By Anwarulhaq Baig
NEW DELHI—While refusing to grant stay on the “scientific survey” of the Kamal Maula mosque in Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh on Monday, the Supreme Court, however, directed that no action be taken without its permission on the outcome of the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) survey, according to a PTI report.
The survey going on for more than 10 days at the Kamal Maula mosque, which is claimed as Bhojshala by a section of Hindus, has raised concerns among Muslims.
The mosque was built during the Khilji period in Indian history.
During the survey, the ASI team is digging and carrying out excavations at the mosque complex, and also collecting soil and stones. Representing the Hindu community were Ashish Goyal and Gopal Sharma, while Muslim side was represented by Abdul Samad.
The police officials heightened the security arrangements on March 30 for Friday namaz for the Muslims in the mosque.
Earlier on March 11, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court accepted the demand of Hindu petitioners to conduct an ASI survey of the “Bhojshala – Kamal Maula Mosque” complex.
ASI team at the Kamal Maula mosque-Bhojshala complex
Acting upon the High Court’s directives, the ASI team, accompanied by senior police and administrative officials, began survey on March 22 at the site.
The High Court is to submit the survey report after completing a ‘scientific survey’ of the complex within six weeks.
According to a 2003 ASI order, Hindus are permitted to visit inside the Kamal Maula Masjid complex every Tuesday, while Muslims are allowed to offer namaz at the site on Fridays.
The Hindu petitioners claim that the disputed site is a temple dedicated to Saraswati Devi., which was built by Raja Bhoj between 1000-1055 CE, with a statue of “Vagdevi (Saraswati Devi)” originally installed at the site, which was later sent to London by the British government.
Advocate Ajay Bagadia, counsel appearing for the Kamal Maula mosque at the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, raised serious objections to the maintainability of the interim application for ASI survey by petitioners.
Bagadia contended that some petitioners agitated a similar issue earlier in 2003 when a Single Bench of the Court had dismissed the writ petition as non-maintainable due to disputed facts and submissions. Advocate Bagadia therefore contended that once the said writ petition was dismissed by the Single Bench against which a plea is pending before the Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Jabalpur, no interference could be made.
In the meantime, Abdul Samad Khan, leader of the Muslim community in Dhar and head of the Kamal Maulana Welfare Society, Dhar, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging the survey order. The SLP has been listed in the apex court on April 1.
In a recent development surrounding the ongoing survey of the Bhojshala Temple site in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, Abdul Samad Khan has raised serious objections and concerns regarding the process.
These objections, detailed in a letter addressed to Mr. Alok Tripathi, Additional Director General of the ASI, highlight several alleged irregularities and exclusions in the survey proceedings.
Abdul Samad Khan stated that despite his active participation in the survey from the second day onwards, he was not officially notified of his inclusion in the process. He asserted that while he was hospitalized on the first day of the survey, no official notice was provided to him or the District Collector, rendering the survey conducted on March 22, 2024, invalid in his absence.
Furthermore, Mr. Khan questioned the eligibility of Mr. Gopal Sharma, who is reportedly participating in the survey despite not being a petitioner in any petition related to the matter. This raises concerns about the selection criteria for participants in the survey.
Another significant objection raised by Mr. Khan pertains to the simultaneous conduct of the survey inside and outside the building. He argued that this makes it practically impossible for him to be present at both locations simultaneously and requested that the survey be conducted at one location at a time to ensure fairness and transparency.
Mr. Khan also pointed out a lack of representation from the Muslim community in the survey team, despite court directives mandating the inclusion of officials from both communities. He expressed concern over the exclusion of minority Muslim community officials from the survey team, raising questions about the impartiality of the process.
Moreover, Mr. Khan highlighted safety concerns regarding the ongoing excavation at the site. He stated that only soil has been excavated so far, leaving open pits that pose a risk of potential mischief.
Lastly, Mr. Khan addressed the placement of pillars within the premises on the night of January 22, 2004, which he claimed do not resemble any other pillars of the Kamal Maula Mosque. He asserted that these pillars, with their distinct structure, design, or size, were the subject of objections from the Muslim community. He called for these pillars to be excluded from the survey process.
In conversation with India Tomorrow, Mr Khan, pursuing the case of Kamal Maula Masjid in Dhar at the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, emphasized that the historical site is indeed a mosque, not a temple as claimed by some petitioners.
In an effort to clarify the history of the Kamal Maula Masjid, Abdul Samad Khan shared historical documents and evidence suggesting the mosque’s construction during the Khilji rule (1305-07 AD) by Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, a disciple of Sufi saint Hazrat Nizamuddin Chishti.
Khan asserted that daily prayers continued uninterrupted until 1952 when a letter from the then-Education Department Secretary illegally restricted Muslim access to Friday prayers only. The prominent local Muslim leader gave details, stating, “In 1952, the Secretary of the Education Department wrote a letter to the Collector, unlawfully restricting Muslims to only offering Friday prayers in the mosque, despite being beyond the authority of the Secretary. However, a few months prior to that, the ASI director had explicitly stated in October 1951 that Muslims could pray at any time and on any day in the mosque, apart from the five prescribed prayer times.”
Following India’s partition, tensions surrounding the mosque reportedly arose, particularly during the Bhooj Utsav celebrations held near the complex. Khan emphasizes that the festival has no connection to the mosque itself.
He further alleges that since 1992, Hindu groups have pressured local authorities to restrict access to the mosque. These alleged pressures culminated in a 1997 order by the Collector limiting public entry while allowing Muslim prayers on Fridays. Hindus were granted annual access on Bhooj Utsav, but with restrictions on religious activities. “When those people obtained permission to enter the mosque for Bhooj Utsav, they were not allowed to use any kind of colour or perform puja there. Hindu community members were only allowed to enter the mosque once a year, on the occasion of Bhooj Utsav, with no permission for puja, chanting slogans or any form of rituals or celebration.”
