Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, Vol.2: The Islamic Evidence

Preface

Acourtorderin1986threw openforHinduworshipthegates ofthe temple-turned-mosqueattheRãmajanmabhûmiatAyodhya.Hinduswere overjoyed, andstartedlookingforwardtothecomingupofagrandRãma Mandiratthesacredsite.Buttheywerecounting withoutthestalwartsof SecularismintheNehruvianestablishment. Itwasnotlongbeforea hysterical cry was heard Secularism in Danger!

The Marxist-Muslim combine launched atwo-pronged campaign. Onthe onehand,theyproclaimed thatMuslimshaddestroyednoHindutemples exceptthosefewwhichwerestinking withhoarded wealthorhadbecome centresoflocalrebellions,andthatIslamasareligionwasneverinvolved iniconoclasm.Ontheotherhand,theyaccusedtheHindusofdestroying any number of Buddhist, Jain and Animist shrines in the pre-Islamic days.

AsastudentofIndia'shistory,ancientaswellasmedieval, Icouldsee quite clearlythattheywereplayingtheGoebbelsiangameoftheBigLie. Buttheycouldnotbecounteredbecausetheyhadcometodominatethe academia andcontrolthemassmediaduringtheheydayoftheNehru dynasty.MostoftheprestigiouspresswasownedbyHindumoneybags. Buttheyhadplaced theirpapers inthehandsofthemostbrazen-faced Hindu-baiters.

Themost unkindestcutofall,however,camefromtheVishvaHindu Parishad andtheBharatiyaJanataParty.Theyweredoingnothingtowards debunking SecularistliesaboutHinduismvis-a-visBuddhism andJainism. Buttheyweretrumpeting fromthehouse-topsthatIslamdidnotpermitthe destruction ofotherpeoplesplacesofworship,andthatnamãzofferedina mosque built onthe site ofatemple wasnot acceptable to Allah! They were layingtheblameforthedestruction oftheRãmMandirnotonIslamasan ideology of terror but on Bãbur as a foreign invader!

Theonlyrayoflightinthisencircling gloomwasArunShourie,the veteran journalist andthechiefeditoroftheIndian expressatthattime.On February5,1989,hefrontpagedanarticle,Hideaway Communalism, showingthatwhiletheUrduversion ofabookbyMaulana HakimSayid AbdulHaioftheNadwatul-UlamaatLucknowhadadmittedthatseven famous mosqueshadbeenbuiltonthesitesofHindutemples,theEnglish translation publishedbytheMaulanasson,AbulHasanAliNadwi(Ali Mian)hadeschewedthecontroversialevidence.Healsopublishedinthe Indian ExpressthreearticleswrittenbymeonthesubjectofIslamic iconoclasm.Thiswasaverycourageousdefianceofthebanimposedby IslamandadministeredbySecularism,namely,thatcrimescommittedby Islam cannot even be whispered in private, not to speak of being proclaimed in public.

Finally, VOICEOFINDIApublished inApril,1991VolumeIofa projectedseries-HinduTemples:WhatHappened toThem.Itwasa collection ofrelevantarticlesbyArunShourie,HarshNarain,JayDubashi, RamSwarup,andmyself.Animportantpartofthevolumewasalistof 2000Muslimmonuments builtonthesitesand/orwiththematerialsof Hindutemples. Thislistbecamefamousalloverthecountryassoonasit came out.

Meanwhile,theevidenceIhadcollectedregardingIslamiciconoclasm couldalreadycoverseveral,andmuchbiggervolumes. VOICEOFINDIA publishedinMay,1991VolumeIIoftheseries.Itwasdevotedexclusively toIslamicevidence,historicalaswelltheological.Itwasreceivedvery well,particularlybytheworldofscholarship. Onlytheprestigious newspapersandperiodicalsinthiscountryignoreditcompletely; theydid notevenacknowledge itintheirBooksReceivedcolumn.Butanextensive reviewwrittenbytheBelgianscholar,Koenraad Elst,waspublishedby VOICE OF INDIA in 1992 under the title Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam.

Thissecond editionofVolumeIIisathoroughly revisedandsomewhat enlarged versionofthefirstedition.Itsmainmeritisthatthelengthy chapters intheearliereditionhavebeendividedintosmallerones,and placed under several well-defined sections. A new Appendix on the meaningofthewordHinduhasbeenadded.AndtheAppendixwhich carriestheQuestionnaire FortheMarxistProfessors,hasbeenconsiderably expandedbyinclusionofcorrespondencebetweenmyselfandProfessor Romila Thapar, the doyen of Marxist historians.

Itakethisopportunitytopointoutthatthesubjectofthisvolumeisnot somuchthedestructionofHindutemplesasthecharacterofIslam-an imperialistideologyofterrorismandgenocidemasqueradingasareligion, infact,astheonlytruereligion. ItishightimeforHindustoseeIslamnot withitsowneyesbutfromtheviewpoint ofthegreatspiritualvisionwhich is their inheritance.

New Delhi

SITA RAM GOEL

25 March 1993

1. The Dispute at Sidhpur

TheFourthAnnualReportoftheMinorities'Commissionsubmittedto thePresidentofIndiathroughtheMinistryofHomeAffairsonApril19, 1983,carries anaccount ofadispute overtheJãmi Masjid atSidhpur inthe MehsanaDistrictofGujarat.Theaccountraisessomesignificant questions about certain aspects ofIslam asareligion and the character ofMuslim rule inmedievalIndia.Wehavetogotoprimarysourcematerialsinorderto find satisfactory answers to these questions.

SidhpurisaTalukatown,sixty-fourmilesnorthofAhmadabad. Itis situatedontheleftbankoftheriverSaraswati,fifteenmilesupstreamof Anhilwãd Pãtan,theoldcapitalofGujaratbeforeAhmadabad wasfounded inthefirstquarterofthefifteenth century.Inapartofthetown,saysthe Commissions Report, islocated what isknownasRudramahãlaya complex. Thiscomplex wasbuiltbySiddhraj Jayasimha inthe12thcenturyThis templeseemstohavebeendestroyed partlybyUlughKhaninAD1297-98 andpartlybyAhmedshahinAD1415.Someofthecubiclesandanumber ofpillarsontheWestern sideofthetempleitwouldappearwerelater converted into a mosque.¹

Atthedawnofindependencein1947,Sidhpurwasintheterritoryof Baroda,theprincelystateruledbytheMarathahouseoftheGãekwãDs. TheprincelystateofBaroda,proceeds theReport,hadtreatedthecomplex consisting ofthemosqueandtheremnantsofthetempleasamonumentof historicalimportance. Subsequently, byvirtueofanagreementbetweenthe TrusteesandtheArchaeological SurveyofIndiaon31stMarch,1954,the mosquewasdeclaredasanationalmonumentanditsmaintenance and protectionweretakenoverbytheArchaeological SurveyofIndia.Oneof thetermsofthisagreement wasthatthemosquewouldcontinuetobeused by the Muslims for offering prayers .²

TheTrustees oftheJãmiMasjid,however,becamedissatisfiedwiththe Archaeological Surveywhich,theycomplained,wasnotdoingitsduty towardsmaintenanceofthemosque.Subsequently,continuestheReport,a disputearosebetween theTrustees ofthemosqueandtheofficialsofthe ArchaeologicalDepartmentwithregardtothemaintenanceofthemosque asaccordingtotheTrustees,necessaryrepairstothemosquewerenot beingcarriedoutbytheArchaeological Department andthemosquewasin dangeroffallingdown.ThesedisputesledtosomelitigationintheHigh Courtwhich,however,endedinacompromise.Anundertakingwasgiven bytheArchaeologicalDepartmentintermsofthecompromisethatthey wouldcarryoutthenecessary repairstothemosque.Itisallegedthatthe undertakingwasnotgiveneffecttoandthisresultedinfurtherlitigation which again ended in a compromise. Under the fresh compromise terms, the Archaeological Departmentagaingaveanundertakingtocarryoutthe repairsofthemosqueandalsotolayoutagardeninthecourtyard ofthe mosque.Unfortunately, thiscompromiseagaindidnotbringaboutafinal settlement betweentheTrusteesofthemosqueandtheArchaeological Department. According to the Muslims, the Archaeological Survey of India, insteadofcarrying outrepairstothemosque, starteddiggingoperations which exposed the relics ofthe temples and also the rich sculpturalcarvings onthetwowingsofthemosque. Theseexposuresappeartohaveattracted theattentionoftheHindusandtheydemanded thatnotonlyshouldthese ancienttemplerelicsbepreservedbutthatthemosqueshouldalsono longerbeusedbytheMuslims forofferingprayersortheymayalsobe allowed to worshipthe Siva Linga discovered during the excavations within the premises of the mosque.³

TheMinorities'CommissioncameintothepictureonOctober4,1979 whenitreceivedaletterfromtheTrusteesofthemosque,conveyingthe apprehensionsoftheMuslimsofSidhpurthattheHindusweretryingto usurptheJamaMasjid.⁴ TheletterfromtheTrusteesreported:Onthe6th September, 1979,oneYogeshwarDutthadillegallyledahugecrowdinto the mosque andinstigated them tousurpit.Heagain entered themosqueon 2ndOctober, 1979anddemanded thatNamazintheJamaMasjid should be stoppedandalsoincitedtheHindustodemolishthemosque.⁵ The Commission referredthemattertotheDirectorGeneralofthe Archaeological Survey of India and called for a report.

But before the Commissioncould receive a reply from the Survey, Begum Ayesha Sheikh, MLA, of the Gujarat Assembly wrote to the Chairman,Minorities'Commission aboutthethreatstowhichthelocal Muslimswerebeingcontinuallysubjectedbythemajoritycommunity and especiallytheJanSanghandtheRSSelementsfortheiruseoftheJama Masjidandthatthishadcreatedaseriouscommunaltensioninthetown.⁶ TheCommission wrote totheGovernment ofGujarat onDecember 7,1979 and asked for a factual report. On 16th January, 1980, says the Commissions Report,GovernmentofGujaratdeniedanyRSShandinthe demandofthelocalHindusforconversion oftheJamaMasjidatSidhpur intoatempleasalleged.TheStateGovernmentfurtherreportedthatthe disputebetween theMuslims andtheHindusabouttheuseoftheJama Masjid hadbeengoingonforquitesometimepastandthatthelocalpolice andStateGovernment wereawareofthesituation.Theyalsoassuredthe Commissionthat therewas no possibilityof any communaltroubleat Sidhpur.⁷

A Hindu-Muslim riot,however,brokeoutatSidhpuronMarch14,1980 andtooksometolloflimbsandproperty.Thecriticalstage,recordsthe Commission,wasreachedon14thMarch,1980,whenagroupofHindus ledbyalocalSadhustartedBhajansattheRudramahalaya. Atabout10.00 A.M.agroupofboysstartedclosing shopsandpeoplestartedcoming towardstheRudramahalaya. EverythingwaspeacefultilltheMuslims startedassemblingfortheirNamaz around1.00P.M.By1.15P.M.both BhajansandNamazweregoingonsimultaneously.Accordingtoreports, someMuslimsfromthehousesadjoiningtheRudramahalaya started throwingstonesontheHindus.TheHindusretaliated.Bythistimeabout 800 to 900 Hindusandabout 300to400Muslims had collected. The police, anticipating trouble, was on the spot along with the Taluka Magistrate. They burstteargasshellstodispersethecrowd.TheMuslimswhohadtopass throughHindulocalities beforereaching theirhouses,werestonedbythe Hindusfrom housetopsandlanes.Sixshopswereforcedopenandlooted. Twoofthembelonged totheHindus.ThejeepoftheMamalatdar wasalso burnt and the Mamalatdar himself also sustained some minor injuries due to thestonethrowing.Inall72personssustainedinjuriesduringtheincident onthe14thMarch,1980.Thesituationwasbroughtundercontrolby2.15 P.m. Curfew was immediately imposed and the situation at Sidhpur remained peaceful for some time barring some minor incidents.⁸

BegumAyeshaSheikhagainwrotetotheCommissiononMarch28, 1980,reportingthecommunaltroublethathadbrokenoutonMarch14. ShealsomentionedthattheStateGovernment hadbeendeliberatelytrying to play downthe gravity oftheincident and, therefore, anyreport submitted bytheStateGovernmentwouldnotbefairandimpartial.She,therefore, requested thatinsteadofaskingforareportfromtheStateGovernment the Minorities'Commission itselfshouldundertakeanon-the-spotinquiryinto the incidents.⁹

ButbeforetheCommissioncoulddecidewhattodo,anotherroundof Hindu-Muslim riotstookplaceatSidhpur onApril8,1980. Howeveragain onthe8thApril,1980,recordstheCommission, atabout11.45A.M.one MuslimwasassaultedbythreeHindusasaresultofwhichtwoHindus werestabbedbytheMuslims. Incidentsofassaulttookplacethereafterin different parts ofthe town.Curfewwasimposed onthe 8th April, 1980,and 42personswerearrested.¹⁰ OnApril14,nineimportant Muslim representatives includingoneMemberofParliamentmettheChairmanand handedoveramemorandumonthedisputeandrequestedtheCommission to visit Sidhpur.¹¹

TheCommission, however,couldnotvisitSidhpurwithoutprior consultationwiththeGovernmentofGujarat.BythattimetheStatehad beenplaced under Governorsrule.Ithadneither anelected Assemblynora popular Ministry. ShriK.T.Satarawala, AdvisertotheGovernorofGujarat, cametoNewDelhionMay1,1980andmettheChairman ofthe Commission.Afteradiscussionontheprevailingcommunalsituationat Sidhpur, itwasagreedthattheAdviserwouldsendtotheChairmana detailednoteonthecommunalincidentswhichtookplaceduringMarch andApril1980.¹² TheAdvisersNoteonRudramahalayaandJamaMasjid wasdulysenttotheChairmanonMay16,1980. Itwasaccompanied bya map of the area and some photographs.¹³

