Kapil Sibal writes: When places of worship become places of politics

When the act of demolition, based on faith, of an allegedly disputed structure is considered a triumph, even though perceived as a crime, the fabric of our country is torn asunder. The history of our country is replete with waves of barbaric invasions at a time when the concept of the rule of law did not prevail. If alleged historical wrongs of the past are grievances for which retribution is sought now, qua those who had no role in such acts, the present becomes an uneasy place for our Republic to flourish. How can the millions of our citizens living in the present be faulted for the allegedly barbaric acts of the past? Political agendas that seek to victimise the citizens of our Republic by targeting them for such alleged historic wrongs have no constitutional or legal basis.

December 6, 1992, was a day of triumph for many but perceived as a tragedy for those who espoused a particular faith. To calm the turbulent waters and to put an end to future acts of constitutional vandalism, Parliament in 1991 had decided to enact the Places of Worship (Special Provisions), Act 1991 (“Act of 1991”). In essence, it stipulated that the character of the places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, would not be altered. What this means is that when India became free and adopted on November 26, 1950, our Constitution, our Republic assured freedom of belief, faith and worship, enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution. It states that “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion, subject to public order, morality and health”.

Recent attempts to reopen the wounds of the past for acts that happened hundreds of years ago, demonising the present, encourage public disorder. Every other day, we witness courts being made a battleground for dubious historical assertions against places of worship of a particular community. The claims are based on suspect assertions that the structures in place in fact are built on the debris of a site where another religion was being practiced. Such petitions themselves are acts which tend to fuel emotions inconsistent with the values of the Constitution that we have embraced. That the Supreme Court on December 12, through an interim order, has stayed all such petitions is a welcome step.

The court has no legal means to justify that such acts are indeed based on alleged historical facts. In fact, such an exercise by a court for making a judicial determination of the existence of a fact is per se hazardous and is bound to evoke controversy. Those who worship at such places feel targeted. Others triumph at their unease. This creates an environment of both fear and uncertainty. The alacrity with which the court that is moved passes orders on all such claims and the swiftness with which the agencies of the government act, suggest that this is much more than a simple litigation.

Some suits are filed on the basis that the place of worship in question is a protected monument and, therefore, its access cannot be denied under section 15 of The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. However, that very Act under section 13 stipulates that the place of worship or shrine maintained by the government shall not be used for any purpose inconsistent with its character. In addition, The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, in terms of section 16 stipulates what is set out in section 13 of The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. This is in respect of places of worship, which are maintained by the government. In any event, Article 25 protects all places of worship from changing their character whether or not they are maintained by the government. Any claims, therefore, made based on statutes are inconsistent with the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.

The fact that the government of the day is silent on the issue is a matter of concern. Their silence is perceived to be an act of consent by those who fear that courts are being moved to fulfil an agenda that resulted in the demolition that took place on December 6, 1992. The intent of those moving the court to dig the graves of the past is to create an environment which supports a particular political agenda, wherein religion and politics become two sides of the same coin. Majoritarian triumphalism is the objective. The intent, to my mind, of those who move the court backed by a particular political party is to create a majoritarian vote bank that cuts across caste and creed and becomes a coalescing force which differentiates “us” and “them” based on religion. This coupled with the political rhetoric bordering on hate speech by some and unbridled outpourings of hate by others, becomes part of a movement that started with Advani’s rath yatra.

If our polity had embraced the constitutional values of our Republic, such events would never have happened. There would have been no need for the Act of 1991. Twenty-four years after the enactment of such a law, we still seek to resurrect the wounds of the past, which the Constitution protected under Article 25. Religion as a political tool is anathema to the concept of a Republic. It is best to practice religion in the privacy of one’s home and allow it to flourish for the good of the community.

The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate