Muslim side raised questions on ASI survey in Bhojshala case, said- carbon dating was not done

Indore. On Monday, during the regular hearing going on in the Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the historical Bhojshala dispute case located at Dhar district headquarters of Madhya Pradesh, the mosque side, while presenting its response, raised questions on the survey of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

It was said that when carbon dating of the stones, statues and other material found during the survey was not done, then how did the ASI know that the Bhojshala was built during the Parmar period.

During the hearing on Monday in the Indore division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the Bhojshala case, in the double bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, senior advocate Shobha Menon from the Muslim side and senior Supreme Court lawyer Salman Khurshid presented their side through video conferencing, while advocate Tausif Warsi remained present in the court.

Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, on behalf of the mosque, said that carbon dating of the stones, statues and other material found during the survey was not done.

When carbon dating was not done then how did ASI know that Bhojshala was built during Parmar period. Bhojshala is under the control of ASI since 2003.

The possibility that some items may have been replaced in the banquet hall before the survey cannot be ruled out.

He said that the court had instructed the ASI that no physical changes would be made in the Bhojshala during the survey, despite this, two Otlas were removed during the survey.

ASI conducted the survey at different places at the same time. In such a situation, it was not possible for the two people present from the mosque side to be present everywhere.

At the same time, senior advocate Shobha Menon presented arguments on behalf of the appellant Qazi Jakulla. He said that it has not been decided yet whether Bhojshala is a temple, a mosque or a Jain school.

He said that if this was a temple then the idol would have been consecrated there, whereas there is no such evidence. Those who call Bhojshala a temple are themselves in a dilemma. They don’t know what they want to prove.

Sometimes Bhojshala is called a temple and sometimes it is called a school. He has nothing to prove his point. Argued that the civil court has the right to decide the religious nature of the disputed site, whereas a writ petition has been filed in the High Court under Article 226.

He also said that it is an abuse of the judicial process for the petitioners to portray themselves as social workers through PIL.

Advocate Shobha Menon said that there is no notification between the year 1904 and 28 November 1951. During this period, ASI had no authority to do anything in the Bhojshala.

The Dhar Darbar had announced the declaration on 24 August 1935. In the order given in the year 2003, ASI had allowed Namaz between 1 pm to 3 pm on Friday, because ASI was aware that the order of Dhar Darbar was in existence.

Salman Khurshid said that there is no evidence available on record which can prove that Bhojshala is a temple. The temple side has not sought any relief regarding ownership.

The temple side could not present even a single evidence to prove that the Bhojshala was demolished and a mosque was built. The survey shows that a tank has been built in the middle of the disputed site.

Actually, this is Vajukhana. There is also a system for drainage of water. It is visible in the videography that newspapers, plastic, cups etc. have been found. It is not possible that these things were lying there for centuries. A statue of Gautam Buddha was also found during the survey, but it is not even mentioned in the ASI report.

There is no mention of the statue of Gautam Buddha in the report.
Alleged that the information about the survey was not formally given to the Muslim side and the information was received only through social media. Khurshid said that the survey was conducted at many places simultaneously, due to which it was not possible for the parties to be present at all the places.

He claimed that the statue of Gautam Buddha was found during the survey, but it was not mentioned in the report. Besides, questions were also raised that carbon dating technique was not used in the survey.

Questions were also raised on the survey process
Advocate Tausif Warsi said that there was no clear court order for the presence of the Superintendent of Police and the Collector during the survey, yet they were present the entire time. He also said that the survey was to be conducted with modern technology, but the survey team used the old technology “Total Station”.

On Monday, apart from the mosque side, the replies from the appellant Qazi Zakulla were also completed. Now on Tuesday the court will hear the other parties, after which the court can reserve its decision. The court has asked all the parties to complete their arguments on Tuesday.