TheNote startsbygivingaslightlydifferentversionofthestatusofthe Jãmi Masjid under the Baroda State and the frequency ofMuslim prayersin the Masjid. The erstwhile Baroda State, says the Note, took under protection in1936-37theToranasandotherarchitecturalremainsofthe Rudramahalaya excluding theMasjid portion. Afterthemerger oftheState, theRudramahalaya andotherStateprotectedmonumentsweredeclaredas MonumentsofNationalImportanceunderthe1951Act.Subsequently, the Jami Masjid being originally apart ofthe Rudramahalaya wasalso declared amonumentofNationalImportance.However,asitwasamonumentin religioususe,anagreementundertheAncientMonumentsandSitesand Remains ActwasenteredintobetweentheTrusteesandtheArchaeological Survey of India onbehalf ofthe President ofIndia onthe 31st March, 1954. Atthattime,themonumentwasusedforFridayprayersonlyandthattoo by a small number of persons.¹⁴

Next, the Note provides thebackground before thedispute arose between theSurveyandtheTrustees. In1959,proceeds theNote,thethen Superintending Archaeologistrecommended thatthemodernbuildings covering the view of the Rudramahalaya and Jami Masjid should be removedforimproving theenvironsandtothrowopenthegrandedificeto view.TheSuperintending Archaeologistrecommendedtheremovalofthe intermediatewallalsoasitwasamodernaccretion.Theproposalswere accepted and the acquisition of buildings was undertaken.¹⁵

IttooktheSurveytenlongyearstoacquirethemodernbuildings. After compensation waspaid, continues the Note, the buildings were handedover totheSurveyin1969.TheJointDirectorGeneral(laterDirector General) inspected the site on 3.6.69 and after discussion with the Collector, Mehsana,andtheTrusteesoftheMasjid,drewupanInspectionNotein whichheinstructedthat(i)thedemolitionofbuildingsshouldbedonein onesweep(ii)thecompound walloftheMasjidmayberetainedwith necessary modificationstoincludetheacquiredareaand(iii)the architecturalremainsthatmaybefoundintheclearanceoperationsshould bepreserved astheyarelikelytothrowlightontheplanofthe Rudramahalaya and (iv) a garden should be laid out in the acquired area.¹⁶

Forvariousreasons,theSurveycouldstartoperationsatSidhpuronly after tenmoreyearshadelapsed. AstheTrustees werepressingforpulling downtheacquiredhouses,theSuperintending Archaeologist,Baroda, inspected the site early inMay,1979and decided toimplement the decision oftheJointDirectorGeneralofArchaeology bypullingdowntheacquired houses.¹⁷ TheoperationswerestartedonMay29,1980.Asthenorthern wall wasveryshabbyandinadilapidated condition,ithadtoberepaired afterpulling down.Thediggingoftheacquiredareawasnecessaryforthe preparation ofagarden.HediscussedtheoperationwiththeTrusteesbut beforeanysteptopulldownthecompoundwallwastaken,theTrustees filed aWrit Petition intheHighCourt on12thJune,1979andaninjunction askingtheArchaeologicalSurveyofIndiatomaintainstatusquointhe Masjid area was issued.¹⁸

TheNote givesgreaterdetailsaboutthelitigationandthecompromises thatfollowed.TheWritPetitionNo.1662of1979versusUnionofIndia wasfiledbysixTrusteesoftheJãmiMasjid.Theyprayedfor(a)anorder ordirectionpermanentlyrestrainingthecorrespondent, hisservantsand agents fromdemolishing thesurroundingbuildings situatedonthesouthern sideofthelandbearingsurveyNo.37ofSidhpurtowninMehsana district inwhichtheancient MosquenamedJummaMasjidissituated,without constructing aprotectingwallsurroundingthesaidMasjid;(b)toissuean orderordirectiondirectingtherespondenttoerectorallowthepetitioners to erect acompound wall surroundingthesaid surveyNo.37ofthetownof SidhpurinMehsanadistrict;(c)issueaninjunctionrestraining the respondent,hisservantsoragentsfromdemolishing thewallsofthe buildingsonthesouthernsideandnorthernsideofsurveyNo.37which have yet not been demolished by him.¹⁹

The SurveydecidedtocontesttheWritPetition.ShriB.L.Nagarch, Superintending Archaeologist,WesternCircle,Baroda,filedanaffidavitin replyintheGujaratHighCourtinJuly,1979wherein hestatedthatthe purposeofdemolishingdiemodernbuildingssituatedaroundtheJumma MasjidandRudramahalayaacquiredbytheGovernmentofIndiawasto arrestfurtherdamagecausedbythemodernaccretions andnaturalcauses suchasrainandgrowthofvegetation,thatitistheresponsibilityofthe Department topreservetheMasjidandtheRudramahalandtheyhavenot interfered withtheestablishedreligioususageofaportionneartheJumma MasjidandthattheDepartment hastakenclearanceworknecessaryfor undertaking structuralrepairstotheroofandbackwallwhichisoutof plumbandhassomecavities.Hefurtherstatedthatthestructures being demolished werenotwithintheJummaMasjidbutoutsidethemonument, thattheacquisitionwassolelywithaviewtoundertaking therepairstothe monument andimprovethesurroundingsbylayingagarden.Hefurther statedthattheDepartmentwouldonlydemolishthemodernwallandnot any ancient structure.²⁰

