Despite the fact that the case of Kashi Vishwanath Temple and Gyanvapi Masjid, both located in the same territory, has been heard in Varanasi’s local court since 1991, and then in the Allahabad High Court following an order of the High Court. The most recent debate involves the desire for regular worship of Shringar Gauri, who is present on the mosque grounds. Following a petition for prayer, the court ordered an archaeological investigation of the mosque. In this article, we will explain how and when this argument began.
During the temple’s expansion, there was a disagreement:
This time, the source of contention is not Kashi Vishwanath Dham, but Shringar Gauri’s temple within the mosque grounds. The last time this happened was when the temple was being expanded. The Khair Mandir Masjid case was settled, and the temple was constructed in a spectacular style. The controversy surrounding this temple and mosque has resurfaced. The issue is that there is a Mata Shringar Gauri shrine within the mosque grounds. This temple has received a petition demanding daily worship.
Following a petition for prayer, the court ordered an archaeological survey at the mosque, and the survey team arrived on the mosque grounds, bringing the dispute to a head.
History Says there is a Temple:
We will now take you back in time to learn about the controversy between this mosque and the temple. Prior to 1993, daily worship was performed at the Mata Shringar Gauri temple. This worship included elaborate rites. People used to come here for darshan and then circumambulate the temple afterward.
Why Worship not allowed in Temple Now?
In fact, communal disturbances broke out outside the mosque grounds for offering Namaz in 1809. The Hindu side was invited to claim Ayodhya, Kashi, and Mathura in the Delhi Parliament of Religions in 1984. A petition was filed in the Varanasi Court in 1991, demanding the demolition of the mosque as well as the worship at the Gyanvapi compound. Due to these factors, the Mata Shringar Gauri Parikrama was closed in 1993, citing security concerns. As soon as the parikrama was completed, the visitors’ worship-worship at this temple ceased totally.
Things happened between 1993 and 2004:
In 2004, certain Hindu organisations advocated for temple worship, and it was determined that this Dham of Mata Shringar Gauri would be open for at least one day.
The mother’s temple was built into the southern wall of the mosque, and worship began with worship. Worship in this Dham began on the fourth day of the Hindu New Year, Navratri, and was later extended to be done on a daily basis. Now the issue is, what is the petition about if Darshan and devotion can be done every day?
Petition filed in the court to allow worship:
On August 18, 2021, five ladies arrived before the Gyanvapi Masjid complex’s court, asking permission to worship other deities present on the premises, including Maa Shringar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, and Hanuman ji. This prayer was dutifully worshipped, just as it used to be. Taking cognizance of the matter, the court ordered a 3-day inspection to determine the status of the temple, a preliminary inquiry, on August 18.Since August 18, two different court commissioners have been appointed, but the investigation, including videography of this complex, has been postponed owing to unforeseen circumstances.
What the parties are saying about it:
The Muslim side is incorrect in instructing it to go inside the mosque for a survey. According to Abhay Yadav, counsel for the Muslim side, Shringar is the statue of Gauri, however it is located beyond the mosque’s western wall. In such a case, there is no need to conduct a survey by visiting the mosque. The Hindu side, on the other hand, claims that a survey of the entire grounds is required to prove Shringar Devi’s existence. In this case, the court set May 11 as the deadline for both sides to appear in court.Let us explain the distinction between Order (i.e. order) and Decision (i.e. decision). In circumstances such as temple-mosque, the court makes an order before making a judgement. The order is not a final decision, and any of the parties may submit an objection to it, whereas the decision is final, and no hearing is required.