The Politics Around Places of Worship Act

Are We Overlooking Today’s Urgent Needs to Correct ‘Historical Wrongs’?

December 12, 2024

Several petitions were submitted to the Supreme Court on Dec. 11 to defend the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, on the eve of a hearing where the law’s validity will be scrutinised. The legislation mandates the preservation of the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947, which blocks political mobilisation around the emotive issues concerning perceived “historical wrongs.”

The interventions in support of the law argue that it is crucial for maintaining Indian secularism and preventing communal conflicts. For example, the Indian Union Muslim League pointed to the recent violence in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, as evidence of its necessity, as reported by The Telegraph. The League argued that proper enforcement of the Act could have averted the clashes and saved lives. It added that the law supports secularism and religious freedom as enshrined in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Contrastingly, the Hindu Shree Foundation argued against the Act, claiming it unjustly affects the majority Hindu community by maintaining a status quo that favours Islamic structures allegedly built over demolished temples. The group contends that the law, by barring judicial review of such matters, violates constitutional provisions that allow citizens to approach the Supreme Court to safeguard their fundamental rights.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, is scheduled to hear the case on Dec. 12.

Section 3 of the Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship into that of another religion. And Section stipulates that the religious character of a place of worship must be preserved as it existed on the day India gained independence from British rule, with the controversial exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.

The law was enacted when P.V. Narasimha Rao of the Indian National Congress was the prime minister and the country was experiencing heightened communal tensions due to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which centred on whether a temple previously existed on the site that was demolished by Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty in India, centuries ago to construct a mosque.

The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue ignited widespread violence following the mosque’s demolition on Dec. 6, 1992, resulting in over 2,000 deaths. In the years since, the subsequent polarisation has led to thousands of more deaths, numerous injuries, significant property damage and ongoing communal disharmony.

Political mobilisation around this issue of “historical wrongs” intensified identity politics in the country, as media coverage of the dispute and the associated political brought communal issues to the centre stage of news cycles and public discussions. This shift overshadowed conversations about good governance, a phenomenon that, regrettably, continues to this day.

A focus on historical grievances, whether there’s sufficient evidence or not, diverts a nation’s attention and resources from pressing current issues such as economic development, poverty alleviation and public health, stalling progress in critical areas that directly impact people’s lives today.

Further, once the door is opened to correcting historical wrongs, determining a cutoff point can be challenging. How many centuries back should one stop seeking redress for grievances caused by previous generations, and on what basis should this decision be made? It encourages ongoing revisions of history, leading to perpetual discontent and instability for any nation.

More importantly, efforts to rectify historical injustices might lead to perceived injustices against other groups in the present, thereby creating distrust among diverse community groups.