‘Remove’ 50-year-old mosque, says Uttarakhand mahapanchayat

Uttarkashi remained tense on Sunday after a ‘mahapanchayat’ was organised by various Hindu right-wing outfits demanding the removal of a nearly half-a-century-old mosque, which they claim to be illegal, stirring an issue that has kept the temple town on its edge for the last two months.
The mahapanchayat, held under the banner of “Devbhoomi Vichar Manch” amid tight security at the Ramlila Maidan in Uttarkashi, was addressed by some legislators of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). However, the event saw only around 500 people taking part in it, prompting the organisers to announce another mahapanchayat in a month’s time.
Addressing the crowd, controversial BJP leader and Telangana legislator T Raja Singh said Uttarakhand chief minister Pushkar Singh Dhami should take inspiration from his Uttar Pradesh counterpart Yogi Adityanath on how to act against “land jihadis” and should procure bulldozers.
“Chief minister Pushkar Singh Dhami should have a ‘chai pe charcha’ with UP CM Yogi Adityanath. The way he teaches a lesson to land jihadis in UP…he (Dhami) also needs to procure some bulldozers,” Singh claimed.
“We will not allow jihadis to do land jihad in Uttarakhand. The Hindus in the country are taking inspiration from people of Uttarakhand on how to teach land jihadis a lesson. It is not just an issue of Uttarkashi. We have to come together to eradicate land jihad and love jihad from across the state,” he claimed.
“Love jihad” and “land jihad” are terms used by Hindu right-wing outfits and are often seen as “anti-Muslim” rhetoric, with the former used to describe a marriage between a Muslim mand and a Hindu woman.
The mahapanchayat comes amid increasing communal tensions and rising anti-minority incidents in Uttarakhand, which has also seen increasing instances of calls for social boycott against Muslims.
Another BJP leader and Gangotri legislator Suresh Singh Chauhan claimed they will not allow Uttarkashi losing its image of a religious town, and called for a ban on shops selling meat and liquor.
“We are not creating an atmosphere of fear, but this is a religious town. However, Rohingya Muslims posing as vendors are tainting Uttarkashi. Locals will not tolerate it. Some people are trying to disturb the atmosphere of this religious town, but we will not allow them to succeed,” he claimed, calling for the Hindu community to unite.
“We have no issue with those living in the town for a long time. Our chief minister has taken cognizance of the mosque matter… It is under investigation,” he claimed.
Calling Uttarkashi home to several important temples and the centre of “our faith”, the BJP MLA added: “We will ensure that Uttarkashi remains a religious town in its true sense. There will be no meat, egg, or liquor shops here.”
Anuj Walia, state president of Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), announced that another mahapanchayat will be held at Ramlila Maidan after a month. “We will organise protests in all districts against the mosque… This is just the beginning of our struggle,” he added.
Adequate security arrangements were made for the mahapanchayat, permission for which was granted by the district administration on Friday, days after the state government informed the high court that they will not allow the mahapanchayat. The local administration also imposed prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), formerly Section 144 of CrPC, around the Jama Masjid on Bhatwari Road.
The controversy started on September 9, when various Hindu outfits under an umbrella organisation — Sanyukt Sanatan Dharam Rakshak Sangh — submitted a memorandum to Uttarkashi district magistrate Meharban Singh Bisht, demanding that the mosque in the Barahat area of the hill town be “demolished”, claiming the structure was “not registered in the official revenue records”.
To probe the claims, the DM constituted a committee, which found that the mosque was legal and the land it stood on was registered in the name of members of the Muslim community. Despite being informed about it, the Hindu outfit announced to hold a protest march against the mosque on October 24.
On that day, violent clashes broke out between protesters and police personnel after the latter stopped a large group from marching towards the mosque. At least eight police personnel and several protesters were injured in the clashes.
Meanwhile, members of the minority community said they remained mostly inside their houses on Sunday in the wake of the mahapanchayat.
“We remained inside our houses during the mahapanchayat. Our families are living in fear. I believe it will continue for some time. They (Hindu outfits) have announced a mahapanchayat once again,” Ishtiak Ahmed, a local resident, said. “The word of hatred is spreading like wild life. The district administration shouldn’t have allowed them to hold the event.”
Ahmed, who is also one of the petitioners who moved the high court against the mahapanchayat, added: “We have submitted the certified documents to prove legality of the mosque to the court and district administration.”
On November 27, the BJP-led state government told the high court that it has not given any permission for a rally or mahapanchayat on December 1. The government also assured it has provided adequate protection to the mosque and would not allow anyone to take law into their hands.
The court will hear the matter on December 5.
On November 7, Hindu organisations announced to organise a ‘mahapanchayat’ on December 1 against the mosque, after CM Dhami asked the district administration to re-examine records of the mosque through a panel headed by sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) Bhatwari said the structure was legal.
In their plea before the high court against the mahapanchayat, Musharaf Ali of Alpsankhayak Seva Samiti and Istiak Ahmed claimed that the Jama Masjid on Bhatwari Road was constructed in 1979 on the land bought in the same year. The mosque was registered as Waqf property in 1987. The petitioners alleged that members of Hindu right-wing outfits were threatening to demolish the mosque and were spreading false information on the legality of the mosque through hate speeches against the minority community.