TheHonourableJudgesuggestedacompromise ashefeltthatthe ArchaeologicalSurveywasonlytryingtoimprovethemonumentandits surroundings.ACompromisewasthenarrivedataccordingtowhichthe compound wallsweretoberepairedandagardenwastobelaidoutinthe courtyardof the Masjid.Its back wall was also to be repaired.²¹ The Trustees withdrew their Writ Petition on July 30, 1979.

TheCompromise, however,didnotwork.Whilediggingforexamining thefoundation ofshrinesandthebackwalloftheMasjid, important temple remainswerefoundonthewestandthenorth.According topara3of Compromise whengardenoperations(digging)werestartedintheopen courtyard templeremainswerefoundtherealso.TheTrusteesstarted hinderingfurtherwork.TheSuperintendingArchaeologist appealedtothe Collector oftheDistrict.TheCollectorcalledameetingatMehsanaon November 30,1979.TheTrusteeswerealsopresentinthemeeting.Itwas agreed thatfurther digging shouldbestopped andthatmeasures topreserve thetempleremains suchastheprovisionofacanopyoveritcouldbe thoughtof.Itwaspointedoutthatareawithinthecourtyard forthegarden wasnotusedforprayersascouldbemadeoutfromthedebrisetc.,that were lying there.²²

This agreement alsodidnotwork.ShriA.S.Quereshi,Advocateforthe Trustees, issuedanoticedatedthe6thFeb.1980totheSuperintendent, Archaeological DepartmentaskingtheDepartmenttobuildthecompound wallsasperthecompromiseandcoverupthetemple remains.TheSupdt. Archaeological Deptt. explained in persontheimportance ofthediscoveries madeandtheneedforrevisionofthecompromise intheinterestof preservingthepreciousculturalheritageofthecountry.AsShriQuereshi wantedtovisitthesitealongwithSupdt.Archaeological Deptt.hewentto Sidhpuronthe8thMarch,1980.Atfirst,heagreedtothepreservation but later heinsistedonclosingthetrenches inhisverypresence thatday.The Supdt. ArchaeologicalDepartmentordered closure of the trenches and constructionofcompoundwallandboththeworkswerestartedinhis presence.²³

TheHindusofSidhpurobjectedtothecoveringofthetempleremains thathadbeenuncovered.Tensionmountedinthetownasreportsspread thattheSurveywasfillingupthetrenches. Uptothe14thMarch,1980,a majorpartofthecomplexwascoveredandthenortherncompoundwall wasconstructed oversomelengthbutthenthetroublestartedandthe labourersrefusedtowork.²⁴ OnMarch15,1980,thePuratatvaSanskrutik AbhyasandSansodhanMandal, anorganisation formed bysomeHindusof Sidhpur inJanuary,1980,filedaCivilApplication No.644of1980against theUnionofIndiaandMr.S.R.Rao,Superintending Archaeologist.Their prayerismainlythattheexcavated areainthecourtyard oftheMasjid shouldnotbefilledupandthatstatus quoshouldbemaintainedinthe excavatedarea.²⁵ TheHighCourtgrantedastayandtheArchaeological Surveycouldnotproceedfurtherwiththeconstructionofthecompound wall.

Yet another attempt at a compromise wasmade after the riot onMarch 14 had beencontrolled.Soonaftertheincident,saystheCommissions Report, aseriesofmeetingswereheldbytheDistrictMagistrate withthe representatives of the Muslims and Hindus to work out an amicable solution.Anagreement wasreachedbetweentherepresentatives ofthetwo communities to the effect that the Muslims wouldforgotheir right ofprayer attheJamaMasjidonthefollowingconditions: (a)asuitableplotofland situated near the railway station is allotted to them for the construction of an alternativeMasjid;(b)pendingtheconstruction oftheMasjidbythe Muslims onthis plot ofland, they should be allowed to offer their Namazat the JamaMasjid;and(c) the Jama Masjidshouldbe maintainedas a nationalmonumentbytheArchaeologicalDepartmentandshouldnotbe open for any other use.²⁶

Butthiscompromise madebytheMuslimsofSidhpurwasrejectedby someMuslimorganisationsattheStatelevel.However,ontheinstigation ofsome ofthe Muslim organisations, proceeds the Report, the local Muslim leaders,whohadearlieragreedinthepresenceoftheDistt.Magistrateto the above terms of settlementconveyed their decision to wait until a decision wastaken onthe terms ofsettlement atthe State level. Atthesame time,someoftheMuslimorganisations steppeduptheirdemandfor allowing the Muslims to use the Jama Masjid for Namaz.²⁷

