In India, since the independence time, there are a lot of controversies regarding temples and masjid being together. The shahi Idgar in 1949 was built on the raised Plinth of the original Ram temple(generally said that the place where Sri Ram was born ) which was destroyed by the Aurangzeb. Later again the temple was built right next to the Shahi Idgar. another one with a similar situation is Gyanvapi mosque which is located in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. It was constructed on the site of the Kashi Viswanath temple, which was said to be destroyed by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in 1696 or so. So an issue related to Gyanvapi mosque happens that is there are three mosques one is Gyanvapi mosque which is with Kashi Viswanath temple another one is Babri masjid which is in Ayodhya. So basically, in the Ayodhya case what happened was there was a controversy arose saying that on the land where the mosque was built saying that originally on that land Sri ram was born. So, they destroyed the mosque, and this problem was long-running in the court and recently the judgment was given that as originally it was the place where the ram was born and permitted them to build a temple. So, two main groups are claiming that during the Aurangzeb period mainly three temples which were originally on that land were destroyed and a mosque was built. So now they reclaim of seeking the original temple back again. Now the question comes on the Gyanvapi mosque. So presently a district court in Varanasi had entered in a civil suit by a temple trust claiming the site of the Gyanvapi mosque in the holy city but the order has been challenged within the court, citing the statutory bar on such suits that request to change the places of worship. This matter is still pending. Special provision’s act, 1991. This act seeks to maintain and protect the religious character of places of worship in India. this act is to ban the conversion of any place of worship and to produce for the upkeep of the spiritual character of any place of worship because it existed on the 15th day of august and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. For example, this act prohibits the conversation of a temple into a mosque and vice-versa. So now the question arises is whether this law is applied to the Babri masjid case. The issue of Babri masjid was in court for a long time. This dispute was removed according to this law. Which means this was not included in it. So the Hindu organizations which claim Babri masjid also claim two other places that are one is Sri Krishna temple other is lord shiv’s temple. Although radicals of the Hindu camp say that more than 3000 mosques were built by destroying the temples. But they mainly claim these three pilgrimages. So, the demands like this won’t increase Narsimha Rao’s government in 1991 introduced a special law that is worship act 1991. so in this act, all the religious places were in halt. This kept the Ayodhya put off its purview, mainly because it was subjected to prolonged litigation. It was also aimed at providing scope for a possible negotiated settlement. So basically because of this act the Gyanvapi mosque and the Shahi Idgar were built before 15th august 1991. So according to the law, these places cannot be converted. so hence on Twitter, it is trending to remove this 1991 worship act. Because these two will be covered under this act. and it is impossible to change because it will be unconstitutional. The Babri masjid was not unconstitutional because it was not covered under this act.
