Allowing one community to worship in protected monuments will open the floodgates for similar demands by others
The National Commission for Minorities (NCM) received a letter from the Jamiat-ul Ulama-e-Hind. The letter wanted 31 protected mosques to be opened for prayers. “Although the commission was not very keen that heritage monuments should be opened for prayers, it decided to suggest a joint survey for ascertaining the condition of these mosques.” Officials from the NCM, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Wakf Board will carry out the joint inspection according to the suggestion made by the commission in its letter sent to the Ministry of Culture towards the end of July.
This reference made by the NCM needs to be looked at a little carefully, because the issue is not likely to remain restricted to these 31 mosques nor will it remain confined to Delhi. The reference impinges on questions of law and will eventually inform our attitude to the wider question of heritage protection.
In 1958, Parliament enacted The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 in order to protect and preserve monuments, archaeological sites and remains that had historical or architectural value and were more than a 100 years old.
Among the provisions of the Act, it was stated that any place of worship which was considered worthy of protection but was being used for worship/prayers at the time of enactment of the law would continue to be so used. But if a place of worship, considered fit for protection, which was not being used for prayers/worship when the act came into force, will be taken over and preserved as a protected monument.
The implication of this understanding was that such monuments will not subsequently be used for worship but would be preserved as national heritage.
It is under this law that the temples of Mahabalipuram (Mamallapuram) Khajuraho and Konark, the caves at Ajanta, Ellora and Elephanta, the Stupa at Sanchi and hundreds of other structures and sites have been taken over and preserved as historical monuments where no worship is permitted.
The mosque built by Qutub-ud-Din Aibak — the first mosque built in Delhi — falls under the same category as do all the 31 mosques including the Jamali Kamali mosque, the Sher Shahi mosque at Old Fort, the Mohammadi mosque near Siri Fort, the Neeli mosque near Hauz Khas Market, the Begumpur mosque near Vijay Mandal Enclave, the Khirkee mosque at Khirki Village, the Khair-ul-Manazil mosque near the Sher Shah Gate, the mosque at the Mausoleum of Isa Khan and the Afsarwala mosque, etc.
Implications
The question of law that is involved is rather basic — can the 1958 Act of protection of monuments be relaxed in the case of mosques? Will it not open up the floodgates for similar relaxations for a whole lot of other protected monuments? Having once made an exception in the case of one community, can the state afford to refuse it to others?
And what would happen in cases where there is a dispute with two or more communities claiming the right to pray at the same site.
The only solution to this issue is to follow the law uniformly for all and not to make any exception. Once this Pandora’s box is opened, the strange creatures that crawl out will be impossible to put back.
There is another dimension that you need to consider. What would happen to these monuments if they were ever to be handed over to those who are currently wanting to use them as places of worship or to those who might raise similar demands for other protected monuments in the future?
There are enough examples to demonstrate the excesses that would be visited upon these protected monuments once they were opened for prayer/worship. Look at the 14th century Kalan Masjid in the Turkman Gate area. Considered to be one of the most remarkable mosques to be built in Delhi, it has been painted and repainted so many times that it now looks more like a multi layered cake than a mosque. Go and see the arches of the Jama Masjid at Firozshah Kotla that have been painted a horrible shade of green. The arches at the Nizam-ud-Din Jama Masjid have met a fate which is not less heartbreaking — aluminium frames and glass panes have been fixed into the arches of this 14th century mosque.
Do not for a moment think that this strange rush to renovate and recast structures, to an extent that they become unrecognisable from what they were, is confined to the buildings mentioned. Far from it.
Go and see what has been done to Kalkaji Mandir and the temple of Yog Maya and you will see what I am talking about.
Our heritage is too precious to be handed over to those who claim to speak for entire faiths and entire communities. The protection of our heritage is a secular act and should be left under the care of secular institutions created for this purpose.
(Sohail Hashmi is a Delhi-based writer, film-maker and history buff.)
Keywords: heritage monuments, National Commission for Minorities, Jamiat-ul Ulama-e-Hind, archaeological sites, worship places





If People of other communities can offer their preyers in age old places of worship why people are deniedof their right to worship at these places.Looking after and maintenance may be given to ASI or any other agency.
Santosh;
Evidently it is not just the sites but even their names are being destroyed. It is Fatehpur Sikri, not Fatefur Sikri.
A first class article. As the author has mentioned, handing these
monuments to the vested interests would only tantamount to pushing our
heritage to oblivion. Further, it would help the growth of radicalism.
Do we need another Pakistan in India?
The authors arguments are well reasoned and thoroughly thought-out. It'd
be prudent to heed to his warnings.
what about Babri Masjid ? a heritage lost or a mosque destroyed .How many more heritage and muslim worship places will meet the fate of Babri Masjid.
A well written article that gives a balanced view of an issue which unfortunately has just not been given the importance it deserves. As a result, several of the structures names above, to which may be added others such as the Ashokan lat brought by Firoz Shah Tughluq from Topra and set up at Firozabad (Firozshah Kotla), the remains of what is believed to be Balban’s tomb in the Mehrauli Archaeological Park and the pseudo Bhairav mandir have been turned into places of worship by ignorant worshipers or devious land grabbers. The most unfortunate aspect of this issue is that neither the concerned authorities – DDA, ASI or others – nor the common citizens of Delhi, have just not shown the courage required to stop them from doing so. Sites which in many other countries would be protected, attract visitors and be a source of much needed revenue that could be reutilized to ensure their survival, are, thanks to general public and official apathy, condemned to die a slow and ignoble death…
India a country with diversified historical background witnessing imprint of diversity all across the country's landscape. since after independence we adopted secularism philosophy and it is the duty to protect and preserve ancient monuments, archaeological sites and remains without yielding to any religious community's influence.
Even if worship is not allowed they shall at least suffer the stinging
graffiti of visitors, corrupt ASI officials and the inevitable
degradation with time. Someone who takes them as a place of worship
values it more than somebody who goes there for amusement. There are
many examples worldwide where ancient structures are in continuous use
which only increased their legacy. I believe only disputed structures
should have restrictions, like the Hagia Sophia of Turkey.
A complete recondite analysis clearly expressing the consequences if
the act of 1958 is amended and the pleading party is being
satisfied.hope the NCM take preventive measurements.
A very good article and rightly pointed by Sohail. The opening of heritage mosques for prayer may give a signal to other communities to raise a similar demand for them. Rather than using the heritage mosques Muslims can build new mosques for prayers if required. This way the laws will not be broken and there will not arise any questions of making relaxations to it.
New York has eleven member Landmark Preservation Commission charged with
administering, safeguarding the architectural, historical and cultural
heritage of landmarks buildings. We can have something like that.
the writer's assessment is good,government should think 1000 times
before handing over our heritage sites to those fanatic people.our
heritages are precious and represents our unity in diversity.Looking at
17th century 'the buland darwaja site' in fatefur sikri,our heart start
crying,it is not being protected by ASI and being used a religious
place,all kinds of filth,animals live there..is that the way to treat
our heritage?if one community muslim is allowed then there will demands
from others too and there will be no end in this.
These monuments were constructed for worship, and people should be able to
worship in them.Why should the life they represent be kept out?
Please Email the Editor