TheNotefromtheGovernmentofGujaratgivessomemoredetailsin this context. Onthe26thMarch,1980,HerExcellency theGovernorvisited Sidhpur.ShemetbothHindusandMuslims andadvisedthemthatthey shouldselectfivepersonsandthensittogetherandfindoutanamicable solution.SinceboththepartieswantedsomeGovernmentrepresentative to remainpresentduringthediscussion, theCollectorwasinstructed tohelp them.Thesameafternoon i.e.onthe26thMarch,boththepartiesmetand theaboveproposal wasputupbytheMuslims anddiscussedatlength.It wasdecidedthattheyshouldeffectthisagreementbeforetheHighCourt thenextday.Nextday,theyleftforAhmadabad butontheintervention of certainorganisations suchastheAllIndiaMuslimLeague,Jamat-e-Islami, GujaratAvkafandTrustFederation,theydecidedtowaittilladecisionat the Gujarat level was taken.²⁸

Finally,eightMuslimleadersjoinedtogether tofileafurtherWritinthe Gujarat HighCourtonApril5,1980.TheNotegivestheirnamesand designations²⁹ as follows:-

1. Shri GulzarshaAhmedshah Hakim, Managing Trustee of Jumma Masjid, Sidhpur.

2. Haji Hussainbhai Habibur Mansuri, Trustee Jumma Masjid Trust, Sidhpur.

3. Haji Ibrahim Haji Issak Quoreshi, Vice-President, Jamiet-ul-Ulema-e- Hind, Branch Sidhpur.

4. Imtiskhan Mahabubkhan Pathan, Secretary, Jamiet-ul-Ulema-e-Hind, Sidhpur Branch.

5. Maulvi Dawoodbhai Haji Suleman, President, Jamiet-ul-Ulma-e-Hind, Mehsana Distt. Branch-Resident-Patan.

6. Maulvi Mohammed Ussian Fateh Mohammed, President, Uttar Gujarat Masjid Bachao Samiti, Village Bhagal, Taluka Palanpur.

7. Abbas Tajmohammed, Vice-President of Uttar Gujarat Masjid Bachao Samiti, Village Bhagal, Tal-Palanpur.

8. Dr. Rehmatulla Ahmedullah Hakim, President, Gujarat Muslim Vakf and Trust Federation, Ahmadabad.

Their prayers,accordingtotheNote,are:(a)JummaMasjidshouldbe declaredMasjidopenforofferingNamaz;(b)Tofilluptheexcavationat theflooroftheKibla(Western)wallandinthecourtyardoftheMasjid before1.5.80;(c)Toputacompoundwallwhereitexistedbeforeandit shouldbeofstoneandhighenoughtopreventoutsideinterference; (d)To covertheentirecourtyard withstoneslabflooringandtorebuildmuazams quarterwithstoneslab;(e)Togivepermission totheTrusteestohave electric points in adequate number.³⁰

TheMuslimOrganisations,accordingtotheNote,adoptedsomeother methodsalsoforpressingtheirdemands.Someoftheorganisations appear tohavetakenthedecision thattelegramsshouldbesenttoGovernment requesting toallowMuslimstousetheJummaMasjidforNamazand accordingly, a large number of telegrams have been received by Government fromtheMuslimsofGujaratandBombay.³¹ Again:The Muslims appeartohavealsodecidedtosendprintedletterstoGovernment requesting thatanycompromise oranywritingsregardingconversionof Jumma Masjid atSidhpur into aprotected monument will not be binding on them.Accordingly,morethan2400printedlettershavebeenreceivedby Government.³²

Havingconsidered thetotalityofthesituationinthelightofthe pepresentation/memorandumreceived fromtheMuslims ofSidhpur andthe report sentbytheAdvisertotheGovernor, theCommission decided tovisit Sidhpurforanon-the-spotstudyofthedispute.³³ Butthevisithadtobe postponed duetovarious reasons. TheCommission wasfinallyabletovisit Sidhpuron2ndNovember,1980,whenitinspectedthesiteoftheJama Masjidandalsohelddiscussionswithrepresentatives oftheMuslimsand HindusatSidhpurandtheStateGovt.officials.³⁴ Thelistofpersonswho appearedbeforetheCommissioninconnectionwiththedispute,names15 Muslims, 7 Officials and 5 Hindus.³⁵

