Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain is one of the petitioners in the Sambhal Harihar Temple vs. Shahi Jama Masjid case. He was present at ground zero along with the ASI team when the violence erupted in Sambhal on November 24. Organiser’s Senior Assistant Editor Nishant Kumar Azad spoke to him on the legal battle of Sambhal, the violence that started in the town by Islamists and the challenges of Places of Worship Act. Excerpts:
Since you were present on November 19 and November 24 on ground zero. Could you tell us what exactly happened on the day of violence?
It is important to clarify that the survey conducted November 19 was not peaceful, as is it being falsely portrayed. Many are being misled into believing that the survey on that day happened smoothly, and survey team completed its work and left without any incident.
When we arrived at the location, suddenly a large crowd gathered, chanting Islamic slogans like “Nara-e-Takbeer, Allahu Akbar.” As per protocol, only 12 individuals were supposed to be present inside the premises: myself, my local counsel, the Central and State Government, five members of the mosque committee and three of their lawyers. Despite this, a large crowd entered the area, and the mosque committee representatives began pressuring us to leave, claiming they couldn’t control the mob. They were aggressive and the situation became increasingly volatile. The Advocate Commissioner noted in his report that due to these circumstances, the survey could not be conducted on the 19th. Hence, it was decided to carry out the survey again on November 24.
On the evening of the November 23, a second notice was issued, informing all parties that the survey would commence at 7:00 AM. The notice was duly received by Zafar Ali from the mosque committee, who acknowledged it. However, it seems that messages were spread to mobilise people, as by the morning, an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 individuals had gathered in the area.
Are you suggesting that the violence was pre-planned?
Absolutely. How else could 17 truckloads of stones be assembled within such a short time? By 6:30 AM, we arrived at the designated police outpost, and from there, we proceeded to the disputed site under heavy police protection. Initially, the situation seemed calm. However, as soon as the survey began around 8:15 AM, Islamic slogans erupted again, reverberating across the area.
Soon after, stone-pelting began from multiple directions. It was followed by incidents of arson and an escalation in violence. The police had to resort to tear gas and pellet guns to disperse the mob. Amidst this chaos, we were pressured to quickly complete our survey and leave the area.
It’s worth noting that Zafar Ali left the premises during the survey under pretext of buying pan masala. What he did after leaving raises many questions. It appears to be part of a coordinated strategy.
Can you exactly elaborate the purpose of this pre-planned violence?
The main aim was to prevent the truth about the Sambhal’s Harihar Mandir from coming out. There is a concerted effort to ensure that such cases do not move forward. The idea is to target petitioners and lawyers who dare to file such cases.
For instance, I have faced accusations of instigating violence by chanting “Jai Shri Ram.” Some political leaders, including members of the Samajwadi Party, have posted my photos online, demanding my arrest. They spread lies and misinformation, entirely contrary to documented evidence.
Please explain the role of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in in this dispute?
The ASI declared the site a protected monument under its jurisdiction in 1904, reaffirming its status in 1920. According to the law, no changes can be made to a protected site. However, from 1996 onwards, ASI began losing its physical possession of the site due to demographic changes in the area. In recent months, ASI officials attempted to survey the site but were prevented from doing so by local resistance.
The ASI’s affidavit clearly states that its team faced threats and intimidation. Even though ASI signage is still visible on the premises, unauthorised alterations have been made, including tree-cutting and the construction of railings.
Why didn’t the Supreme Court order the site to be sealed when it granted a stay?
That’s precisely the issue. If the area is not sealed, evidence can be tampered with or destroyed. For example, any relic or structure uncovered during the survey could be modified or erased. When ASI conducts a survey, it does so under stringent rules to preserve the site’s authenticity.
How do you respond to those who say such cases disturb communal harmony?
This argument is flawed and misleading. If we are to preserve the truth and our cultural heritage, these surveys and investigations are essential. They are conducted under strict guidelines to ensure the integrity of the site.
The principle of “Once a temple, always a temple” is deeply rooted in the Hindu Law and tradition. Even if a temple is destroyed or desecrated, its sanctity remains. We are fighting to restore the dignity of these sites, and this fight is not against any community but for justice and cultural preservation.
Critics often cite the Places of Worship Act, 1991, in such cases. Does it apply to the Sambhal case?
The Places of Worship Act, 1991, explicitly excludes sites governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Section 4(3)(a) of the Places of Worship Act clarifies that the Act does not apply to ancient and protected monuments under ASI.
In Sambhal’s case, the site is a protected monument, and therefore, the Places of Worship Act does not apply. This fact is clearly stated in the law itself. Unfortunately, some individuals misrepresent the Act to suit their narrative.
A section of society alleges that the verdict in Ayodhya case by the Ranjan Gogoi bench and later during a hearing of Gyanvapi case, observation by the fomer CJI Chandrachud where he said “finding the nature of the religious place not barred under 1991 law” has opened a pandora box and now the Hindu community will claim temple below every Masjid.
The law and evidence determine the merit of each case. Not every mosque has such disputes associated with it. Cases like Ayodhya, Gyanvapi, and Sambhal are backed by extensive historical evidence, archaeological findings, and documented accounts of forced conversions of temples into mosques. Instead of labelling these efforts as opening a Pandora’s box, critics should focus on the facts and legal merits of each case.
Do you believe your fight is part of a larger movement to reclaim the lost Hindu heritage?
Absolutely. This is not just about a single temple or site. It’s about restoring the cultural and spiritual identity
of our civilisation.
Comments