# data[].attributes.headline
Video Shows Mosque Demolition Documentary Screening in India, Not Bangladesh.

# data[].attributes.subject
Video Shows Mosque Demolition Documentary Screening in India, Not Bangladesh.

# data[].attributes.body
factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.36QL8GK

# data[].attributes.headline
Explainer: Temple vs Mosque, the growing battle for sacred sites 

# data[].attributes.subject
Explainer: Temple vs Mosque, the growing battle for sacred sites 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Hasan Chishti's tomb, famous as Ajmer Sharif, this week entered the growing list of locations at the heart of disputes between Hindu and Muslim sides over the original character of the shrines in question.

Advertisement

On Wednesday, an Ajmer court, taking up a petition by a Hindu organisation, issued notices to the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs and the Archaeological Survey of India. Hindu Sena in its plea cited to argue that a Lord Shiva temple existed at the site in question before the white marble shrine dedicated to the 13th century Sufi saint came up here.

The evidence the Hindu side has cited is a 1911 book by Har Bilas Sarda titled "Ajmer: Historical and Descriptive", which speaks of a Shiva temple predating the dargah in Ajmer.

"We will prove in the court that Hindu rituals used to take place at the site of the dargah before the temple was razed," says Hindu Sena chief Vishnu Gupta, the principal petitioner who has sought an ASI survey of the site.

The case will now be heard on December 20 and has predictably led to a backlash from Muslim side as also from the larger Congress-led opposition, which continues to flag inherent dangers of side-stepping the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from the way it existed in 1947 at the time of Independence and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship.

The law notwithstanding, a growing segment of Hindu petitioners are progressively laying claims to sites on which mosques stand today.

The list continues to grow, with several opposition leaders claiming that trial court orders on similar petitions seeking surveys of existing shrines could lead to communal disharmony as seen recently in Uttar Pradesh's Sambhal where four persons were killed in violence that erupted during a court ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid on November 24.
The disputes SAMBHAL(UP): Shahi Jama Masjid-Harihar Temple
Eight petitioners filed a suit in Sambhal civil court on November 19 claiming that the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal stood on the site of Harihar Temple. The petitioners sought access to the site. The civil court appointed an advocate commissioner on the day the suit was filed and permitted videography and photography of the mosque.

The order was passed ex parte with the Muslim side claiming that the mosque management did not receive any notice. They said another survey was done five days later with just a five-hour notice to the mosque committee. The Supreme Court will today hear a petition challenging the civil court order allowing the survey. The mosque committee has moved the apex court for a stay.
VARANASI (UP): Gyanvapi mosque-Kashi Vishwanath temple
In 2021, some Hindu women approached the local court for permission to pray at a shrine behind the western wall of Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi. A court-appointed commission conducted videography and found a "shivling" at the site -- which Muslims claimed was a fountain. The Varanasi court at this point ordered a survey of the site to determine if a temple predated the mosque. The Allahabad HC and the Supreme Court allowed the survey by the ASI, rejecting petitions by Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee for Gyanvapi management.

In December 2023, the ASI submitted its report to the Varanasi district court. In January this year, the Varanasi court allowed Hindus to perform pooja inside the mosque cellar and Muslims in the courtyard. On October 25, 2024, a Varanasi Fast Track Court dismissed a plea for an additional ASI survey of the Gyanvapi mosque and the SC upheld it. As of today, both Hindus and Muslims can pray at the site.
MATHURA (UP): The Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute
This is about the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura, which some claim was built after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna. The Hindu side argues that a temple was built in 1618, but was demolished to construct the mosque in 1670. The Hindu side also claims that the mosque contains Hindu religious symbols and engravings, including a lotus-shaped pillar. The Shahi Idgah mosque committee and UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, the defendants, argue that the mosque doesn't fall within the disputed land
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH): Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque
This dispute is over ownership of a site that houses an 11th century monument, Bhojshala, built by the Parmar dynasty king and a mosque dedicated to Muslim seer Kamal Maula. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in March this year ordered the ASI to conduct a scientific survey of the Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex in tribal-dominated Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh. The ASI conducted the survey using carbon-dating equipment. The court orders came on a petition by Hindu Front for Justice seeking to determine the real religious character of the site.

Hindu outfits had moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2023 for full ownership of the disputed site, which they claim was a temple of Vagdevi (Goddess Saraswati), with the mosque coming up later. While this survey is done, the MP High Court has allowed both Hindus and Muslims to pray at the site.
RSS stand
The ruling BJP's ideological mentor RSS, which led the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid demolition movement, has said Ram temple-like movements were no longer needed. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, in an attempt to calm anxieties around shrines, had said last year: "Do not go looking for shivlings in every mosque." The RSS does not favour mass movements to resolve religious disputes, but believes that people have the right to move courts and the courts can decide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explainer: Temple vs mosque, the growing battle for sacred sites - The Tribune

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ajmer joins Kashi, Mathura, Dhar, Sambhal as list of disputes between Hindu and Muslim sides grow.

# data[].attributes.headline
Modi Opens a Giant Temple, a Triumph toward a Hindu-First India

# data[].attributes.subject
Modi Opens a Giant Temple, a Triumph toward a Hindu-First India

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
By Mujib Mashal, Hari Kumar and Atul Loke

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Modi Opens a Giant Temple in a Triumph for India’s Hindu Nationalists (Published 2024)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The temple inaugurated by the prime minister is on the disputed site of a centuries-old mosque destroyed in a Hindu mob attack that set a precedent of impunity in cases of violence against Muslims.

