THE BHOJSHALA VERDICT: Time To Respect Historical Evidences? | Hindus | Plain Speak | News18

追加: 2026-05-15

[00:00:00]Moving on, landmark order by the Madhya Pradesh High Court today declaring what used to be the Bhalala Temple, Kamal Malak Mosque complex in Dhar, a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati. With this, the court cancelled the 2003 Archaeological Survey of India's or ASI's order which allowed Muslims to offer Friday prayers on Bchala premises.

[00:00:24]While the ASI will continue to maintain control over the management of the Bchala, the actual right to perform religious rituals now remains firmly with the Hindu side. The court urged the Muslim community to approach the state government for allotment of a separate land in the district for construction of a mosque. Let's also break down for you this uh the issue as far as the landmark judgment is concerned. So the court has said all aspects including survey report have been considered as far as this order is concerned. Hindus can perform worship throughout the entire complex.

[00:01:02]The complex is a temple of goddess Vde Dvi. Original character of the Bhala was the a center of Sanskrit learning is what the court has now said. But as I mentioned the court has also gone on to say that Muslim side can approach the government for a separate land in Dhar.

[00:01:20]Government may consider bringing back Saraswati idol from London is also what the order says but it also directs the ASI to control the complex and continue the preservation. Government has a constitutional duty to preserve heritage is what the court is saying. Ancient monuments and temples must be protected.

[00:01:40]So I also want to break down what were those findings of the ASI that helped the court make this decision. Finding number one that this mosque was built over a pre-existing structure of basalt.

[00:01:53]Earliest construction belonged to the paramara period in 10th and 11th century. Finding number three that pillars and pilasters were reused for the colonades of the mosque that stood over it. Inscription fragments suggest that the structures identity was altered. Another finding was that mosque was built in a hurry without any attention to symmetry. That there were 94 sculptures and fragments in basalt, marble and sandstone, limestone etc. Found carvings of various gods and goddesses like Ganesh, Brahma etc. were all found on the walls. Depictions of humans and animals like lions, elephant, monkey etc. Mythical figures like kiti mukhas, human lions also found on the walls inside this temple and human and animal figures often prohibited in mosques were chiseled or defaced when this temple complex was taken over. We also have some breaking updates now coming in. A caveat has been filed in the Bchala case before the Supreme Court. The Hindu side files a caveat before the Supreme Court.

[00:03:06]I don't have any text more of what exactly that caveat is but the Hindu side has filed a caveat before the Supreme Court. Uh thus a few hours after this judgment has come from the Madhya Pradesh High Court which has come as a big win and a shot in the arm as far as the case of the Hindu devotees and petitioners is concerned. But one caveat has been filed in court. Now as far as this uh this case is concerned we also have speaking of courts another breaking now coming in after the prime minister's appeal. Chief Justice of India Sur Kant has said that we have also reduced the staff. I have written to SC's to adopt similar measures.

[00:03:59]Remember I was telling earlier that Supreme Court has adopted a fully virtual workflow for 2 days in a week because of the appeal that the prime minister has made. On other days also there will be hybrid model that will continue.

[00:04:21]So CGI Surya Kant now has said that we have also reduced the staff and that he has written to high courts to adopt similar measures. This is coming in on the back of the prime minister's appeal to cut down on unnecessary expenditures or make sure that practices that help save fuel can be adopted. Uh lots of governments have already announced some measures but the Supreme Court also paying heed to the prime minister's appeal. My colleague Ana is also joining us with more on this. Ana, the court has decided to go fully virtual on at least two days of the week. Apart from that, what steps have been taken?

[00:05:05]>> Absolutely. The courts have gone completely virtual. But uh and this is right after the decision was taken that the chief justice of India while speaking to CNN News8 over a phone call very clearly told us that you know the whole intent is behind behind this move of the Supreme Court is to a lead by example as far as these times of hostilities are concerned. Not only that, he also very uh categorically emphasized that he has written to the high court chief justices in order to adopt similar measures so that not only that the lawyers can be facilitated during these crisis times but also that uh the Supreme Court and the other courts in the country also lead by example by reducing their staff by uh you know reducing the number of uh litigants that come to the court and you know easier modes like where where fuel fuel is not used or where we can save on energy that can be adopted and hence Virtual mode is something that the Supreme Court has gone on to on Mondays and Fridays and on the other three days a hybrid mode will be adopted. But more importantly, the Supreme Court judges also um giving up their cars saying that they would be adopting a car pooling measures in order uh to address these times of hostilities and all of keeping in all of this in mind. The Supreme Court has uh you know taken up this measure and the Chief Justice of India making the intent very clear that in the times of crisis judiciary should lead by lead by example and this is exactly what the topmost court of the country has gone on to do.

