New Delhi: “If any unpleasant incident takes place, the Archaeological Survey of India [ASI] won’t take the responsibility. We will have to take the blame,” said Zafar Ali, the chairperson of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal.
Talking to The Wire, Ali was responding to the ASI’s claims that the managing committee of the mosque had blocked entry to its officials for inspection and distorted the original form of the structure with alterations and interventions. The ASI made these submissions in a report attached to an affidavit it submitted in a civil court in Sambhal in response to a suit filed by some Hindutva activists claiming that the 16th-century mosque was originally the site of a prominent Hindu temple dedicated to the prophesied 10th avatar of Vishnu, Kalki.
A survey of the mosque was hurriedly carried out by a court-appointed advocate commissioner on November 19, less than three hours after the civil judge senior division passed the order. A second round of survey took place on November 24, but that was marred by large-scale violence as five Muslim men were killed and more than two dozen police and administrative officials were allegedly injured in stone-pelting and brick-batting.
In its report, seen by The Wire, the ASI concluded that at present, the “original structure” of the centrally-protected monument has “been distorted” at many places.
Bright and gaudy colours have been used in abundance in the interior parts of the main portion and the appearance of the centrally protected monument has been spoiled to a great extent, the ASI noted in its report that was drafted after a seven-member team of the agency carried out a spot inspection in June.
The ASI, through its Meerut circle, also said that the mosque’s managing committee had carried out various interventions, additions and modifications at the monument. However, since there are “restrictions on ASI team for inspection, the current status and additions carried out are not known to ASI.”
The image of a corridor inside the mosque building. Source: ASI Report
Zafar Ali, a lawyer who heads the managing committee of the early Mughal-era mosque, dismissed the ASI’s statement that the mosque had placed restrictions on its officials. Ali also defended the committee’s decision, over a period of time, of carrying out repair work or altering certain elements of the structure from the point of view of public safety and conservation.
“When the wall was falling apart, we repaired the bricks to prevent any mishap. We are the management,” he said.
The advocate also stressed that any alterations or repairs done in the mosque were “urgent and emergency” measures taken to prevent any accidents or harm or injury to people who gather there for namaaz. The mosque is painted every year as part of beautification and cleanliness for the prayers on Alvida Jummah or the last Friday of the Islamic holy month of Ramazan, he told The Wire.
“What if a wall crashes down on a namazi (devotee)? The doors are coming apart. The walls are crumbling. The eastern wall is falling,” said Ali.
The mosque, located 33 km south west from Moradabad, was built at the site of an old fort and stands on a large mound. An inscription on the mosque records its construction by Mir Hindu Beg in 1526 AD, during the reign of Babur. The mosque was declared protected in the year 1920.
In its affidavit, the ASI said that the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 were applicable to the mosque. However, the agency noted that given the restrictions its team was facing in undertaking inspection of the mosque, it was “very difficult to ascertain violation of the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and the current status of the monument.”
The ASI was responding to the charges made by the Hindu plaintiffs led by lawyer Hari Shankar Jain that the managing committee of the mosque was removing artefacts, signs and symbols of the Hindu faith. The ASI said the present status of the monument was not known to it since its officials have been prevented from entering the premises for a long time.
A team of the ASI visited the mosque on December 21, 2023 for an inspection but the officials were denied entry by locals including some lawyers and asked to come only after securing permission of the district magistrate Sambhal. On February 27, the ASI wrote to the district magistrate with a request to provide them police protection for their next inspection, which then took place on June 25 this year. Ali says the inspection was conducted “out of a sudden” and without any specific trigger.
The mosque has a central domed structure surrounded by two unequal aisles. The northern aise measures 15.39 sq metres and the southern aisle measures 11.61 sq. metres. The ASI report dated August 13 authored by Neeti Anil Kumar, assistant superintending archaeologist, says the mosque was repaired in 1620 AD and 1656 AD, by Sayyid Qutb and Rustam Khan, respectively.
The ASI team mentioned a number of modifications made to the mosque. They saw an old well on the left side of the main entrance and said that it has now been covered by the mosque committee. A large room has been constructed above and beside the well for the security team. The description of the well is also found in A. Fuhrer’s book The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions, In The North- western Provinces And Oudh, the ASI report noted.
The ASI’s charge against the mosque committee is not new.
Comparisons of present-day photos of Jama Masjid, Sambhal with archival photos. Source: ASI Report
On January 19, 2018 – almost six years before the Hindutva activists staked claim on the mosque in court – an official of the ASI approached the local police accusing the mosque’s managing committee of illegally constructing a steel railing on both sides of a staircase leading to its gate.
A First Information Report was lodged against the managing committee. They were charged under sections 30-A and 30-B of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The clauses are related to penalising construction in a prohibited area or raising any construction in the regulated area without the permission of the competent authority.
In his complaint, ASI official Bijendra Singh Yadav said that the masjid committee had constructed an illegal steel railing which fell within the perimeters of the prohibited area of the centrally-protected monument.