AsaresultofthediscussiontheCommission suggestedan8-point formulafor settlement: (1) The Rudramahalayacomplex including the mosque wouldberetainedasanationalmonument.(2)TheMosquewould bemaintainedinitsoriginalshape.Thesanctityofthemosquewouldbe ensuredbytheA.S.I.andtheStateGovernment.Alsothesanctityofthe newlyexposedtempleoneithersideofthemosquewouldbemaintained. (3)Theexcavationsonthewesternsideofthemosqueaswellasthosein thecourtyard ontheeasternsideofthemosquewillbefilledup.Ancient relicsfoundinthepresentexcavations wouldberemovedbeforethefilling up. The existing Western Qibla wall of the mosque proper would be restoredtoitsoriginalconditionandstrengthened.Theouterwallwhich wascovering thetwotowersoneithersidecontaining sculptures wouldnot be rebuilt. (4)Noworshipinanyformwouldbeofferedbyanycommunity withintheprecinctsoftheRudramahalaya Complex.(5)TheA.S.I.would not make any further excavations within the mosque areaformerly enclosed bythecompound wall. (6)Nogathering forany religious purposewouldbe permitted within the Rudramahalaya complex. (7)Theenforcement ofthese itemswouldbeguaranteedbytheStateGovernment andtheCentral Government. (8)TheStateGovernmentwouldprovideatnominalcostan alternativesitefortheconstructionofanewmosqueattheGovernment Dharmashalaneartheclocktowerafterremovingallexistingcabinsand evicting the occupants of the Dharmashala.³⁶

TheformulawashailedbythethenHomeMinisterandChiefSecretary oftheGovernmentofGujarat. TheyassuredtheCommissionthatthey wouldbeabletobringaboutasolutionofthedisputetothesatisfaction of boththecommunitiesonthebasisoftheabove-mentionedterms.³⁷ Butit didnotleadtoafinalsettlement.TheCommission recordsattheendofits Reportonthisdispute:FivemonthshaveelapsedsincetheCommission visitedSidhpurandsettledmostofthedifferences betweenthetwo communities overtheuseoftheJamaMasjidandtheRudramahalaya complex. TheHomeMinisterandtherepresentativesoftheState Government had extended the assurance tothe Commission that they would beabletobringaboutasatisfactorysolutiontotheabovedisputeonthe basisofthetermsofsettlementsuggestedbytheCommission withina reasonable spanoftime.However,nofinalsettlementseemstohavebeen reached yet.³⁸

ThestoryasrelatedintheCommissions reportcombinedwiththeNote fromtheGovernment ofGujarattellsusafewthingsaboutthebehaviour patternsofthedifferent partiesinvolved inthedispute-theTrusteesofthe JãmiMasjid,theArchaeologicalSurveyofIndiaandtheGovernmentof Gujarat. Italsogivesusaglimpse ofthequality andcharacter ofleadership thrownupbythetwocommunities inthedisputeoveraplaceofworship. Butwhat interestsusprimarily inthepresentstudyisthetempleremains exposedbytheArchaeological SurveyofIndiainandaroundtheJãmi Masjid.Thesetempleremainspointtowardsafarmoremomentous story which has yet to be told.

II

Apicture ofthetempleremainsexposedintheJãmiMasjidareaat Sidhpur has to be pieced together from five sources which we have arranged accordingtotheextentofdetailsgiven.First,wehavetheNote fromdieGovernment ofGujarat.Secondly,wehavethereplyreceivedby theMinorities'CommissionfromtheArchaeological SurveyofIndia. Thirdly, wehavetheAnnual Reports oftheArchaeological SurveyofIndia for1979-80and1980-81.Fourthly, wehaveadescription intheMinorities' Commissions ReportofwhatitsmemberssawduringtheirvisittoSidhpur onNovember 2,1980.Lastly,wehaveanarticlebyB.L.Nagarchincluded inacommemorationvolumebroughtoutbyaprivatepublishinghousein 1987. Shri Nagarch was one of the Superintending Archaeologists at Sidhpur at the time the temple remains were sighted.

The Note from the Government of Gujarat

ThemainpurposeoftheNotewastonarratetheincidentswhichtook place atSidhpurduringMarchandApril,1980.Itreferstotempleremains onlywhenthenarration touchesthemwhiledescribing thedisputebetween theTrusteesoftheJãmiMasjidandtheArchaeological Survey.The narrationmentionstempleremainsseveraltimeindifferentcontexts.But we are left wondering whether they are architectural or sculptural or both.

