Bhojshala a Saraswati temple, rules Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled on the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute in Dhar, quashing a 2003 ASI order allowing Friday prayers. The court also directed the State to consider alternative land for a mosque while upholding the site’s religious character determination

Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday ruled that the disputed Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar district is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while simultaneously quashing a decades-old ASI order that allowed the Muslim community to offer Friday prayers at the site.

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) order of April 2003 also restricted the right of Hindus to worship within the Bhojshala complex.

---

The division bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi, in a 242-page order, said the religious character of the 11th-century monument based on scientific evidence, though it clarified the Muslim side may approach the MP government for separate land in the district to construct a mosque.

Meanwhile, a Hindu party on Friday filed a caveat in the Supreme Court, saying no orders be passed without hearing it on any appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court order in the Bhojshala complex dispute case.

The MP High Court after perusing all the material said there is no reason to disbelieve that the disputed area was Bhojshala, having a temple of Maa Saraswati.

“The religious character of disputed area of the Bhojshala Complex and Kamal Maula Mosque is held to be a Bhojshala with a temple of goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati),” the bench said in its order and also ordered that the area of Bhojshala “is held to be a protected monument” under 1958 Act with effect from March 3, 1904.

Directing that the ASI shall have full supervisory control over the preservation, conservation and regulation of religious access, the court asked the Centre and the ASI to take a decision for the purpose of administration and management of the affairs of the Bhojshala temple and Sanskrit learning.

The court said the central government “may consider” representations of some of the petitioners to bring back the ‘Pratima’ (idol) of goddess Saraswati from London Museum and re-establish the same within the complex.

This order nullified the April 2003 ASI order that permitted Hindus to worship on Tuesdays and Muslims to offer namaz on Fridays.

The High Court’s order had a mention about the background and legal arguments surrounding the Ayodhya dispute as many petitioners referred to the Supreme Court judgement.

The court also asked the Madhya Pradesh Government to consider a plea from the petitioners for allocation of a land in Dhar district for construction of a mosque.

“In order to secure the religious rights of the Muslim community and to ensure complete justice between the parties……the State Government may consider (an application for land) in accordance with law for allotment of a suitable and permanent part of land in Dhar district to the Muslim community, which may be represented either through…..a duly constituted Waqf body for the construction, administration of a mosque and associated religious facilities,” the court said.

The court, in its judgment, said from the archaeological and historical facts it is “crystal clear that the building in question is a Hindu temple and place of learning of Sanskrit language.” Relying on certain reports submitted by the ASI, the court said these reports mention that the structure stands on the site of a temple believed to be dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, based on inscriptions and local tradition.

“Reports from 1902-03 and thereafter classify the structure as an important historical and archaeological building, including ―Bhojshala Kamal Maula,” the High Court said.

The court also pulled up the ASI for “deliberate dereliction of duty” and said the constant inaction and disdainful attitude of the central agency in neglecting the Bhojshala Temple cum Kamal Maula Mosque and violation of the provisions of the Monument Act.

The court further held that the statutory duty of the ASI before protecting a site is to ascertain the nature, character and original form of the place of worship.

“The historical literature, architectural features clearly indicate that Bhojshala Complex for learning Sanskrit was constructed by Raja Bhoj in the year 1034 AD much prior to the claim of construction of mosque by the other community i.e. 28.4.1935,” HC said.

Following the verdict, Shahar Qazi Waqar Sadiq indicated that the Muslim side would appeal against the verdict in the Supreme Court after a thorough review of the full judgment.

In a related development, the state government deployed 1,200 police personnel and erected barricades around the site, as the court’s decision coincided with the timing of Friday prayers.

Dhar Collector Rajeev Ranjan Meena issued a public warning against the dissemination of provocative content on social media to ensure regional stability in the wake of the ruling.

The ruling followed a meticulous 98-day scientific survey by the ASI, which concluded that the existing structure was built using repurposed components from an earlier temple associated with King Bhoj of the Parmar dynasty.

“We have considered the archaeological, historical facts, ASI notifications and survey report on the anvil of the statutory provisions of the ASI Act as well as on the basis of the principles laid down in the Ayodhya case, that archaeology is a science that draws on multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary approaches and considering the nature of archaeological evidence,” the bench said.

It said that archaeology is as a branch of knowledge that draws sustenance from the science of learning and it is the wisdom and experience and the vision “which underlines the process of interpretation, the court said, adding, “therefore, the Court can safely rely upon the conclusions derived on the basis of such multidisciplinary scientific studies by the ASI.” During the proceedings, the Hindu side presented coins and inscriptions as proof of the site’s origins as a Sanskrit learning center. The Muslim side, represented by the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, challenged the ASI’s findings as biased and argued for the site’s status as a mosque.

The court also considered a third claim from the Jain community, which suggested the site was originally a medieval Jain temple.

Regarding the dispute on whether the idol at the temple was of Goddess Saraswati or Maa Ambika, the court opined that in India, Jainism and Hinduism are not distinct entities.

“Although, the rituals of worship in these two religions may differ, both faiths have evolved side by side since ancient times, worshipping the same supreme being. Consequently, idols belonging to both Jain and Hindu traditions are frequently found within each other’s temples,” it said.

Therefore, the discovery of a statue of a Jain Tirthankara within the disputed premises during the excavation conducted in accordance with the High Court’s directives comes as no surprise, the bench remarked.