This post will explain the Places of Worship Act, 1991 and the backdrop to it, what the Supreme Court has to say, and the petition challenging its constitutionality.
The act itself is absurd. Stopping citizens from exercising their right to approach the court following the rule of law to reclaim a place of worship is foolishness at its best, especially when there is a history of long standing dispute at these sites, or worship at adjoining ones since these particular sites could not be taken back from the invaders. In a free country, stopping the citizens to approach the court is absolutely absurd. This will become a cause for people to take matters in their own hands, which must be avoided. The disputes should be settled through a judicial process. Furthermore, the grounds taken in the petition challenging the act are not unfair, it has arbitrarily singled out the Ayodhya Ram Janmbhoomi, the Act passed in 1991, when the Babri disputed structure was still standing. There is a history of litigation from the British era regarding the ownership and title of other religious sites - this Act in a way poses a bar for those ongoing litigations which is arbitrary in nature. Further, no one, no individual can claim to be representing the Hindu interest and make claims, concessions on their behalf. A site may hold huge significance for local Hindus and not be relevant for others, it is upto them to decide if they want to pursue matters further on behalf of the deity (which is recognised as a juristic entity).
There has been no organized effort to convert any religious site till now, yes. Is it to be avoided? Yes. How do you avoid it? By telling the people, you cannot approach the court? That will end up making the issue even more complicated as people would then resort to taking things in their own hands. I do believe that there has to be some finality, some logical conclusion and end to the turmoil which inevitably spurs up due to these issues, but passing this Act barring lawful means of dispute is not the solution. There needs to be acceptance of the reality on community level, by both communities, the denial of atrocities inflicted on the Hindus during the Sultanate and Mughal era needs to stop, the glorification of tyrants such as Aurangzeb needs to stop. There is no question of any apology from any community, since these invaders are certainly not the forefathers of the Indian Muslims - however, disowning and denouncing such barbaric acts of intolerance would go a long way in ensuring enduring peace. There is a collective pain in the conscience of Hindus which they have not forgotten after centuries - pain of having their temples looted, murtis destroyed, people massacred, and imposition of Jizya on their ancestors. There needs to be some reconciliation - some truth finding to enable people to move on and live peacefully - imagined stories, lies and fabricated history is not the bandaid which will work, it has and will complicate things further. There needs to be a consensus that all sites will not be taken to dispute - that the sites where worship has continued - symbolically or where the disputes have been ongoing should be up for discussion and settlement, but not all sites since there are perhaps thousands of temples which were destroyed and mosques/dargahs were built at those sites. Punyeshwar Mahadev and Narayaneshwar temples being converted to Dhakta and Thorla Sheikh Salla Dargah is one of the examples of this. There needs to be some finality, sure, but it certainly cannot be arbitrarily decided to be Ayodhya - ignoring the ongoing disputes of other sites.
Krishna is a highly venerated God by Hindus. One merely needs to read what happened to Katra Keshavdev temple of Mathura to understand what kind of intolerance and extremism the Hindus have faced - the dispute has continued since centuries - even legally - there should not be any bar for people to pursue it legally - acts of violence must be stopped at all costs. Also, think about it once - there are documented orders of Aurangzeb (in Maasir-e-Alamgiri) seeking to destroy Kashi and Mathura temples - in addition to others. Further, there are orders of Aurangzeb to bury the Katra Keshavdev temple murti under the stairs of the Jama Mosque in Agra - are people who go for prayers at the said mosque really unaware about it? Hindus filing a petition to retrieve that murti is thrown out - would it not further the goal of peace if the Muslim community itself takes some corrective measures by recovering the murti and handing it over to the Hindus. Treading on the murti of one of the most revered God of the majority community surely cannot enable Ganga Jamuni Tehzeeb and Bhaichara - it takes moral courage to accept the reality and denounce the atrocities of the past - if that consensus has been reached regarding the oppression with respect to caste identities - why is it not possible in this case - when it is crystal clear that the atrocities were committed by the people who are in no way related to the present Indian Muslim community.
In Kashi, the shivling has been found in Wazukhana, in the very centre of the ablution pond where the muslim devotees wash their hands and feet. Further, as per the sketch of the British antiquary James Prinsep (sketch attached), the said pre-existing temple was a Ashtamandap temple - the western wall of which is still surviving and supporting the three domes of the disputed Kashi site - it is not a coincidence that the Wazukhana is at the place of the central mandap which is said to have housed Mahadev - the very place where the Shivling has been discovered now. It is also not a coincidence that the new temple constructed by Ahilyabai Holkar houses a Nandi facing this very place. I know you have not gone into the details of the dispute at Gyanvapi, but it is really not separable from the broader discussion about the issue. There is a 1936 case in Kashi dispute, filed by the Muslim side seeking the property to be declared a Wakf, the British Government's affidavit in the case is telling. Further even in Mathura - the entire land was declared by the British as Nazul land which was in its entirety bought by Raja Patni Mal in 1815. After its purchase by Jugal Kishore Birla - a trust was formed - whose stated purpose and objective was to build a temple at the site - this trust goes defunct in 1958 and a bogus society is formed with the help of a person who was a member of the trust and this society unilaterally, without any authority and in complete violation of the stated purpose of the trust, goes on to gift a part of the property to the Sunni Wakf Board - this is certainly a legal dispute where the rights of the deity are also involved. Barring such disputes by the said Act is a cause of concern.
Kashi and Mathura temples have a history of destruction - which has not been forgotten, and cannot be forgotten, it is the right of Hindus to claim these sites, and to really enable lasting peace - the Muslim community should give these sites up as a start.
