ASI findings link Bhojshala dispute to Gujarat:2,190-Page ASI report claims Kamal Maula passed away in Ahmedabad instead of Dhar

The centuries-old dispute over the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Madhya Pradesh’s Dhar has taken a significant turn after scientific findings and archaeological evidence were placed before the court. The contested site, which has remained at the centre of legal and religious claims for more than a century, was recognised by the High Court as a temple dedicated to Vagdevi (Goddess Saraswati) dating back to the era of Raja Bhoj. Based on the findings presented during the proceedings, the court granted the Hindu side the right to worship at the disputed complex. The development follows an extensive archaeological investigation ordered by the High Court in 2024. The court had directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a detailed scientific study of the site and submit its findings. Acting on the court’s directions, the ASI carried out a comprehensive survey and subsequently submitted a report of 2,190 pages to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The report contains archaeological, architectural and historical evidence relating to the origin and evolution of the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex, which has long been the subject of competing claims over whether it was originally a temple or a mosque structure. Several historical aspects of the Bhojshala complex have come back into focus Following the submission of the ASI report and the recent court ruling, several historical aspects of the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex have come back into focus. While the dispute has largely revolved around the identity and history of the site, a lesser-known link has also emerged. Few people are aware that Kamal Maula, the figure whose name is closely associated with the Bhojshala controversy, is believed to have a historical connection with Ahmedabad in Gujarat. The revelation has sparked fresh interest among historians and researchers examining the origins and legacy of the disputed complex. The findings indicate that Kamal Maula died in Ahmedabad According to the report prepared under the supervision of Professor Alok Tripathi, who headed the archaeological survey team, a finding emerged that has drawn significant attention. The report states that Syed Kamaluddin Chishti, whose tomb was traditionally believed to be associated with the disputed site, did not die there. Instead, the findings indicate that he died in Ahmedabad and that his remains were brought to the site and interred there approximately 204 years after his death. The revelation has added a new dimension to the historical debate surrounding the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex and is being viewed as one of the most striking observations contained in the ASI’s investigation. The ASI report notes that in 1514 AD, Sultan Mahmud Shah Khilji launched a second attack on Bhojshala but failed to take control of the main complex. According to the findings, he subsequently occupied land outside the Saraswati temple precinct and established the Kamal Maula tomb there in the name of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti more than two centuries after the latter’s death. The report further states that historical records place the death of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti in 1310 AD at Karnavati, present-day Ahmedabad, where he was originally buried. High Court ordered scientific survey in 2024 Speaking to Divya Bhaskar, Professor Alok Tripathi, who headed the ASI survey team, shared details of the investigation and the circumstances that led to the archaeological study. He said, “Multiple legal disputes relating to Bhojshala were pending before various courts. In 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the Archaeological Survey of India to constitute a team of at least five experts to conduct a scientific survey, excavation and detailed investigation of the monument and the surrounding 50-metre area”. He added, “A special team was subsequently formed to carry out the exercise. The court had specifically directed that the survey should be supervised by either the Director General or the Additional Director General of the ASI”. ‘Our mandate was limited to the court-directed survey’ When asked about the Gujarat connection highlighted in the report, Professor Tripathi emphasised, “The ASI team remained strictly within the scope of the court’s directions”. He said, “Our responsibility was limited to conducting the survey and investigation ordered by the High Court. We carried out the scientific examination and documented our findings accordingly. Beyond that, we did not go beyond the mandate assigned to us.” ASI survey and documentation exercise lasted 98 days Professor Alok Tripathi stated that the archaeological exercise began with a detailed site inspection to assess the condition of the complex and identify areas requiring scientific investigation. According to him, comprehensive documentation formed a crucial part of the process. Every structure, feature and survey point within the site was scientifically recorded and assigned a unique identification number to eliminate any possibility of confusion during subsequent analysis. Once the documentation phase was completed, the team identified specific locations that required further examination, excavation or technical analysis. Scientific methods were then employed to investigate these areas in a systematic manner. The extensive survey, documentation and research exercise continued for 98 days, from March to July, culminating in the preparation of the ASI’s detailed report submitted to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. ‘The site has been under ASI protection since 1951’ Professor Alok Tripathi noted, “It is difficult to identify the very first artefact recovered during the survey, as archaeological excavations typically yield numerous objects simultaneously across different locations”. He explained, “Multiple teams were working at the site at the same time, and every discovery was carefully documented and catalogued in the final report. Each artefact was assigned a specific identification number and recorded according to established archaeological procedures”. He added, “If one goes strictly by the sequence of documentation, the artefact listed as Object No. 1 would technically be considered the first recorded find. However, during a large-scale excavation, discoveries are often made concurrently at different points of the site.” He also pointed out, “The Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex has been a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India since 1951, and that all investigations were carried out in accordance with scientific and archaeological standards applicable to protected heritage sites”. ‘Our role was limited to carrying out the court-mandated investigation’ Professor Alok Tripathi said, “Archaeology does not always deal with precise calendar years and often relies on broader historical periods and centuries to establish chronology”. He explained, “Unless there is definitive documentary or inscriptional evidence, it is extremely difficult to attribute a structure to a specific year. Historical texts and literary references may provide valuable context, but such sources are often interpreted differently by various stakeholders”. He added, “Several historical records