly in 1946. 
• She supported the Hindu Code Bill but opposed reserved seats for women in legislatures, viewing it as a hindrance to their progress.
• Although she lost the 1952 general election from Hooghly, she won in 1957 and contributed to governance in Bengal before returning to social work. 
• Her life reflected her commitment to advancing women’s empowerment and social justice.

Q.1. Who were some notable women in the Constituent Assembly?

Prominent figures included Ammu Swaminathan, Dakshayani Velayudhan, Annie Mascarene, Renuka Ray, and Begum Qudsia Aizaz Rasul, each contributing to debates on gender, caste, and equality in drafting the Constitution.

Q.2. What challenges did these women face during their political careers?

These women overcame societal barriers like caste discrimination, religious opposition, and patriarchal resistance while advocating for equality, education, and political reforms in pre- and post-Independence India.

News: Explained: Stories of women who helped draft the Constitution of India