Another mosque in the fray after Mathura: Hindu group demand survey in Shahi Jama Masjid in Agra
text_fields
Agra: Tensions escalated in a predominantly Muslim-dominated area in Agra as a Hindu group demanded a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid following the Allahabad High Court's recent decision to permit a primary survey of the Shahi Idgah complex, situated next to the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple in Uttar Pradesh's Mathura.
Following the court's decision, many individuals from the Hindu Mahasabha distributed sweets near the Jama Masjid, despite warnings from the administration to avoid actions that could provoke sentiments.
The administration had urged restraint, but the group proceeded with their activities.
In response to the escalating situation, a large deployment of personnel from various police stations was made in the predominantly Muslim-dominated area. Reports indicate that the Agra administration actively appealed to the public to refrain from actions that might further inflame emotions.
Sanjay Jat, the national spokesman for the Hindu Mahasabha, raised the stakes by demanding a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Agra. Jat claimed that Emperor Aurangzeb had allegedly buried a 'Vigrah' taken from the Keshavdev Temple in Mathura under the stairs of the mosque.
A potential clash between the two groups was narrowly averted due to the intervention of authorities and community elders. However, concerns remain high as the issue has the potential to escalate further.
Chairman of Bharatiya Muslim Vikas Parishad, Sami Aghai, expressed disappointment with the Allahabad High Court's decision. While acknowledging the legal setback, Aghai emphasized the faith of Muslims in the impartiality of India's legal system.
He argued that the court's order contradicts the 1968 agreement between Hindus and Muslims, which allocated 10.9 acres to the Krishna Janmabhoomi and 2.5 acres to the Idgah. Aghai further contended that the court's decision violates the Places of Worship Act of 1991 and declared their intention to challenge it in the Supreme Court