[00:06:27]>> Mhm. Uh this of course will go a long way in sending a larger signal to others as well. Uh he's talked about uh asking high courts to adopt similar measures.

[00:06:37]Uh so the Supreme Court clearly taking this very seriously. I have with me Shazad Punawala of the BJP also joining us. Shazad, the CGI also responding to the prime minister's appeal. They're going virtual on some days. They're reducing their staff and also asking high courts to adopt similar measures.

[00:06:54]Your first thoughts?

[00:06:55]>> No, this is a welcome step because the whole of the nation effort is required to tide over the current situation.

[00:07:02]Obviously, there's no situation of panic. Last 75 days, we managed the situation in a way that not a single petrol pump has been stopped. Not a single LPG distribution center has been stopped and we are ensuring that there is no disruption in the supply of crude oil. But yes, certain precautions need to be taken because our foreign exchange reserves are very precious, very important at this point of time. So we have to reduce our dependence on foreign imported oil. We have to reduce our dependence on uh other goods. We have to start adopting more work from home or car pooling. And if the courts or judiciary is also participating in this effort, then I think it's a welcome step. But see all forms or all organs of the democratic structure are participating whether it's the executive, legislature or it is the judiciary but only some people on opposition side they are unnecessarily creating panic and I think they want to profiter from this panic so they want to create confusion and panic. I think they should also take a leaf out of the judiciary and they should also follow suit.

[00:07:58]>> All right Shazad thanks a lot for joining us. Going back to my colleague Ana as well.

[00:08:03]Uh this is certainly going to send a larger message uh not just of course to the citizenry but now to the entire judicial establishment because the CGI will ask SC's to adopt similar measures.

[00:08:13]>> Well absolutely has already written a letter to all of the chief justices as he had told us over that phone call that you know he has not only done it in the Supreme Court. Not only he has adopted these measures in the top most of the country but also he to send a larger message he has urged all the high courts to also adopt similar measures so that you know these times can be addressed with and we can actually go ahead and save and take these precautionary measures and hence the lawyers also would get a lot of facilitation they can work from home they can argue from home and a litigant would also not face a lot of trouble however on Tuesday Wednesday and Thursdays there are measures of hybrid hearings that have been listed out and those who are in difficulty, the judges would definitely travel to the court, but they would also adopt measures like car pooling in order to reduce the kind of fuel usage that they have because every judge comes into his own car usually. But this time around after you know the government has urged everybody to cut down on their fuel usage or to cut down on the manpower.

[00:09:10]The Supreme Court has taken a step forward to set an example. They have gone on to say very clearly that you know we will lead by example. We are reducing our you know registry staff by 50%. And only people essential would actually be called to the topmost score of the country and with regards to the lawyers virtual hearings have been adopted and the Supreme Court judges by themselves on a personal basis would be using a carpool measure in order to reduce the fuel coverages.

[00:09:37]>> All right. All right. Ana thanks a lot for joining us. We'll wait and see what more cues more institutions send on this. But shifting our attention back to that Bchala order. Given the findings as far as the ASI is concerned and now the court order, is it not time to respect historical evidences? Because already there are voices emerging that are challenging what the court has said.

[00:10:00]Let's go across to our special guest joining us.

[00:10:14]Harish Shanka J and senior advocate with us. Sir, thanks a lot for your time. Uh this is going to be considered a landmark judgment in many ways. Some similarities or parallels being drawn with the Iodha judgment. But what do you read into it and what do you think would be something that could become a precedent as far as this order is concerned?

[00:10:35]>> There is no question of any comparison.

[00:10:39]>> Before I begin, I will say >> that is a great victory. lot of Hindus, victory of the nation, >> victory of those who are facing lot of tyranny barrier act from foreign invasion the victory over that the foreigners who came in India particularly Muslims >> they dear Hindu temple and captured it now by stroke of pen it has been nullified See and the question about survival survival of this generation >> into >> that is the question. How it is possible that a foreigner comes invaded India and the demand is new tattoos and we are in independent India >> yes >> are seeing from naked eyes they are being are living in this condition is not freedom it is required that perfect freedom which is also mental freedom is spiritual freedom Thank you.

[00:11:51]>> No, absolutely. There are so many evidences when it comes to you know this Bchala complex. Uh you could draw a parallel with Ganwapi uh mosque as well.