The act itself is absurd. Stopping citizens from exercising their right to approach the court following the rule of law to reclaim a place of worship is foolishness at its best, especially when there is a history of long standing dispute at these sites, or worship at adjoining ones since these particular sites could not be taken back from the invaders. In a free country, stopping the citizens to approach the court is absolutely absurd. This will become a cause for people to take matters in their own hands, which must be avoided. The disputes should be settled through a judicial process. Furthermore, the grounds taken in the petition challenging the act are not unfair, it has arbitrarily singled out the Ayodhya Ram Janmbhoomi, the Act passed in 1991, when the Babri disputed structure was still standing. There is a history of litigation from the British era regarding the ownership and title of other religious sites - this Act in a way poses a bar for those ongoing litigations which is arbitrary in nature. Further, no one, no individual can claim to be representing the Hindu interest and make claims, concessions on their behalf. A site may hold huge significance for local Hindus and not be relevant for others, it is upto them to decide if they want to pursue matters further on behalf of the deity (which is recognised as a juristic entity).
There has been no organized effort to convert any religious site till now, yes. Is it to be avoided? Yes. How do you avoid it? By telling the people, you cannot approach the court? That will end up making the issue even more complicated as people would then resort to taking things in their own hands. I do believe that there has to be some finality, some logical conclusion and end to the turmoil which inevitably spurs up due to these issues, but passing this Act barring lawful means of dispute is not the solution. There needs to be acceptance of the reality on community level, by both communities, the denial of atrocities inflicted on the Hindus during the Sultanate and Mughal era needs to stop, the glorification of tyrants such as Aurangzeb needs to stop. There is no question of any apology from any community, since these invaders are certainly not the forefathers of the Indian Muslims - however, disowning and denouncing such barbaric acts of intolerance would go a long way in ensuring enduring peace. There is a collective pain in the conscience of Hindus which they have not forgotten after centuries - pain of having their temples looted, murtis destroyed, people massacred, and imposition of Jizya on their ancestors. There needs to be some reconciliation - some truth finding to enable people to move on and live peacefully - imagined stories, lies and fabricated history is not the bandaid which will work, it has and will complicate things further. There needs to be a consensus that all sites will not be taken to dispute - that the sites where worship has continued - symbolically or where the disputes have been ongoing should be up for discussion and settlement, but not all sites since there are perhaps thousands of temples which were destroyed and mosques/dargahs were built at those sites. Punyeshwar Mahadev and Narayaneshwar temples being converted to Dhakta and Thorla Sheikh Salla Dargah is one of the examples of this. There needs to be some finality, sure, but it certainly cannot be arbitrarily decided to be Ayodhya - ignoring the ongoing disputes of other sites.
Krishna is a highly venerated God by Hindus. One merely needs to read what happened to Katra Keshavdev temple of Mathura to understand what kind of intolerance and extremism the Hindus have faced - the dispute has continued since centuries - even legally - there should not be any bar for people to pursue it legally - acts of violence must be stopped at all costs. Also, think about it once - there are documented orders of Aurangzeb (in Maasir-e-Alamgiri) seeking to destroy Kashi and Mathura temples - in addition to others. Further, there are orders of Aurangzeb to bury the Katra Keshavdev temple murti under the stairs of the Jama Mosque in Agra - are people who go for prayers at the said mosque really unaware about it? Hindus filing a petition to retrieve that murti is thrown out - would it not further the goal of peace if the Muslim community itself takes some corrective measures by recovering the murti and handing it over to the Hindus. Treading on the murti of one of the most revered God of the majority community surely cannot enable Ganga Jamuni Tehzeeb and Bhaichara - it takes moral courage to accept the reality and denounce the atrocities of the past - if that consensus has been reached regarding the oppression with respect to caste identities - why is it not possible in this case - when it is crystal clear that the atrocities were committed by the people who are in no way related to the present Indian Muslim community.
In Kashi, the shivling has been found in Wazukhana, in the very centre of the ablution pond where the muslim devotees wash their hands and feet. Further, as per the sketch of the British antiquary James Prinsep (sketch attached), the said pre-existing temple was a Ashtamandap temple - the western wall of which is still surviving and supporting the three domes of the disputed Kashi site - it is not a coincidence that the Wazukhana is at the place of the central mandap which is said to have housed Mahadev - the very place where the Shivling has been discovered now. It is also not a coincidence that the new temple constructed by Ahilyabai Holkar houses a Nandi facing this very place. I know you have not gone into the details of the dispute at Gyanvapi, but it is really not separable from the broader discussion about the issue. There is a 1936 case in Kashi dispute, filed by the Muslim side seeking the property to be declared a Wakf, the British Government's affidavit in the case is telling. Further even in Mathura - the entire land was declared by the British as Nazul land which was in its entirety bought by Raja Patni Mal in 1815. After its purchase by Jugal Kishore Birla - a trust was formed - whose stated purpose and objective was to build a temple at the site - this trust goes defunct in 1958 and a bogus society is formed with the help of a person who was a member of the trust and this society unilaterally, without any authority and in complete violation of the stated purpose of the trust, goes on to gift a part of the property to the Sunni Wakf Board - this is certainly a legal dispute where the rights of the deity are also involved. Barring such disputes by the said Act is a cause of concern.
Kashi and Mathura temples have a history of destruction - which has not been forgotten, and cannot be forgotten, it is the right of Hindus to claim these sites, and to really enable lasting peace - the Muslim community should give these sites up as a start.