and texts relating to the site are available, and different parties have cited them in support of their respective claims. However, our responsibility was not to adjudicate those claims.” He emphasised, “The ASI team’s mandate was strictly confined to conducting the scientific survey and investigation directed by the High Court. Our task was to examine the site, document the evidence and submit our findings in accordance with the court’s instructions. We limited ourselves entirely to that scope.” ‘Every artefact recovered has been documented in the report’ Explaining the findings of the Bhojshala survey, Professor Alok Tripathi said, “The site yielded a diverse range of archaeological evidence, all of which has been thoroughly documented in the ASI report. He noted, “Archaeological remains are not limited to buildings and stone structures. Evidence recovered during excavations can include pottery fragments, inscriptions, coins, glass objects, terracotta items, sculptural remains, as well as traces related to plants, animals and other aspects of human activity”. According to him, “All such objects are classified as artefacts because they were created, modified or used by people in a particular historical period. These artefacts are subjected to detailed scientific analysis. Through their study, archaeologists are able to understand the nature of activities that took place at the site, the people who inhabited it, and the cultural traditions and architectural practices associated with that period.” He added, “The systematic collection, classification and examination of these artefacts form the foundation of archaeological research, and all relevant details have been incorporated into the final report submitted to the court”. ‘The survey was carried out by a team of experienced archaeologists’ Professor Alok Tripathi emphasised, “All findings recorded during the Bhojshala investigation are based on tangible material evidence recovered from the site. The artefacts and remains discovered during the survey are physical objects that can be examined, analysed and interpreted by researchers. Since the report has been made available to all parties involved, they are free to study the findings independently”. However, he stressed the importance of avoiding speculation and misinformation regarding the survey’s conclusions. He said, “Many people from different places visited the site during the course of the investigation, but our team remained focused solely on the work assigned to us. Until the report was submitted to the High Court, we did not share any findings or offer any interpretations publicly.” He added that the project was a collective effort involving senior archaeologists and experts, with every major decision being taken through consultation and professional discussion. He noted, “This was not the work of any one individual. Every member of the team contributed to the investigation and the preparation of the report.” Survey work was planned around religious activities Alok Tripathi explained that the timing of the survey and excavation work varied according to conditions at the site. While fieldwork generally involved around eight hours of daily activity, schedules were adjusted to ensure that ongoing religious practices at the complex were not disrupted. He said, “We had to maintain a balance between carrying out the court-directed survey and ensuring that existing activities at the site continued without obstruction.” As a result, the team often modified its work plans depending on the situation. When worship or prayers were taking place inside the complex, archaeologists would focus on areas outside. Similarly, if activities were underway in one section, work would be shifted to another part of the site. According to him, “The team had to continuously assess ground realities and adapt its survey strategy accordingly while ensuring that the investigation proceeded smoothly and scientifically”. ‘The more you search, the more you discover’ Reflecting on the survey, Professor Alok Tripathi said, “Every day of the excavation was memorable because each day brought new discoveries. Whether it was a pottery fragment, a coin or any other artefact, every find added a new piece to the historical puzzle”. He explained, “Archaeologists connect these pieces of evidence much like a jigsaw puzzle to build a clearer picture of the past. The team worked within a fixed timeline, documented the evidence required for the investigation and incorporated its findings into the final report”. He added, “Archaeology is a continuous process. The more you search, the more you discover. However, once sufficient evidence is collected to answer the questions being investigated, the survey is concluded.” Court verdict validated the team’s work Commenting on the court’s decision, Tripathi said the verdict brought a sense of satisfaction because the findings had undergone judicial scrutiny and were accepted by the court. He said, “It is reassuring that the work carried out by our team stood up to examination. The verdict confirmed that our investigation was conducted properly and that our findings were presented in the right direction.” From a doctor’s son to a leading archaeologist Professor Alok Tripathi, who led the ASI survey at Bhojshala, is currently a professor in the History Department at Assam University. Earlier, he served as Additional Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on a five-year deputation. Born in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, Tripathi developed an interest in archaeology during his childhood. His father was a doctor posted in Mandsaur district, and while studying in primary school, a book on ancient stones, fossils and dinosaurs sparked his curiosity about the past. By the time he reached secondary school, he had already built a sizeable collection of rocks and geological specimens. Although he initially studied science and completed a B.Sc., he later shifted his focus to archaeology. He earned a Master’s degree in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology and subsequently completed a PhD in Archaeology from the Maharaja Sayajirao University (MSU) of Vadodara. Worked with experts from around the world Tripathi joined the ASI as an Assistant Archaeologist in 1987 and later specialised in underwater archaeology. He was associated with the exploration of the submerged city of Dwarka and went on to work extensively on marine archaeology projects. Over the years, he collaborated with archaeologists from nearly 50 countries, gaining international experience in excavation techniques, documentation and heritage research. Nearly four decades in archaeology During his 39-year career, he has participated in and led several major archaeological projects across India. His work includes excavations at Dholavira, Prachigadhi, Dwarka, Lakshadweep, Mahabalipuram and sites in the Bay of Bengal. He has also researched submerged structures along India’s coastline, including temple remains believed to have been lost to the sea. In addition to his work in Gujarat, he has contributed to archaeological projects in Assam and Rajasthan. Before leading the Bhojshala survey, Tripathi also headed the ASI investigation at the Gyanvapi complex and submitted the findings to the court. However, legal proceedings in that case are still ongoing. In contrast, the Bhojshala dispute has become one of the first major ASI-led surveys under his leadership to culminate in a definitive court verdict.