# data[].attributes.body
Neutral, factual journalism

The article includes all relevant details: the original viral claim, the location and date of the event, the organizing group, the historical context (Babri Masjid mosque demolition), and confirmation from official party sources. This article does not omit key facts that would alter a reader’s understanding of the event, so there is no bias through selection or omission.

# data[].attributes.body
The article is targeted to a broad, literate audience concerned or exposed to religious tensions in South Asia, specifically social media users who might come across misleading content about sensitive historical or political issues.

# data[].attributes.body
The article is a fact-checking report that debunks misinformation spread online regarding mosque demolition in India. Its main purpose is to correct misinformation by verifying that the video was not from Bangladesh, and to prevent misinterpretation within a community on a false claim.

# data[].attributes.body
Pro Hindu nationalists Narrative

The article repeatedly uses phrases like ‘Hindu side argues’ or ‘Hindu petitioners claim’, often without strong challenge or challenge. In contrast, Muslim responses are framed as ‘backlash’ or ‘opposition’, terms that subtly cast them as reactive or obstructive. This article has bias through word choice. There is also bias through selection. All cases presented focus on Hindu claims that mosques were built on top of temples. No examples of Muslim perspectives or grievances are included, reinforcing a narrative of Hindus being victims and the Muslims as aggressors.

# data[].attributes.body
The potential audience target is for a domestic and educated Indian audience. Especially for those who are politically interested and align with the Hindu nationalist party. The detailed references to court cases, Places of Worship Act, and RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) political positions indicate the article is for people who follow Indian politics. This article appears in the Tribune, an English-language Indian newspaper, and is structured as a news explainer.

# data[].attributes.body
There is a growing number of legal disputes in India where Hindu groups are claiming that historic mosques were built over Hindu temples, leading to resurfacing tensions over religious sites despite legal safeguards like the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The article implies the support for the message ‘reclaiming lost Hindu heritage’ through institutional (rather than violent) means.

# data[].attributes.body
In favor of Muslims; critical of Hindu nationalist agenda

Many sources cited, like Ziya Us Salam, Manoj Kumar Jha, are critical of Modi or the Hindu right wing, without balancing views from neutral or supportive commentators.

The article uses historical patterns observed like Gandhi's assasination and Partition, to argue that Modi’s India is shifting from its secular roots, highlighting western concerns about weakening or eliminating institutions that will erode the functioning democracy. There is also observed bias through the headline and subtitle. In ‘triumph’, kind of making a mockery of Modi, India’s prime minister who is also part of the Hindu Nationalist party. Also in the sub title by saying ‘set precedent of impunity in cases of violence against Muslims’ they are implying that Hindu Nationalists get away with their violent actions against Muslims.

# data[].attributes.body
Indian liberal and secular-minded readers. Educated Indians who read international media and hold secular or critical views of Hindu nationalism, including Western readers as this is a United States based publication. Indian diaspora readers, people of Indian origin who live outside of India, especially those in high-level education, journalism, or government policy, who are sensitive to communal tensions in India, are also likely targets for readers.

# data[].attributes.body
The article argues that the building of the Ram temple in Ayodhya- led by the prime minister, Narendra Modi- is not just a religious or cultural event. Instead it is a pivotal moment in India’s transformation of a long-running Hindu nationalist movement aimed at reshaping India’s identity into a Hindu favored political and cultural identity. This is displayed through the fact the Ram temple represents far more than religious devotion. It symbolizes the political rise of Hindu nationalism, led by Modi, and the erosion of India's secular foundations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Prompt: Based on the work you have completed, why is it important to consider differing perspectives?

# data[].attributes.subject
Prompt: Based on the work you have completed, why is it important to consider differing perspectives?

# data[].attributes.body
To have an accurate understanding of the topic it is essential to explore different perspectives because different types of bias can alter the reader's understanding. An example of how only consuming one source can limit your understanding is where one source displays a mosque demolition in India as legal battles whereas the other states the Hindu nationalist party is using religion for political gain through bias by source. The Tribune frames the mosque disputes as legal battles, highlighting court cases and the Hindu requester’s rights. This article lightly mentions The Places of Worship Act, 1991, but avoids strong commentary on what is permitted in those cases (The Tribune). In comparison, the New York Times argues that these demolition events mark the beginning of the erosion of India’s secular legal foundation. The New York Times states that Modi - the prime minister- is using religion and the Hindu nationalists movement for political gain, which is blurring the lines built over the years of state and religion (Mashal). One source, the Tribune, treats the demolitions as legitimate legal battles; the other, the New York Times, views them as a destruction of secular law and political corruption. Another example of bias observed in these articles is displayed through selection, and word choice, each article takes on a different victimhood story and that has the ability to sway the reader’s opinions in an inaccurate direction. The Tribune centers around Hindu grievances, and the standpoint that believes Hindus are rightfully reclaiming religious sites and Hindu heritage, and it does not include any Muslim perspectives to balance this (Tribune). Meanwhile, the New York Times emphasizes the Muslim alienation and fear using terms like ‘lynchings’, ‘bulldozer justice’, and impunity to demonstrate Muslims as victims of religious nationalism being supported by the state (Mashal). One narrative paints the picture of Hindus as historically victims, while the other highlights Muslims as being victims currently from aggression coming from the state government. When researching it is critical to consume more than one source, and from sources with contradicting arguments so one can evaluate what information needs to be looked at from a neutral perspective.