There have been skirmishes off and on in the past, between Hindus and the Muslims, as they seem to be now, over who owns the rights of the ‘Gyanvapi’ mosque complex. Upholding the Allahabad High Court order, recently, a three-judge bench, presided by Chief Justice of India, directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conclude its survey of the place in Varanasi, through any non-invasive methodology. Are the methods sufficient to determine the ownership-rights? Where and when did the two communities start exercising their contextual rights? Is the ‘Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991’ applicable and should it be enforced? These are important questions to answer if we were to amicably resolve the conflict.
The ‘Gyanvapi; Mosque is located in Varanasi, UP and history has it that it was constructed by Aurangzeb in 1669. That it was constructed upon demolition of an older Shiva temple is the contention. History records, the Mughals beginning with Babur, began to rule parts of India from 1526, and by 1707 ruled most of the sub-continent. Though they rapidly declined thereafter, their debauchery lasts to this day.
Did a temple stand at the cite way back in 1193/1194? If it was, it was allegedly uprooted by Ghurids who replaced it with the Razia Mosque. The temple was rebuilt by a Gujarati merchant during the reign of Iltutmish between 1211–1266, only to be demolished again by Sikandar Lodi of the Delhi Sultanate, who ruled between 1489–1517. However, during Akbar’s rule, Raja Man Singh re-constructed it, only to be demolished once again by Aurangzeb in 1669 giving way to a remodelled façade that resembles Taj’s entrance. He left the plinth of the temple largely untouched to serve as the courtyard of the mosque. The southern wall, along with its cusped arches, exterior moldings and ‘toranas’, was turned into the qibla wall with many other buildings left intact. These remnants are the bone of contention today. Some Brahmin priests too were allowed to reside in the premises and pray. With time, the current name ‘Gyan-Vapi, Well of Knowledge’ was adopted.
With tempers rising again, is it now possible to recreate history, with the help of science and technology that has far better tools at its disposal? Is it possible to know if a temple ever existed at the cite? At least 400 years back? It can be a complex archaeological and historical investigation, often involving a combination of research, excavations, and analysis. With factors like architectural alterations, urban development, and historical biases to contend with, the process can be challenging. Historical records, documents, maps, and accounts from different periods may provide insights into the then structures. Similarly, architectural clues and building materials, could provide pointers to the then era and religious traditions.
Non-invasive geophysical methods like ground-penetrating radar helps create subsurface images without excavation. Though GPR is commonly used for detecting and imaging buried objects, layers within the ground, and other subsurface structures, it is not typically used for estimating time in the same sense as a clock or a timer. Instead, it’s primarily used for imaging and detecting variations in material composition and structure beneath the ground. It can provide information about the depth and thickness of different layers and structures in the subsurface, which can indirectly offer insights into the geological history of an area. Time estimates related to geological processes, historical events, or archaeological contexts are generally derived from a combination of methods, including radiometric dating, stratigraphic analysis, and historical records, rather than relying solely on ground-penetrating radar. Magnetometry too can be used to study the magnetic properties of the subsurface. But this too cannot directly estimate chronological time periods.
There are also a combination of dating techniques available such as radiocarbon dating, luminescence dating, or archaeomagnetic dating besides others. Can they be used to time-date the ‘Shivling’? Generally, ‘Shivlings’ are made of crypto-crystalline quartz materials that contain silica and oxygen in the main, bonded over thousands of years. Hence methods such as carbon dating can be ineffective. Maybe combining multiple dating methods and cross-referencing with historical and contextual information can provide some clues.
Whatever be done through science and technology, engaging local communities, religious leaders, and stakeholders to ensure cultural sensitivity and cooperation during the investigation will be of utmost value. Transparent communication can help manage potential sensitivities surrounding religious sites.