Talk:Gyanvapi Mosque

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capitals00 edits[edit]

Capitals00, can you please explain your edits? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two edits I made. This one removed the details from lead about disputed destruction and added on section that how ASI report has said that the monument was converted (not destroyed).[1] Lead was changed accordingly. This is also fully backed by the source saying that "Some historians believe that Mughal ruler Aurangzeb built the Gyanvapi mosque in the 17th century by demolishing the temple." And also: "While the mosque dates back to Aurangzeb’s period, we do not know who built it."(quoted)[2]
Both should be restored. Capitals00 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is pedantics and I wrote "demolition", not "destruction". Our article says that the mosque was "probably" commissioned by Aurangzeb. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information I added was correctly sourced. What is the problem? No evidence exists if Aurangzeb constructed the mosque, as noted by Trushchke, Dixit and more,[3] and the mosque was not demolished or destroyed but it was converted.[4] No other scholar has done more research on Aurangzeb than Trushcke. We cannot present one sided views on lead or section. Capitals00 (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00 Catherine Asher, a historian of Indo-Muslim architecture, notes that not only did the zamindars of Banaras frequently rebel against Aurangzeb but also the local Brahmins were oft accused of interfering with Islamic teaching. Consequently, she argues that the demolition was a political message in that it served as a warning for the Zamindars and Hindu religious leaders, who wielded great influence in the city; Cynthia Talbot, Richard M. Eaton, Satish Chandra and Audrey Truschke agree on similar grounds. The Oxford World History of Empire summarizes that while the demolition of Gyanvapi might be interpreted as a sign of Aurangzeb's "orthodox inclinations", local politics played an influencing role and his policies towards Hindus and their places of worship were "varied and contradictory, rather than consistently agnostic."Doug Weller talk 15:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most interfering religion got interfered by a bunch of brahmins so the holiest place of shiva(the most important jyotirlinga) was demolished, coverted into a wuzukhana and a mosque was built upon it.all this only for political reasons.no religious motivation at all. make it make sense please. and please stop citing audrey truchkey.like ew.why not cite opindia instead.its less biased. 2409:40E3:5F:6714:E551:B20C:CED4:18AE (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OpIndia is blacklisted. “ Due to persistent abuse, OpIndia is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. OpIndia is considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. OpIndia was rejected by the International Fact-Checking Networkwhen it applied for accreditation in 2019. In the 2020 discussion, most editors expressed support for deprecating OpIndia. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated. OpIndia has directly attacked and doxed Wikipedia editors who edit India-related articles. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under the outing policy, unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia. Editors who are subject to legal risks due to their activity on Wikipedia may request assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation, although support is not guaranteed. See also: Swarajya.: Doug Weller talk 21:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: It has been noted that "Some scholars put the most recent one being built in the 16th century under Akbar's reign"[5]

Audrey Truschke notes "The Gyanvapi masjid still stands today in Benares with part of the ruined temple’s wall incorporated into the building. This reuse may have been a religiously clothed statement about the dire consequences of opposing the Mughal authority. Convenience may also have dictated this recycling. While the Gyanvapi mosque dates to Aurangzeb’s period, its patron is unknown and the structure is not mentioned in Mughal documents."[6]

And now the ASI report too mentions that the mosque was converted into the temple instead of being demolished.[7]

It is wrong to credit Aurangzeb with either destruction or creation of the mosque on lead. Clarification is important for the section though.

Do you agree with my edits which have provided correct weight to these matters?[8][9] Capitals00 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporating what is left of a demolished structure is often found. It doesn't prove that the structure wasn't demolished, just that it wasn't razed to the ground. As for the ASI, there are often reasons not to trust such a government agency, unfortunately. And this one has been used by the Indian government to promote its agenda.[10][11]. We need sourced independent of the government. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Various reliable sources desribe that the monument was "converted" (not demolished). Some sources:
Alley, S.H. (1951). Banaras: Hidden Places of the Holy City, Kashi. p. 17. It is said that when Aurangzeb ordered the original building to be converted into a mosque , the head priest Bishnath took the Shiva lingam and dropped into the well...
Juneja, M. (2001). Architecture in Medieval India: Forms, Contexts, Histories. South Asian history. Permanent Black. p. 388. ISBN 978-81-7824-010-7. The temple has been converted into a mosque known as the Gyanvapi mosque situated adjacent to the Visvanath Temple.
It is often promoted by Hindutva proponents that Aurangzeb had destroyed the temple and then he created the mosque. This has been also refuted by the latest ASI research. That's why I am sure there the lead must avoid mention of supposed demolition. Capitals00 (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Alley? And who wrote the footnote and in what text in your second lonk? Doug Weller talk 20:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorporating what is left of a demolished structure is often found. It doesn't prove that the structure wasn't demolished, just that it wasn't razed to the ground. - ABSOLUTELY. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: Alley appears to be a civil servant. Footnote was written by Monica Juneja and she cited James Prinsep for the "plan and drawing of the original temple".
Since it is commonly held that the temple was "converted" can we get rid of the term "demolition" from lead? Other reliable sources use the term "replaced".
I had originally used the term "replacing" too.[12] Also, we should avoid mention of Aurangzeb given the scholarly dispute per my comments above Capitals00 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forcibly replaced. Replace doesn’t imply converting. and as I’ve said, incorporating part of a ruined building is commonly found by archaeologists. Doug Weller talk 21:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: I won't replace the word "demolition" but are you fine with the rest of the edits I had made? Capitals00 (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Desai (p. 6):