The Ancient Monuments Act prohibits all kinds of mining or construction work within an area of 100 metres in all directions from the limits of the protected area, said Yadav, adding that prior permission from the Agra divisional commissioner was also needed for any kind of repair work in the mosque.
Four days after the FIR was lodged at the Sambhal Kotwali, the superintending archaeologist of the ASI’s Agra division issued a show cause notice to the chairperson of the mosque’s managing committee. And on February 16, 2018, the additional commissioner, administration of Agra division directed the district magistrate of Sambhal to demolish the steel railing. Action on this is still pending, the ASI notes in its latest report.
Zafar Ali said he cannot say with certainty when the exact modifications, including the steel railings, were made. “The committee headed by me came into force six years ago. We don’t know what was done before that,” he said.
Ali, however, added that locals told him that the steel railings had been a part of the mosque’s entrance for many years now. The railings served the purpose of ensuring order at the entrance, he said.
The ASI report noted that a tank located at the centre of the mosque had been renovated by installing stones. The ASI also pointed out that new flooring has been done on the ground with red sandstone, marble and granite near the entrance from the front gate.
The “old floor is buried under it,” the ASI said.
At present, the mosque has been completely painted with thick layers of enamel paint and plaster of paris has also been used, the ASI said, concluding that this “has destroyed the original form” of the structure.
Ali expresses dismay at the ASI’s stance and asks if the agency cared so much about the structure why didn’t its officials visit the mosque more frequently to suggest and carry out repair and maintenance.
“They don’t come for any inspection. Since 1920, the mosque has been under ASI. They should conduct regular surveys and inspections,” said Ali.
He went on to accuse the ASI of being “negligent” for not visiting the mosque more often. “It is protected. So where is the protection,” asked Ali.
The advocate defended the committee’s right to carry out urgent repair works and alterations to prevent the 500-year-old structure from falling apart.
“When the soil starts falling, what are we supposed to do? We did some paint and used cement. What will we do if we don’t maintain it and the structure falls,” asked Ali.
The ASI report further noted that remains of the old roof could be seen only in the two chambers on the west side and one chamber on the north side of the mosque. These chambers usually remain closed.
The front portion of the main structure of the mosque, when compared with a 1875-76 drawing, showed there have been a lot of changes made in the upper part of the original structure of the part opposite to the main structure over time. Small balconies, minarets, and short pillars have been constructed later, the ASI said.
On the roof, six small domes each are visible on the upper and south side of the main dome. There is a bastion on the outer wall in the western part of the mosque, which appears to be a part of the structure built on a high mound around it, the ASI report mentioned.
In their affidavit, the eight Hindu plaintiffs claimed that an ancient temple dedicated to Kalki was demolished during the rule of Mughal emperor Babur. In their suit, the plaintiffs said that the mosque was a monument protected under Section 3 (3) of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904.
They claimed that they were being “denied access” to the mosque, described by them as “subject property,” as the ASI had not taken any steps for entry of the general public as mentioned in the provisions of Section 18 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The plaintiffs claimed that the site was a centuries-old Har Hari Temple dedicated to Kalki and was being “used forcibly and unlawfully” by the Jama Masjid’s caretaking committee.
The plaintiffs accused the ASI of not taking any steps for the entry of the general public and alleged that the members of the mosque’s managing committee were “indulging in nefarious activities” and trying to remove the existing artefacts and signs of a Hindu temple.
The ASI, they claimed, had “lost control” over the property and was not maintaining it like it should have under the law.
In an affidavit submitted in the court, Vinod Singh Rawat, superintending archaeologist in the Meerut circle of the ASI, gave a point-to-point rebuttal of the suit. Rawat said that even the officers of the ASI were not allowed to enter the monument for the purpose of inspection.
Also read: To Absolve Police, BJP Creates ‘Turk-Pathan’ Rivalry Angle Blaming Muslims for Sambhal Violence
A team of ASI had inspected the monument in 1998 and the most recent inspection was done on June 25, 2024, Rawat added.
Rawat said that the mosque committee objected to them entering the mosque. “Even ASI has faced difficulties in taking up inspection of the monument. However, ASI took up actions as and when it was possible, inspection of the monument was taken up with great effort and help from district administration,” he said in his affidavit.
Ali, however, contested the ASI’s claims and insisted that the mosque had no issues if the ASI officials visited the premises with prior authorization of the district administration. On a previous occasion, Ali recalled, the attendants of the mosque has sent back a team of the ASI after they failed to provide proper identification or authorization of the administration.
“They did not adopt the proper procedure. But in June when they informed the DM and got police protection, we cooperated fully with them as they carried out a full inspection,” said Ali.
The managing committee of the mosque is concerned that unauthorised entry to the mosque could cause unintended controversies leading to communal flare-ups. “What if someone comes and plants an idol or conducts a ritual or something else,” asked Ali.
He also wondered what the purpose of the entire exercise to conduct a survey of the mosque was as the structure was protected by The Place of Worship Act, 1991 and the Ancient Monuments Act.
“For the sake of argument, let’s say they find that the mosque was built over a temple. Then what next,” asked Ali.
