Bhojshala is a temple, says Madhya Pradesh High Court on disputed site

The court said it came to this conclusion after considering archaeological and historical facts, ASI notifications and survey reports, and observed that “archaeology as a branch of knowledge draws sustenance from the science of learning.”

Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex (Image Credit: Deepika Singh)

The court asked the Government of India and the ASI to decide on the administration and management of the Bhojshala temple’s affairs, while granting the ASI powers over overall administration and management. The ASI will have full supervisory control over the preservation, conservation and regulation of religious access.

On the relief sought by the petitioners from the Hindu side to bring back the Pratima of goddess Saraswati from the London Museum and re-establish it within the Bhojshala complex, the court granted them the liberty to make representations to the central government.

The Muslims will no longer be allowed to offer namaz at the site, and the court asked the state government to consider an application for “allotment of a suitable and permanent part of land in Dhar district to the Muslim community” in order to “secure the religious rights of the Muslim community and to ensure complete justice between the parties.”

The court quashed an ASI order from April 7, 2003, which restricted the right of Hindus to worship at the site and permitted the Muslims the right to offer namaz every Friday. For decades, the site has been fraught with communal tensions escalating every time Basant Panchami and Friday namaz fall on the same day, calling for security arrangements to ensure peace in the city. On Friday, residents celebrated outside the site as they distributed sweets, applied colours and danced to drum beats while over 1,200 policemen kept watch, closing off the site with barricades.

Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex (Image Credit: Deepika Singh)

The Muslim side had submitted various historical literature to state that the “Hazrat Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti had laid the foundation stone of the said Mosque in 1306-07 AD.” The court said that “none of the material relied on by them shows that the disputed area, which is claimed to be a mosque, was constructed prior to 1034 AD.”

The court said the historical material, literature and the notifications placed by the appellant “itself established that the said mosque was constructed after 1034 AD.”

“It is established by the material that there was construction of Bhojshala and temple of goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati),” the court said.

The other reason the court disowned the claim that the disputed area was a mosque right from its inception was that there was no material to suggest the disputed land was Waqf property.

The Muslim side had produced an “ailaan” (declaration) from August 24, 1935, which recognised the disputed property as a mosque. The court, however, held this was not a legal constitutional order.

The Muslim side also submitted that the ASI survey and videography were not conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

The court said this argument cannot be accepted. “We find that the survey was conducted by adopting scientific method in a fair and impartial manner… The method adopted by the experts was as per their expertise.”

The court also addressed the Jain community’s contention that the Saraswati idol was, in fact, an idol of Ambika from the Jain religion. The court opined that in India, “Jainism and Hinduism are not distinct entities.”