FROM AYODHYA TO MANCHAR : NAVIGATING TEMPLE-MOSQUE DISPUTES

The conflicts over religious sites in India stem from a long, layered history. From the medieval period onward, rulers from different faiths often built mosques or tombs on or near Hindu or Jain shrines, sometimes after demolishing or modifying older structures. Examples include sites in Ayodhya, Mathura, Varanasi, Sambhal and several regional towns. During colonial rule, the British codified property laws but generally avoided reopening historical disputes, leaving many claims unresolved. Independent India inherited these sensitivities. The Ram Janam Bhumi and Babri Masjid dispute became the most prominent. After decades of litigation and political mobilisation, the structure was demolished by a mob in 1992, triggering riots. In 2019, the Supreme Court awarded the land to a Hindu trust while ordering separate land for a new mosque.

Petitions have been filed over the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura, claiming they were built over temples. Similar controversies arise when renovation or excavation at dargahs and mosques exposes older remains, leading to rival claims about their origin and ownership. In November 2024, a dispute erupted in Sambhal town over Shahi Jama Masjid, built in the 16th century. Plaintiffs claim it stood on the site of Harihar Temple, allegedly destroyed during Babur's reign in 1529. A court-ordered survey escalated tensions, resulting in clashes that killed four people and injured many. The legal proceedings continue.

Manchar Controversy
Most recently, workers repairing a portion of the Auliya Dargah in Manchar (Ambegaon Taluka, Pune) reported that a section had collapsed, revealing a ‘tunnel-like’ substructure beneath the shrine, which sparked communal tension. Local Hindu organisations demanded an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) inspection, arguing the substructure could be part of an older temple. Muslim caretakers and local officials maintained that the site is a Dargah, with customary graves, denying the presence of a temple. To prevent unrest arising from these conflicting claims, the police bolstered security to maintain law and order. Representatives of both Hindu and Muslim communities reportedly held meetings and discussions with the local administration to calm tensions. Whether the underground substructure is part of an ancient temple or simply a part of historical non-temple structures remains unverified. 

This case is part of a broader pattern in India of disputes between communities over claims of ancient temples beneath mosques or dargahs. These disputes often invoke historical conflicts, identity, heritage, and political mobilisation. Discoveries or claims of this nature tend to get amplified through traditional and social media, increasing communal sensitivities. Authorities often attempt to manage rumours and prevent escalation. Heritage and archaeological findings could change understandings of local history, property rights and possibly religious access.

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
It was enacted to preserve the religious character of places of worship in India as it existed on 15th August 1947. It prohibits converting any temple, mosque, church, gurdwara or other shrine into a different religious place and bars lawsuits or legal proceedings seeking to change their status. The act aimed to maintain communal harmony and prevent disputes over historical conversions, especially during a period of rising tension over Ayodhya.

The law applies nationwide, with the notable exception of the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, which was excluded from its scope due to ongoing litigation. By freezing the status of religious places, the act protects India’s plural heritage and discourages reopening old conflicts over ownership or origin.

The matter is currently pending in the Supreme Court; several petitions are challenging the constitutional validity of this Act, while there are also counter-petitions seeking reinforcement of the Act in its current form. In an interim order, the court stated that no lower court in India can register new suits or make any interim or final order (including surveys) seeking to alter the religious character of any place until the Supreme Court decides on the Act’s validity.

In May 2022, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had said that although the Act prevents changing the nature of a religious place, merely ascertaining the religious character of a place would not violate the law.

Causes
Centuries of temple construction, destruction, and mosque building created layered sites where both communities see their respective heritage. British policy froze disputes without clarifying ownership, and post-independence India lacked a comprehensive settlement mechanism. Political parties and groups sometimes mobilise historical grievances to consolidate support, which amplifies the disputes. Many claims rely on folklore rather than systematic excavation or peer-reviewed research. Additionally, inadequate structured dialogue between local Hindu and Muslim bodies about heritage often allows tensions to escalate.

Solutions
Robust Archaeological Assessment- Any claim that a shrine covers another should be examined by an expert archaeologist using scientific methods under court supervision, ensuring transparency and peer review.

Clear Legal Framework- The Supreme Court should review the 1991 Places of Worship Act, with sensitivity to all communities’ sentiments and ensure its strict implementation.

Encourage dialogue and reconciliation- Local interfaith committees, historians, and civil society organisations, supported by district administration, must work together to promote mutual respect, clarify facts, and foster understanding of India’s shared heritage.

Heritage-sharing Models- Where feasible, invest in conservation of ancient temples, mosques, and monuments, regardless of faith, to make them a symbol of collective pride rather than contention. Sites can be protected as archaeological or cultural monuments instead of exclusive places of worship, allowing respectful visitation by all.

Responsible Public Discourse- Political leaders and media should avoid inflammatory narratives and instead encourage respect for historical complexity and present-day harmony.

Education and Documentation- School curricula and public campaigns should present history accurately and objectively, highlighting centuries of coexistence alongside conflicts. Emphasising constitutional values, secularism, fraternity, and respect for diversity can reduce prejudice. Education should adopt a scientific approach, avoiding sectarian bias.

Prevent Political Misuse- Discourage inflammatory speeches, misinformation, or attempts to exploit disputes for electoral advantages. Take firm action against hate speech and violence.

Conclusion
Temple-mosque disputes are deeply intertwined with India’s plural past. By combining legal safeguards, dialogue, heritage protection, and inclusive growth, the government can transform historic wounds into opportunities for unity and peace. Priority must be accorded to development and social equity over divisive narratives. Investments in education, employment, and inclusive cultural programs can unite people beyond religious identities. As the Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh (RSS) Chief recently stated, we should not try to find a Shivling beneath every mosque. Hindus and Muslims must coexist peacefully and work together for the nation’s progress. Above all, no religion surpasses humanity, which teaches mutual respect and compassion.

By Manoj Dubey
Principal (Retd.)
Delhi Public Schools

(The content of this article reflects the views of writers and contributors, not necessarily those of the publisher and editor. All disputes are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent courts and forums in Delhi/New Delhi only)