[00:12:00]Everybody knows what the you know evidences there are. There are and it's a it's an indictment of the society sometimes that we live in that we have to have court orders to you know kind of build a consensus that these structures should be handed back. It is the duty of the court, >> duty of the government and duty of every awakened citizen to take back all those places >> which were demolished or defaced by Muslim rulers or foreign rulers.

[00:12:30]>> Mhm. And you and your son Vishnu Shanka Jan have been you know picking up a lot of these cases. I wanted to understand from you this order from the Madhya Pradesh court. Could it serve as a precedent in some of the other cases as well?

[00:12:43]Every every gives a president every lot of judgment there on certain points >> and it is it will confirmed by Supreme Court. I'm sure we have filed cavity. We have filed cavity supreme court.

[00:13:01]>> We are waiting Muslims to come and we want to contest it so that there future ruling and that ruling will cover a number of cases.

[00:13:12]So because we have to fight not only for one temple, we have to fight for 30,000 temples which were demanding Muslim Jews. So since you mentioned this, I have to ask you this because this debate has been going on for quite some time.

[00:13:29]Uh how many temples can be reclaimed?

[00:13:32]Would it be three or 13,000 or 30,000?

[00:13:35]You are firmly of the view that no matter the number, whatever are the temples that have been taken over, demolished, half demolished, taken over, they have to be reclaimed. You are firmly of that view.

[00:13:47]But >> some critics suggest that this could continue to create discord in society and an unending discord in society.

[00:13:55]Don't you say like this is a coveredness. You want to preach us that we are seeing that injustice that historical wrong >> that scene was occupied by temple not only three president not only up Kolkata goatra more than I can tell you why we should why we should see every temple in Every important temple for that area is important.

[00:14:48]naked eyes anybody can say it's a temple but no it is Muslim ph phobia now that should go and this is I'm not a covered person and I will never lie about this why should they fearful I'm Muslims why we should not claim right >> is it still they Muslims we are fear is that even today suppose a Person occupied by house >> and where you come in power you come back. No no no it is against there's no good. No >> yeah no but there's a sense of shame that has been kind of inflicted on the Hindu population for asking for these things which are obvious or demanding the reclamation of their own holy sides.

[00:15:43]independent India India same cannot be allowed >> the tyranny of that has to be abandoned >> has to be >> that has to >> uh can I also ask you of course you mentioned that there would be some challenge to this in the Supreme Court you welcome it and of course you are all more than willing to fight for it the role of the ASI in this case had come under question in fact in other cases as well because on one hand they were giving proof of how a Hindu structure and a temple existed on the other hand they had passed an order saying allow prayers from both sides. Uh there are other cases. I spoke to Vishnu Shankar a few months ago on one of these issues and he had said that ASI needs to be reformed. This body is not functioning u properly currently. What is your thoughts on that on the ASI's rule >> because that that order was passed arbitrarily without noticing the facts >> without finding what is religious character of this place >> and under section 16 of the act they have to determine the religious character but arbitrarily they pass the order now when the court ask them to give report of five SI person they For 98 days they studied penetrating system methods and 2,000 pages >> report has been filed and that report is based on all the fights existing there administrative order is passed so many times wrong but when the matter comes to the court it is in 2003 this is all illegal was passed in temple we were allowed Muslim separately in >> No, but your your thoughts on the overall role is the ASI you know kind of just doing its role of kind of you know uh maintaining complexes without actually applying their mind of what the structure was, what the sanity of the structure was, what the historical evidence.

[00:17:45]>> If you want to I can say the truth if you permit me.

[00:17:51]>> Truth is that during Congress government M >> every person I say anti-Hindu persons they were posted as SI in SI service >> and they were operating they were in charge of the affairs and they did so many mistakes intentional mistakes injustice and arbitrus why why should I go in all that every case I will search challenge court and get get it set out But Congress governments are a thing of the past sir for the last 10 years. Why CSI not changing now?

[00:18:31]>> It is it is not very easy for every government. We running government you can't you can't say no previous government done and we are setting it by the court.

[00:18:48]The government there are some difficulties they're facing certain things. Therefore, without the door of the court, it is not easy for the government.

[00:18:58]>> It's not easy for the >> undo. Yes.

[00:19:00]>> Yeah.

[00:19:00]>> Therefore, undo undo that illegal.

[00:19:04]>> Right. But you're you're confident as far as this case's appeal is concerned that uh you will be on the victorious side again.

[00:19:13]>> Yes, 100%. Not only this in all the cases which I'm fighting and going to fight against all the cases because without material without fact and figure we do not fight when there is sufficient material there sufficient point only then if you have become victorious in all the cases no exception you can burn when you go >> all right I leave it at that Harishanka Jen uh thanks a lot for joining us let's open this up to our other guests as well.

