Introduction: Colonial Inheritances and the Legal Category of the Place of Worship

At first sight it appears that British colonial debates and contemporary questions on the disputes and conflicts around places of worship in India seem far apart. This seems apparent by the self-evident nature of the definition of ‘place of worship’ in the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Section 2(c) of this Act states that ‘“place of worship” means a temple, mosque, gurudwara, church, monastery or any other place of public religious worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof, by whatever name called’.

Such a definition on application fails to find coherent referents in many cases. To begin with, it presupposes what religion is and thus has a description of the entity that can come under it such as Hinduism, Islam, and so on. However, it fails to adequately describe certain entities that are brought under it. This is most visible in the places of worship that are perceive as belonging to two religions such as the disputed shrine at Bababudangiri, Chikmagalur.

The Bababudangiri shrine in southern India is considered to be the seat of Dada Hayath Meer Khalandar or Baba Budan, a contemporary of the Prophet Muhammad who is rumoured to have arrived in the region around the seventh century to preach Sufism in India. The shrine is also believed to be the seat of Dattathreya Swamy, a reincarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu. It was also believed that Dada Khalandar and Dattathreya Swamy were the same person. The identity of this shrine came into question when it was taken over by the Wakf Board in 1978. This action provoked a litigation against the takeover of the shrine on the ground that it was not Muslim but was an object of worship for both Hindus and Muslims. The court ruled that the shrine was unique being of sanctity for both Hindus and Muslims due to practices and rituals carried in it and the demographics of the visitors to these shrines.1 If one has to bring the disputed shrine under the provisions of the enactment, there would be difficulties. Does the shrine belong to a religious denomination and of which religion? How does one understand it as a place of public religious worship? The court assiduously avoided the question of whether any of the practices prevalent in the shrine were essential to any religion.