Book Excerpt: Brewing Tensions At Kashi’s Gyan Vapi During The 1930s

Waiting for Shiva: Unearthing the Truth of Kashi’s Gyan Vapi. Vikram Sampath. BluOne Ink. Pages 328. Rs 462.

From 1925 onwards, the disputes among the parties seem to have intensified—more so between the Muslim side and the government. We see several orders coming from the magistrates and local courts being solicited often on matters of usage of disputed spaces in and around the complex.

The two cellars under the courtyard of the mosque, one opening to the north and another to the south, were also being contested from time to time by both Hindus and Muslims.

In 1926, Mahadev Vyas made a complaint about how the Muslims who had hitherto offered their Alvida prayers (offered on the last Friday/jumma of the holy month of Ramzan) towards the north had slowly started spilling over to the eastern side, up to the pipal tree. Raghunandan Upadhya, the then city magistrate, made a spot inspection and then, terming this a petty matter, he merely suggested to the district magistrate that the matter be filed.

The issue, however, seemed to linger on, as by 1930, the collector Mr. Dreyfus wrote to the secretary of the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM) that it had come to his notice that the Muslim congregation had overflowed from within the mosque, both in 1929 and in 1930, and prayed over the pavement outside the mosque. This had caused considerable inconvenience to the Hindus who were going to the Vishwanath temple, or those undertaking the sacred walk or a visit to the ghats.

On the complaints by the Hindus regarding this, Dreyfus asked the Muslim side not to offer prayers on the enclosure in the future and that the AIM should divert excess attendees to other mosques in the city if the Gyan Vapi filled up.

The Flashpoint

This problem of overcrowding of congregators for prayers, who then spilt over to the grounds in between the mosque and the temple, kept getting worse with time.

The last Friday of Ramzan had fallen on 4 January 1935. Exceptionally large crowds had gathered on this occasion. Not being able to find a place inside the mosque, they sat on the higher and lower platforms of the mosque to say their prayers. At this point, the city magistrate along with police constables came to the site and ordered them to vacate the place since they had been warned several times not to crowd the area.

The Muslims quickly completed their prayers, but protests erupted about the conduct of the constables and the city magistrate, who told them that they were merely enforcing the rules laid down by the orders of the district magistrate. It was further added that violators would be prosecuted and punished.

Incensed by this, hundreds of Muslims offered themselves for arrests, but only fourteen people who stood close by were nominally arrested and thereafter released on bail on the spot, with no cases registered against anyone. It was intended to be a symbolic gesture but also a strict message to the Muslims to comply with the rules.

On 24 January 1935, the AIM made an application through its president Dr. Khurshed Ali Khan and its vice chairman Rahmat Ullah, explaining the inevitability of this problem. He held that the devout considered it an extremely meritorious act to join the biggest congregation and hence many times a large number of people ended up gathering at the Gyan Vapi mosque. When no room is left inside the mosque, they end up offering their prayers outside it, towards the northern and north-eastern sides.

Though the government orders had been received in this regard, there was little time that the AIM had to convey them to the followers. He sought permission from the local police to permit these excess congregators to come in. But the magistrate was firm in his directive. On 16 February 1935, he ordered:

The committee had sought to expand the scope of their prayers and also requested that the west of the mosque be permitted for funeral prayers. At this point, the district magistrate, Mr. Dibble, had simply had enough and he decided to pass prohibitory orders.

A formal directive in English, signed by Dibble, was pasted on the walls of the mosque on 8 March 1935. It reiterated the earlier stand of the government. By 30 May 1935, the district magistrate decided that in the future, the Muslims would not be allowed to congregate outside the mosque, and they had to restrict themselves to within its premises.

The superintendent of police, Benares, thereafter, invoked Section 31 of Act V of 1861, prohibiting the Muslims from sitting or praying within the compound or the platform of the mosque. Mr. Dibble also expected the Muslims to formally apologize to him for violating the law, which they stoutly refused to do.

On 30 October 1935, Khurshed Ali Khan and Rahmat Ullah submitted a new representation to the collector, misquoting the earlier government order of 23 March 1810. They prayed that, given the principle of equal protection to both parties in the exercise of their religious functions, permission may be granted to the Muslims to accommodate the overflow of the congregation to the north and north-east of the mosque.

The new district magistrate Mr. Acton had noted on 10 December 1935: ‘The Hindus have a right to use the passage way round the mosque and Mr. Adams said in 1887 that the land of the enclosure belongs to the State and in 1889 Mr. Lovett ordered that the worship of Adi Mukteshwar [Avimukteshwar?] at a point to the north of the mosque must not be accompanied by floral offerings, although it may be accompanied by throwing of water on the ground.’

Despite this and similar earlier orders of 30 May, the Muslims violated the regulations yet again on 20 December 1935, the last Friday of Ramzan. A few offenders were thereafter convicted and fined. On these occasions, the city magistrate was present on duty to see that the orders of the district magistrate were being followed.

When this order of Mr. Acton was challenged, Mr. R.V. Vernede, I.C.S., the collector of Benares, in his observations in 1936 noted: ‘Permission is given on condition of the Muslims’ leaving some passage for pedestrians, and from previous orders it is clear that the Muslims have on previous occasions overflowed to the mosque, and in view of their admission, the district magistrate has a right to order whether they should be allowed to pray in the “ahata” or not.’

The stage was now being set for a more formal and rigorous legal contestation in the courts between the Muslims and the British government (with Hindus strangely excluded from the case) on whose right it really was on the disputed land.