[00:19:53]Ishikatan, spiritual leader and Atikar Raman, Islamic scholar joining us.

[00:19:57]Adikor Raman, I'll take your view first because you know this will be seen as another setback as far as the Muslim community of this particular area is concerned. Uh not really comparable to the kind of sites we have seen in Aayodhya or even even in Kashi. uh but again the question arises that you know there are evidences that exist and there has been a tendency over the last 50 70 years to deny those historical evidences. Is it time to shun that attitude?

[00:20:26]>> No Shivani this is not a setback for I as a Muslim or we as a Muslim community.

[00:20:34]This is a setback for the for the law-abiding citizens and the judiciary.

[00:20:41]The judiciary is the is the guardian of the constitution. The judiciary is expected to be the guardian of the legislative law and there was a law in 1991.

[00:20:54]The parliament of India had passed and we are looking that law being bulldozed.

[00:21:00]It's not a matter of Hindu and Muslim for me. No, these are ancient monuments, sir. Those these don't come under the 1991 act.

[00:21:06]>> This is part of our history, sir.

[00:21:10]>> Sorry, >> that is your interpretation.

[00:21:11]>> No, that's not my interpretation, sir.

[00:21:13]That's the Supreme Court order both in Iayodha but and also the act itself. If you have read it, it gives ancient monuments or those protected under ASI, they don't come under that act. We have to accept that fact. We have to argue this.

[00:21:30]>> I agree.

[00:21:31]>> Shivani, if I agree by your by your articulation of this particular aspect that no, it is not applicable. Then was the was the honorable Supreme Court and the and the honorable justices in the Ayadia judgment wrong when they said that this will be putting a full stop and they were rather appreciating the 1991 of worship act that henceforth after the judgment in the iodia matter there won't be any any any issues with the Hindus and the Muslims and the Supreme Court cannot quotation that is not the correct interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment. Besides, you know, denying someone legal uh respite or legal recourse is not possible. It's unconstitutional. Artiki, you are talking about the constitution and the law and law-abiding mentality. How can you deny someone from going to court?

[00:22:30]>> So, Miss Miss Shikata, if that was the case, I would just put it this way. for 33 long years. Why don't the Indian community and these you know honorable Mr. Harish Shankar J and Vishnuanka they must have clubbed it along with the matur >> each case will be fought on its own evidences on its own ASIS findings because if all of them were to be clubbed then of course the argument would be first of all that would be illegal. The argument would be that how can you you know use evidences from one side to make the argument in another case Raman I understand the point you're making but if you are bringing in another is absolutely >> I'm coming to you one second if the point is sentimental I can understand it if the point is societal and civilizational I can understand it but if you make a legal argument then it has to be a sound legal argument it cannot be based on whims and fancies yes Ishika go ahead See this is how they expose their double standards because uh see the truth shall prevail and it has prevailed and it is not uh it is about evidence over entitlement.

[00:23:42]See what he has to understand is this is not about places of worship act. It is not about faith. It is not about belief.

[00:23:48]It is our civilizational right that we need to restore our history. The future generations they need to know what was the truth and that should prevail.

[00:23:58]That's one. Secondly, like you mentioned, it is about our legal rights.

[00:24:02]If we if it was the place was ours, we have to reclaim it. We have to because they were not just desecrated. We were humiliated and we need to restore our dignity for our future generations and this is our legal right in every sense and form. So what he needs to understand is it is not any bogus claim that we are making. The ASI has done this survey for 98 days. They have presented a 2,000 pager plus evidence and they have done their carbon dating. The idol has been found in the uh the Britishers had taken it and it is historic. So Maharaja Bhog came in the 11th century. Allowin Kilg came in the 13th and the 15th century.

[00:24:48]This this whole desecration happened. It is history. It is part of our history.

[00:24:52]And Bharat needs to restore the history.

[00:24:54]This is not part of just fakes and belief systems. That is what he needs to understand.

[00:24:58]>> Okay. Adika wants to come in. Ishika, one second. Let him come in for 30 40 seconds and I'll come back to you. Yes.

[00:25:04]>> Ishika is I am I am not you know I am not against you and the Hindu by Hindu brethren their Hindu their Hindu faith their civilizational beliefs. I am just saying that >> so then you should strike with the truth sir.

