E/CN.4/1997/91/Add.1 page 11 46. Yet the Special Rapporteur is concerned about the possible repetition of such incidents at places of worship that are disputed by Muslims and Hindus, and in particular at the Matura mosque that is claimed by ultra-nationalist Hindu parties as being the birthplace of Krishna. It is to be feared that something in the nature of the Ayodhya incident will recur in the event of political exploitation of a situation or the unconditional acceptance of the logic - real or hypothetical - that history is reversible. 47. The authorities have stated that Ayodhya had a socially cathartic effect, created awareness of the danger of the political exploitation of religion and that, therefore, the traumatism experienced by the population should make it possible to prevent further incidents of that nature. 48. On the subject of Jammu and Kashmir, religious and secular representatives of Jammu stated that the enlargement and restoration of places of worship were hampered by the presence of sympathizers of ultra-nationalist Hindu parties in the administration. 49. Several instances of attacks in the context of the armed conflict against places of worship namely, Mosques and in particular the Charar-e-Sharief sanctuary which was destroyed on 11 May 1995, were reported. According to one source of information, this place of Muslim worship was deliberately destroyed by the Indian armed forces. Its destruction allegedly reflected a policy of repression directed against the Muslim community. According to other non-government and official information, the sanctuary has been occupied since February 1995 by “foreign mercenaries” who had entered it by disguising themselves as pilgrims and concealing their weapons. The Indian Government had allegedly shown moderation in order to spare Charar-e-Sharief, a fragile wooden structure. It was said that the sanctuary had been surrounded by security forces and that the occupants had been called upon several times to cross the demarcation line. However, they allegedly set fire to and dynamited houses and the sanctuary before fleeing. According to the authorities, messages passed between the occupants and their “Pakistan masterminds” had been intercepted and revealed that the destruction of the sanctuary was part of a plan to destabilize the region on the occasion of the Ai-D-Al-Izha religious festival. It was said that the occupants in question belonged to the Harkat Ul Ansar and Hizbul Mujahideen movements financed by Pakistan. 50. It is said that the authorities immediately ordered relief and rehabilitation measures for the victims whose personal belongings had been destroyed. The inhabitants of Charar-e-Sharief had allegedly refused the assistance proposed by the authorities and had organized a collection among Muslims in order to rebuild the sanctuary. 51. During his visit, the Special Rapporteur noted the impressive security detail deployed around places of worship that had been attacked. Once again, he observed that religious property, and in particular places of worship, were being held hostage for political reasons.