The idol preserved in London is Ambika, not Saraswati, argues senior counsel Salman Khurshid, calling for an evidence-based decision on the disputed Dhar site
INDORE/DHAR — The dispute over the Bhojshala–Kamal Maula Masjid site took a new turn in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where the Muslim side rejected claims that a temple was demolished to build a mosque and questioned key historical assertions.
During the ongoing hearing, senior advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for a petitioner linked to the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, told the court that there is no evidence to show that any specific temple was destroyed at the site during any particular period.
“There is no proof that a specific temple was demolished and a mosque constructed on that exact site,” Khurshid argued before the bench.
The matter is being heard by the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi. The court has been conducting regular hearings since 6 April on multiple petitions and a writ appeal concerning the religious nature of the disputed structure.
At the centre of the case is the Bhojshala complex in Dhar, which is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India. Hindu petitioners maintain that it is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati (Vagdevi), while the Muslim side identifies it as the Kamal Maula Masjid.
Dispute Over Idol in London
A key point raised during the hearing relates to an idol kept in London. Referring to a reported communication from the British authorities in 2003, Khurshid claimed that the statue housed in the British Museum, which some Hindu petitioners describe as Vagdevi (Saraswati), is in fact an idol of the Jain goddess Ambika.
“The idol being cited is not of Saraswati but of Ambika,” he submitted, disputing a central claim made by the opposing side.
Historical Claims Challenged
The Hindu side has argued that the Bhojshala complex was originally a Saraswati temple built in 1034 by King Bhoj of the Paramara dynasty and later demolished in 1305 on the orders of Alauddin Khilji, with its remains used in constructing a mosque.
Khurshid questioned this narrative, stating that historical records do not support the claim of a specific temple demolition linked to the construction of the mosque.
He also referred to historical texts, including a Hindi work on Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, to argue that Dhar had witnessed multiple phases of conflict, rebuilding and administrative change over centuries, involving different rulers.
Reference to Supreme Court Principles
During his arguments, Khurshid also cited the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya case, saying that ownership and religious character must be decided based on legal evidence and established civil law standards.
“The matter should be decided on evidence and legal principles, not assumptions,” he told the court.
He further argued that during the 1305 Malwa campaign led by Ain-ul-Mulk Multani, there was no need to destroy Dhar after control had already been established in nearby Mandu, challenging claims of large-scale destruction at the site.
Ongoing Legal Battle
The Muslim side also rejected allegations that the mosque at the site was constructed through force, maintaining that it was built during the rule of the time in connection with Sufi traditions linked to Maulana Kamaluddin.
On the other hand, lawyers for the Hindu petitioners continue to assert that Bhojshala is a temple and have sought exclusive rights to worship at the site.
Hearings are continuing as the bench examines historical records, legal arguments and submissions from both sides in what remains a sensitive and closely watched case.
