A fresh controversy over the status of the Ajmer Dargah, dedicated to the revered Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, has sparked debate and concern, drawing political, religious, and community leaders into the discussion. The rift centers around a petition filed in September, seeking to declare the famous shrine a Hindu temple, claiming that it was originally a Shiva temple destroyed by Muslim invaders. This claim has revived fears of communal tensions, especially after similar issues recently erupted in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, over a Mughal-era mosque.
On Wednesday, a local court in Ajmer issued notices to the dargah committee, the Ministry of Minority Affairs, and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), triggering a storm of reactions. The petitioners, led by Vishnu Gupta of the Hindu Sena, argue that the Ajmer dargah should be declared a Sankat Mochan Mahadev temple and that Hindus should be granted the right to worship there. Gupta claims that after two years of research, he has found evidence suggesting that a Shiva temple once stood at the site, and that it was demolished by Muslim invaders, leading to the construction of the dargah.
The controversy has raised alarm across political and religious circles, with figures like Syed Sarwar Chishti, the secretary of the Anjuman Syed Zadgan, calling the petition a deliberate attempt to sow discord and divide communities. He stressed that the dargah is a symbol of secularism and communal harmony, and the matter falls under the purview of the Minority Affairs Ministry, not the ASI.
“The community accepted the decision in the Babri Masjid case and we believed nothing will happen after that but unfortunately such things are happening again and again. The example of Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh is in front of us. This must stop,” he said.
Union Minister Giriraj Singh has supported the survey. “A court has ordered survey in Ajmer. What is the problem if court has ordered a survey? This is a truth that when Mughals came to India, they demolished our temples. The Congress government has only done appeasement till now. If (Jawaharlal) Nehru would have stopped it in 1947 itself, there would have been no need to approach the court today,” he said.
On the other hand, Muslim leaders and organizations have strongly opposed the claim. SQR Ilyas, spokesperson for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, labeled the petition a violation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991, which prohibits changing the religious character of any place of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947.
“Following the unresolved issue of Sambhal’s Jama Masjid, a new claim has emerged, asserting that the world-renowned Ajmer dargah is the Sankat Mochan Mahadev temple. Unfortunately, the West Civil Court in Ajmer has accepted this petition for hearing and issued notices to the parties involved,” Ilyas said.
Political leaders have also voiced their concerns. AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi warned that such claims undermine national unity and secularism.
“The Dargah Sharif has been there (Ajmer) for 800 years. Every prime minister of the country sends ‘chadar’ for the dargah during Urs. Where will all this stop? What will happen to Place of Worship Act 1991? This is being done to destabilise the country… I am saying this repeatedly that these things are not in favour of the country. These people are related directly or indirectly with BJP, RSS…”
Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti and CPI(M) have expressed concerns that these actions, including surveys at sites like the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, risk increasing communal tension across the country.
“Thanks to a former Chief Justice of India a Pandora’s box has been opened sparking a contentious debate about minority religious places. Despite a Supreme Court ruling that the status quo should be maintained as it existed in 1947, his judgement has paved the way for surveys of these sites potentially leading to increased tension between Hindus and Muslims,” said PDP president Mehbooba Mufti.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has criticized the civil court’s decision to entertain the petition for the survey of the Sambhal mosque, calling it legally baseless.
“It goes against the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which decrees that no legal dispute can be raised on a religious place that existed prior to August 15, 1947,” it said.
“The violation of this Act has already resulted in the flawed decision with regard to the survey of the masjid in Sambhal…,” the party added, asking the Supreme Court to immediately intervene.
The dispute over the Ajmer Dargah comes at a time of rising communal claims on religious sites, threatening to further polarize communities. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for December 20, 2024, and the outcome will likely determine whether the issue continues to escalate or is put to rest.
