Tell me about the mosque first…

To understand why it matters, we first have to start with the temple…

The Kashi Vishwanath temple: The original temple was destroyed in 1194 by Qutb-ud-din Aibak. It was rebuilt but destroyed again in the 15th century. Akbar sponsored its rebuilding in the 16th century, Aurangzeb once again destroyed it in 1669—and built the Gyanvapi mosque on its ruins (more on that in a bit). The temple was then rebuilt in 1780 by the Queen of Indore, Ahilyabai Holkar. Today, it is located less than 100 metres from the mosque—and shares a wall.

Quote to note: Historian Diana Eck points out that almost all temples in Varanasi were destroyed, starting in the early 13th century:

“Some of the city’s greatest temples, including Vishveshvara (Vishwanath temple), Krittivasa, and Bindu Madhava, were razed during the reign of Aurangzeb, and their sites were forever sealed from Hindu access by the construction of mosques.”

The Gyanvapi mosque: was built during Aurangzeb’s reign—but no one knows who specifically built it. Historians like Audrey Truschke believe it incorporates one of the walls of the old temple as its ‘quibla wall’—the most significant as it faces Mecca. Others assert that there are no remnants of any temple dating earlier than the sixteenth century. 

But Hindu groups insist that the position of a Nandi bull inside the temple complex—facing the mosque—indicates that the original sanctum sanctorum of the temple was located there. Where there is a Nandi, there must have been a Shiv lingam. And they claim the original lingam was hidden by priests inside the mosque’s well.

A history of legal battles: The destruction of the mosque has long been on the wishlist of Hindutva groups. Here’s a quick timeline of legal challenges:

• In 1991, a petition demanded the removal of the mosque from the site and the transfer of the land to the Hindu community. This was at the height of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.
• At the time, the mosque was one of three religious sites that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) wanted to “liberate”—along with Ayodhya’s Babri Masjid and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura.
• However, in 1998, the High Court stayed all legal proceedings—based on an appeal filed by the mosque’s managing committee. And not much happened for 20 years.
• In 2019—soon after the Supreme Court awarded the disputed Ayodhya (Babri Masjid) land to Hindu groups—one of the petitioners in that case filed a fresh lawsuit. He wanted the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to survey the mosque. But it was blocked by the Allahabad High Court.
• But last year, the Varanasi court ordered an ASI survey of the mosque compound to determine whether it was a “superimposition, alteration or addition or there is structural overlapping of any kind, with or over, any other religious structure.”
• That order was also stayed by the Allahabad High Court calling the lower court’s ruling “prima facie bad in law.”

So what the hell happened now?

This year, five women linked to right-wing group Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh filed a petition demanding the right to perform puja at a holy site called ‘Maa Shringar Gauri sthal’:

“Submitting to the court that an image of goddess Shringar Gauri is present at the back of the western wall of the Gyanvapi Masjid, the petitioners sought permission to perform daily prayers and observe other rituals of ‘visible and invisible deities within the old temple complex.’”

We presume the logic is that where there is a Nandi, there must be Shiv lingam—and where there is Shiva, there must be his consort Parvati (Gauri). 

Where is Ma Gauri? The petitioners claim a carving of the goddess is located at the back of the Gyanvapi Mosque. Now, Hindu devotees already offer prayers here twice a year. But even this practice was started in 2004/05—due to pressure from Hindutva groups. The former chairman of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust says the claims are spurious—and the Gauri sthal is located elsewhere: “People are trying to gain cheap publicity by filing such petitions.”

But, but, but: The petitioners insist that the matter can only be settled if there is a proper survey of the mosque—so what’s the problem?

The survey: In response to the petition, a civil judge appointed a commissioner to survey the mosque. But the masjid authorities claimed the commissioner was biased—and challenged the need to videotape the interiors of the mosque—since the Gauri sthal is presumably located outside. The judge rejected their application, and instead ordered full videotaped survey of the entire mosque—locked rooms included: 

“If anyone creates any hindrance, like if there are locks at some places, then the district administration will have the full right to get the locks opened or broken for the commission’s action.”

Hello, Shiv lingam? The survey results have not been made public but the petitioners already claim that a lingam was found in the water tank of the mosque—used by worshippers to wash before prayers. It supposedly measures 12X4 feet in diameter and is three feet tall. The same judge has now ordered the area to be sealed—and directed the CRPF Commandant, District Magistrate and Police Commissioner to protect it.

But, but, but: Mosque authorities say the structure is not a lingam:

“‘We wouldn’t describe it as a Shivling. It is a part of a fountain,’ Mr Yasin told The Hindu. Mr Yasin said that Mughal-era mosques usually had a hauz (water tank) which also had fountains. The fountain was made of stone and approximately two feet high and two feet wide. The ‘small fountain’ was situated in the middle of a well-like fountain measuring 2.5 feet high and 5 feet in girth.”

What happens now?

The survey report will be submitted to the court on May 17. Meanwhile, the mosque management committee tried to block the survey—and moved the Supreme Court. On May 13, the Court rejected the demand but Chief Justice Ramana offered to examine the documents—and then listed the case to be heard today—by a bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud.

The bottomline: The Supreme Court ruling will hinge on its view of something called the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This law essentially orders a status quo on all places of worship that were in existence on August 15, 1947—with a special exemption for Ayodhya. We’ll explain the law, and why its constitutionality is being challenged tomorrow—after the Court ruling.

Reading list

The Hindu has the best explainer on the case—with more details. The Quint offers a detailed history of the controversy surrounding the mosque. Indian Express has more on the Supreme Court hearing—and the legal aspects involved. The Print has more on the Gauri sthal issue—and critics who reject the petitioners' claims. We recommend reading our Big Story on the creation of the grand Kashi Vishwanath corridor—which paved the way for the Gyanvapi mosque controversy. Also related: Our Big Story on Hindutva pressure on the Qutub Minar.