[00:25:18]>> Yes. says government should either amend or repeal the 1991 basis of worship act and the judiciary must ensure the Muslim community that no in the auya judgment what they were saying about the 99 they were praising Shivani the honorable justices were praising the 1991 places of worship act saying that henceforth this will put an end to all quarrels between the two major communities now some authority should come and ensure our our our people the entire length and breadth of India that no every civilizational aspect will be bulldozed in this battle as >> what has been bulldozed no I think I think there is a requirement once again second I think there is a requirement for you also to be sensitive to the feelings associated with this ancient temple of the Hindu side if you if you you know frame this as being bulldozed uh this or something being bull bulldozed. I mean here you have all the carvings, you have all the structures that are visible to the naked eye in their own land. Hindus are having to fight code battles some lasting 20 years, 30 years, iodia lasting 50, 70 years and patiently and legally fighting it and you are terming this as bulldozing.

[00:26:39]>> How is that felt within seconds? This can end within seconds. The only thing the government has to do they have a majority in the parliament. No, no. Park the issue. All of these debates cannot be just from the pinpoint of the 1991 places of worship act.

[00:26:57]>> Sir, we have discussed this and debated this several times. The 1991 places of worship act has a clause that says ancient monuments under the protection.

[00:27:08]It's not an interpretation.

[00:27:10]Ancient monuments under the protection of the ASI do not come under the purview of the 1991 places of worship at >> sir don't speak over me because then I'll have to be I'll be forced to speak over you. I don't want to do that.

[00:27:24]>> Uh the question here also that arises is there are so many of these sites and certainly some of the larger ones that have clear history markers clear historical markers. What is this insistence Ishika that these sites that belongs to a certain faith will not be handed over? What is this insistence?

[00:27:44]See this is the mentality and that is what I was saying that it gets exposed whenever a verdict comes in front. We have allowed a status quo for peace but that does not mean that will come on the cost of our sacred sites and that will come on our civilizational rights. You have to understand that this is a part of history. That is why they are historical monuments because that actually reflects on the culture which has been passed on over generations. So we need to restore the history. We need to restore the place as it is as it was.

[00:28:16]So therefore it cannot come in places of worship act. This is not a part of only faith and belief but this is part of our history and we need to restore that and for that we have a body which is an ASI body. They have done their survey. It is a 98 day long survey. It's not a like a one day or two day or they're just saying there's no bias.

[00:28:37]>> So on that survey can I ask Rahman do you deny the findings? Do you deny the historical nature of this complex? If you are doing that as it was done at one time uh to fool an entire generation during Ram temple also then you know then there is there can be no uh no meeting of the minds. If we are going to be blind to what is history, >> Shivani, host of historians including Irvan Habib Sab have said that these you know the the the Muslim rulers they were of the begotted rulers they did you know use of the temples. There is no question about that they did it >> and and it was wrong on their part. M >> the question I am just asking from the present day government that please remove the the doubts from the minds of the people in India. The Hindus and Muslims in India want to live together.

[00:29:34]>> They do not want to cast exclusions on each other.

[00:29:37]>> So what is the problem here with this order? This order shouldn't bring any enmity between Hindus and Muslims.

[00:29:42]>> Exactly. Exactly. It will be challenged in the Supreme Court. The same arguments will be there. We will be sitting in the media. We will be passing an unsub you know comments regarding against each other to put an end to this. The honorable justices right now they are also arguing nine judges bench are there. They are arguing on faith on the aspect of faith and law.

[00:30:05]>> Let us cluster things together so that we live amicably.

[00:30:12]>> Unfortunately that cannot happen because each case is fought on its own merits.

[00:30:15]But I'll allow Ishika 30 final 30 seconds. There can be an argument made that repeated such cases and orders kind of could keep the society on tent hooks.

[00:30:26]Uh thankfully you know the kind of reactions that one may have seen at one point of time are not there. That's the maturing of the society as well. But it kind of keeps you know uh the society on tent hooks again and again.

[00:30:39]>> See they can go to the Supreme Court and that is their right and I think that is fine. But you cannot you can take the court you can take the case to the Supreme Court but you cannot take out the evidence out of the BJ shala because that that is the truth and be a places of worship act whenever it will be talking about any historical monument we have to restore the history. It cannot be desecrated like that and this is a civilizational right and we need to take this forward and it should it should be actually you know they should actually come forward and give us those sites themselves because they can see it there is >> you know in cases where you don't have evidence sure an argument can be maintained but in cases where you have evidence and that too you know visible to the naked eye I'm not sure how long this sentiment based argument can be made that no this was long time ago there is no need for >> the problem is when They start challenging the court and then they start saying that whenever we will get into the power we will show them and then we will desecrate all those tempers that they have gotten again.

[00:31:42]>> Well, those are some elements that may say and use that language. Certainly uh they don't need to be encouraged but I leave it at that. I do thank both of our guests for joining us. Time for a very short break. Thanks.