Mughal interventions during the reign of the emperor Aurangzeb also resulted in the creation of the city’s most prominent mosques. Through direct imperial actions, the Gyan Vapi mosque was built to replace the Vishweshwur temple and the Dharhara mosque replaced the Bindu Madhav temple. Aurangzeb was keen to establish new norms for his reign, which included a redefinition of the relationship between the emperor, his court, and his subjects. His interventions in Banaras may be more accurately analyzed in light of his personal compulsions and political agenda, rather than as expressions of religious bigotry ...

Truth be told, the proof on whether he had the new mosque built is thin; I will nuance the lead once I expand it and you are welcome to take a stab. However, all historians accept Aurangzeb's demolition — there is perhaps a way to argue around it once we stop seeking the elusive Rankean truth; Ctrl+F "Ganj-e-Arsadi" but so far, almost all historians have missed the text (and a couple of similar narratives which I cannot cite because they are primary sources) and we, as editors, cannot engage in OR/SYNTH — and I do not know how (or why) it is wrong to credit Aurangzeb with the destruction. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given how small the lead is, and there is no problem with that, I believe that Aurangzeb should not be credited on the lead also due to the dispute sorrounding this information. Reasons: 1) Audrey Truschke notes: "While the mosque dates back to Aurangzeb’s period, we do not know who built it."[13] She is clear with saying, "its patron is unknown and the structure is not mentioned in Mughal documents".[14] 2) "Some scholars put the most recent one being built in the 16th century under Akbar's reign"[15] Capitals00 (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "more fringe material" actually sourced?[edit]

I see the sources but do they use the word fringe? Doug Weller talk 13:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. But Desai's repudiation could not be more clear. I can add another source that junks such claims in a similar way (without even bothering to engage) but I cannot probably get a source that uses the word "fringe". TrangaBellam (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure it was a Hindu temple under the mosque?[edit]

Most of the article assumes it was, but there are suggestions that it might not have been. This issue is so politicized that we need to be careful how we write it. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the politicization is sad — Hindutva's latest weaponry to further the marginalization of Muslims. But there is absolutely nil doubt that there used to be a sacred temple that was demolished in Aurangzeb's time and repurposed to a mosque.
Now, as I noted above in my reply to Capitals00, there are scopes to question the received wisdom about how the demolition happened and the extent of imperial involvement but sadly, most historians have failed to study these non-statist sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam Definitely a Hindu temple? Doug Weller talk 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Even Audrey Truschke — probably the most sympathetic biographer of Aurangzeb — accepts that there is a destroyed Hindu temple beneath the Gyanvapi Masjid and additionally, that it is a completely uncontested fact. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Demolition of the Babri Masjid suggests it might have been Buddhist. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And “ Varma, a professor of archaeology at Jawaharlal Nehru University, spoke to Huffington Post about why she thinks the ASI reached the results it did and the procedural lapses she observed. She argues that, “even today, there is no archeological evidence that there was a temple under the Babri Masjid.” According to her, “Underneath the Babri Masjid, there are actually older mosques.”
That source is from Ram Mandir. I worry that with multiple articles discussing the same issue they will present different pictures. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller Err, Babri Masjid is a completely different structure than Gyanvapi!
You are confusing the two. The case on Babri is indeed weaker and it is doubtful if a temple ever existed, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes, sorry. I’ve got both of my watchlist and was also watching tv, that sort of multitasking doesn’t work well. Doug Weller talk 21:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gyanvapi_Mosque&oldid=1222759177"