The Gyanvapi case has stirred ongoing tensions, primarily concerning Hindu worship in the Vyasji basement within the Gyanvapi complex, prompting Muslim groups to approach both the Supreme Court and the High Court seeking a ban on worship in the basement. Despite their efforts, relief has not been granted, leading to a series of reactions. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has expressed surprise at the Varanasi District Courts decision, raising concerns similar to those seen in the Ayodhya case.AIMPLBs Discontent with Varanasi District Courts DecisionThe AIMPLB expressed its astonishment at the Varanasi District Courts recent ruling in the Gyanvapi case. Dr Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, the spokesperson for AIMPLB, noted that although the court granted a 7-day window for the administration to arrange for the puja, all preparations were mysteriously completed overnight, allowing the worship to proceed. Dr Ilyas claimed that this pattern of events seems planned, drawing parallels with the Ayodhya case, where prayers commenced despite the case being sub judice.Drawing Parallels with Babri Masjid DecisionDr Ilyas went on to draw parallels between the Gyanvapi case and the contentious Babri Masjid decision. He stated that the Babri Masjid cases court decision was unacceptable, leading to a rejected review petition. Expressing skepticism, he questioned the credibility of the decision, emphasising that initiating worship without concrete evidence mirrors the Babri Masjid scenario. Dr Ilyas argued that this strategic move could impact the case before it reaches the Supreme Court, undermining the pursuit of justice.Maulana Arshad Madanis Radical ResponseReacting to the Gyanvapi developments, Maulana Arshad Madani voiced concerns about the law enacted in 1991, emphasising objections to the exclusion of Babri Masjid from its purview. He remarked on the Babri Masjid case, expressing apprehension about the potential application of similar scenarios to any mosque. In a provocative stance, Arshad Madani suggested burning the law books as a response to the perceived injustice. He raised questions about the reliability of legal teachings if such practices persist, casting doubt on the impartiality of religious verdicts.As the Gyanvapi case unfolds, AIMPLBs concerns reflect broader anxieties over religious freedoms and judicial decisions impacting places of worship. The controversy continues to draw attention, invoking historical comparisons and demands for a reconsideration of legal frameworks.