Khan disputes the recent portrayal of the complex as “Kamal Maula Mosque along with Bhooj Shala,” calling it “incorrect and baseless.” Historical records from the Department of Archaeology, according to Mr Khan, consistently referred to the site as a mosque. However, later on, it was wrongly mentioned as Kamal Maula Mosque along with Bhooj Shala which was entirely incorrect and baseless.
Mr. Khan argued that the name “Bhojshala” itself suggests a school, not a temple, and pointed out that the site has been used for the five daily Namaz since its inception from 1307 to 1952. He said these petitions wrongly describe this place as a Hindu temple. He said, “In reality, it is a mosque where Friday prayers are currently held. Until 1952, five-time daily prayers were held, which is an acknowledged fact. No other activities of any other religion, apart from Namaz, took place here until 1952.”
He refuted claims that permission for Namaz were granted by the British government in 1902 or by the Dhar Darbar through a gazette notification on 24/08/1935. He stated, “In fact, the letters and gazette notifications related to Namaz between 1902 and 1935 were only confirmed, not related to the granting of permission for Namaz.”
Highlighting historical and legal evidence, Khan stated that the site was declared a protected monument in 1904 and later confirmed as a mosque by the Archaeological Survey of India in 1952, despite its incorrect nomenclature. Because, ASI too wrongly renamed the site as Bhojshala – Kamal Maula Masjid.
Revenue records and historical documentation further support its status as a mosque, with the land surrounding the site registered under the name of Hazrat Kamaluddin Chishti.
Khan, representing the Muslim side pointed out a writ petition filed in 1997 by Vimal Kumar Godha. This petition, which was later on withdrawn, sheds light on previous attempts to challenge the site’s status as a mosque.
The dispute intensified after 1992, with some claiming the structure to be a Hindu temple called Bhojshala. In response, a 1997 order by the Collector designated specific times for Namaz on Fridays and on Basant Panchami, while keeping it closed to the public otherwise.
Godha’s petition, filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench in Indore, contested this order. He argued that the complex was Bhojshala and sought permission for Hindu worship, along with a halt to Namaz and the installation of an idol believed to be kept in London.
However, the Government of India, ASI, and the Madhya Pradesh Government all countered these claims. Their response asserted that the structure is indeed a mosque and dismissed the “Bhojshala” designation as a mystery. They further clarified that the idol in question was not Vagdevi, but a Jain deity named Ambika Devi, and had no connection to the site.
Following these clarifications, Godha withdrew his petition, highlighting a previous instance where the Union government and the legal system upheld the mosque’s status.
Despite this, tensions persisted, leading to an order issued by the Archaeological Survey of India in 2003 outlining conditions for religious practices at the site, including permissions for Muslims to offer prayers on Fridays and Hindus to visit the mosque during Vasant Panchami day annually.
Abdul Samad Khan emphasized an agreement reached between local Hindu and Muslim communities in 1995, which allowed for peaceful coexistence and religious practices at the site. He criticized demands for a new survey, arguing that it would disrupt peace and was unnecessary given the existing legal framework and agreements in place.
The Muslim leader concluded by asserting that the on-going dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the principal bench of the MP High Court in Jabalpur, and holding hearings at multiple locations would be a violation of established legal principles.
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) Assistant Secretary, Inam-ur-Rahman Khan, who is closely in touch with the case, noted that the 1935 Dhar government gazette further clarified that the PWD department at the time had installed a board outside the mosque that added the word “Bhooj Shala” to the mosque, which was strongly opposed by Muslims. To address the concerns of Muslims and clarify the facts, the Dhar government issued this clarification:
“It is hereby announced that the inscription on the plaque erected by the PWD outside the compound of Bhoj Shala- Kamal Maulana Mosque and Kamal Maulana’s tomb, which begins with the word Bhoja Shala, has caused some misunderstanding among the general Muslim community. To remove this misunderstanding, it is hereby declared that the word Bhoja Shala at the beginning should not in any way be construed to mean that this protected royal building will be converted into any other form. As prayers are offered at present and there is no restriction on them, so in the future also, there will be no restriction on offering prayers in it. It is a mosque and will remain a mosque in the future.” (Gazette notification date: 24th August 1935)
According to him, it is also important to clarify here that all the land around the mosque is also registered in the name of Hazrat Kamal Maula and records of this are available. Asserting that several historical books, pages, and gazettes mention this location as a mosque and document its construction, the JIH official said, “the architecture and style of this place also reflect the Muslim era. There are several tombs of Sufis and saints around this place, along with an ancient cemetery. The dome is also built in the Muslim style.”
A letter written in February 2003 by Sir Rob Young, KCMG, the British High Commissioner in New Delhi, addressed a misconception surrounding the statue of Saraswati, which has been a subject of discussion in relation to the Bhojshala.
Addressing the then Chief Minister Digvijay Singh, Sir Rob Young clarified that the sculpture housed in the British Museum is not the Saraswati of Bhojshala. He explained that the confusion arose from an article published in the 1920s in the journal ‘Rupam’, which incorrectly identified the sculpture based on an incomplete reading of the inscription. Sir Rob Young noted that the situation was elucidated in the 1980s when Dr. Kirit Mankodi of Mumbai published the complete inscription, revealing that the sculpture in question depicts Ambica, a Jain goddess, accompanied by a child and a lion, both attributes of Ambica.
Therefore, the then British High Commissioner emphasized that the belief associating the sculpture in the British Museum with the Saraswati of Bhojshala is a misunderstanding. He provided clarity on the matter, affirming that the sculpture indeed represents the Jain deity, Ambica.
