E-Paper
Muslim claim not the only one dismissed in MP HC's Bhojshala ‘Hindu temple’ verdict
HC's grounds for dismissal of Jain claim was: “None of the historical, archaeological and ASI survey indicate that the disputed area was a Jain temple.
The Madhya Pradesh high court's ruling on the Bhojshala dispute in Dhar disposed of not two but three competing religious claims.
Alongside the main contest between Hindu and Muslim petitioners, a separate petition filed by a member of the Jain community argued that the site had always been a Jain temple, and that the idol at the centre of the dispute was not the Hindu goddess Saraswati but the Jain goddess Ambika.
The court awarded the site to the Hindu site as a temple, and also dismissed the Jain petition. In doing that, it made an observation, that Jainism is "in fact, a branch of Hinduism". The court cited two legal provisions to make that point.
Also read | Ayodhya 2.0: Bhojshala a Hindu temple, rules MP HC; cites SC's principles in ruling on Dhar dispute
What the Jain petitioner argued
Salek Chand Jain, who sought relief for the community, filed his petition through advocate Dinesh P Rajbhar. It was one in a bunch of related pleas that the Indore bench of the HC was hearing. His case rested on an inscription dated to the year 1091 on an idol found at the Bhojshala complex. That idol is purportedly now housed in the British Museum in London. The inscription had initially been read by some as referring primarily to Vagdevi, another name for Saraswati.
But later scholarly work, including by Sanskrit and Prakrit scholar Harivallabh Bhayani, said the inscription's main subject was Ambika, a Jain goddess, as per the plea.
The inscription, translated and mentioned by the court in its 242-page judgment, said: “Vararuci, King Bhoja's religious superintendent of the Candranagari and Vidyadhari branches of the Jain religion... having first fashioned Vagdevi the mother and afterwards a triad of Jinas, made this beautiful image of Amba.”
On this basis, the petitioner argued the idol was Jain, and the site was originally a Jain temple and centre of learning; plus that the architecture of the complex bore resemblance to the Jain temples of Mount Abu in Rajasthan.
He also objected to the 2003 ASI order which regulated worship at the site. It granted access to both Hindus and Muslims but entirely excluded the Jain community which, as per the petition, jad a strong historical claim.
Yet, the petitioner did not seek exclusive ownership of the structure. His lawyer made clear that the prayer was limited to recognition of Jain heritage at the site; permission for Jain devotees to worship there; and the return of the idol from London.
What HC said
The bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi examined the idol photographs and the inscription. In its judgment, it held that sculptor Vararuci had “made two pratima (idols), one of 'Vagdevi' and another of 'Amba'. Both forms represent the divinity of 'Saraswati'.”
The figures of Ganesha and Durga visible around the Vagdevi idol were explained through Hindu iconographic tradition, the court further noted, adding that these deities are worshipped together across Hindu traditions.
On Jain idols seen alongside the main idol, the court said, “The presence of a Jain Tirthankara or a 'Sadhak' or ascetic seated in 'Padmasana' in the background of the Hindu statue of goddess 'Saraswati' is entirely natural, given that Jainism is, in fact, a branch of Hinduism.”
The court also said, “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.”
The judgment noted that under Section 2(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 2(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Jainism and Buddhism are considered part of Hinduism. It held that the discovery of a Jain Tirthankara idol during excavation at the site was therefore “no surprise”.
It must be noted, though, that the Government of India formally notified Jains as a national religious minority in 2014 under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.
Why claim was dismissed
The court's grounds for dismissal for the Jain-rights petition were straightforward: “None of the historical, archaeological and ASI survey indicate that the disputed area was a Jain temple. Even if accepting the submission… that the idol may be of Maa Ambika, his claim that the disputed area be declared to be Jain temple, cannot be accepted. Whether the idol is of Saraswati or of Ambika would not render much assistance to his submission that the disputed area was a Jain temple.”
The court issued no directions on Jain access to the site, preservation of Jain antiquities at the complex, or the retrieval of the idol as such from London.
What judgment said of main claims
The judgment mainly allowed the petitions filed by Hindu Front for Justice and others, declaring the religious character of the disputed complex to be a Bhojshala and temple of goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati).
The 2003 ASI order regulating Hindu worship and permitting Friday namaz was quashed. Petitions filed by Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society and Qazi Zakullah were dismissed alongside the Jain petition.
The court directed the ASI to retain administrative control of the protected monument, and asked the state government to consider allotting suitable land in Dhar district to the Muslim community for construction of a mosque, if an application for it is submitted.
The main lawyer arguing for the declaration of Bhojshala as a Hindu Saraswati temple was advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, and the Union of India and ASI were represented by Sunil Jain, an additional solicitor general/
The State of Madhya Pradesh said it was approaching the dispute "not from the standpoint of any particular religion, but from the perspective of ensuring peace, order and effective administration". It placed the ASI findings, historical records, and archaeological evidence before the court, all pointing to a pre-existing Saraswati temple, and compiled the 10 Ayodhya verdict principles the court ultimately adopted.