The Archaeological Survey of India

TheMinorities'Commission hadcalledforareportfromtheDirector General oftheArchaeological SurveyofIndia immediately afteritreceived onOctober 4,1979aletter from the Trustees ofthe Jãmi Masjid stating that theHindusofSidhpur weretryingtousurptheMasjid.Thedateonwhich theCommission wrotetotheSurveyisnotgivenintheCommissions Report,northedateonwhichitreceived areplyfromtheSurvey.Allwe haveisoneparaincorporatedintheCommissionsReport.Itsays,The matter was taken up with the Archaeological Survey of India which reportedthatruinsofRudraMahalaya ComplexandJamaMasjidat Sidhapur, thoughformingoneComplexwerebeingprotectedindividually undertheAncientMonumentsandArchaeological SitesandRemains (DeclarationofPlacesofNationalImportance)andwerebeingpreserved onthelinestheywereoriginally protected.Thedisputearoseoutof demolitionofthesurroundingbuildings,whileconstructingaprotective wallaroundtheMasjid, whichexposedsomeHinduidolswithinthe precincts of the mosque.³⁹

TheAnnualReportofArchaeological SurveyofIndiafor1979-80 published in1983hasthreeentriesonwhatwasdiscovered atSidhpur.The first entryisinChapterIVwhichdealswithOtherImportantDiscoveries, State by State. We find the following entry under Gujarat:

7.SCULPTURES,SIDHPUR,DISTRICTMEHSANA -ShriP.K. TrivedioftheWesternCircleoftheSurvey,discoveredsculpturesof HinduandJainapantheons, assignable variouslyfromthetenthto eighteenthcenturyADandaninscribedbrassimageofVishnudated Samvat 1485 (AD 1429). ⁴⁰

Next, it has the following two entries in Chapter IX dealing with Preservation of Monuments in different Circles of the Survey:

288.JAMI-MASJID, SIDHPUR,DISTRICTMEHSANA-The dilapidated western wall of the mosque is being repaired. While carryingoutdemolitionandclearanceofwoodenstructuresfromthe acquired areatheremainsofsomeearlierstructures havebeenfound. The work is in progress.

289.RUDRAMAHALAYA,SIDHPUR,DISTRICTMEHSANA-The clearanceofdebrisafterdemolitionofthemodernbuildings fromthe acquired areayieldednumberofloosesculptures,includingremainsof an earlier temple.⁴¹

Thepublication hassixty-fourplatescarryingonehundredandthirty photographs. NophotographofwhatwasfoundatSidhpurhasbeen included.

TheAnnualReportfor1980-81alsopublishedin1983hasoneentryin

Chapter IV dealing with Other Important Discoveries. It says:

13.MEDIEVALSCULPTURES,SIDHPUR,DISTRICTMEHSANA - B.L.Nagarch,P.K.TrivediandH.Michael oftheWesternCircleofthe Surveynoticedsculptures ofseatedUma-Mahesvara,aroyal worshippingcouple,aheadofSiva(pl.;;;VIA)andafragmentof Salabhanjika recovered from the Jami Mosque. All these are assignable to circa twelfth century AD.⁴²

The publication hasfifty-eightplatescarryingonehundredandforty photographs. Onlyonephotograph, AonplateXXXVI,showstheHeadof Siva found at Sidhpur.

Report of the Minorities' Commission

TheReport hasrecordedineightparaswhatitsmemberssawwiththeir own eyes while visiting the site at Sidhpur. Out of them, six paras - 1-2, 5-6, and 8 - relate to temple remains. They are as follows:

1.Aportionofthecourtyard ofthemosqueintheeastwasduguptoa depth of10ft.Inaportion ofthispitastoneNandi(bull)wasembedded in the earth. Wealso sawseveral pieces oftemple architecture which hadbeen dug up and kept in the pit.

2.The opensitetotheNorthofthemosque wasalsofoundsimilarly dug up and several temple relics were lying exposed in these pits.

3.There weretwocubicles, oneattheNorthern andtheotheroneatthe Southernsideofthemosque.IntheNortherncubicle,therewasaSiva Lingaembeddedintheearthandanidolcarvingembeddedinthewall whileintheSouthern cubicletherewasonlyanidolcarvinginthewall but no Siva Linga.

5.TheNorthern andSouthern wingsofthemosquewhichhadhitherto beencoveredupwerenowlyingexposedobviouslyasaresultofremoval of the covering material on these two wings disclosing rich temple carvings.

6.ThefoundationoftheNorthernwingwasalsolyingexposedandit also revealed rich temple carvings.

8.AportionofthegroundontheWestern sideofthemosquewasalso founddugupandthiswasfoundtocontainsometemplerelicsaswellas the stone slabs which had been removed from the outer wall of the mosque.⁴³

Itmaybementioned thatbythetimetheCommission cametoSidhpur, a majorpartoftheexcavations hadbeencoveredup.TheNotefromthe Government ofGujaratstatesthat,uptothe14thMarch,1980,amajorpart ofthecomplexwascoveredandthenortherncompound wallwas constructed over some length⁴⁴

Article by B.L. Nagarch

B.L.Nagarch isatrainedarchaeologistfamiliarwiththetechnical languageusedfordescribing detailsofHindutemples.Healsoknowshow toidentifyanddescribevarioussculpturesanddecorative designs.Asthe major part ofhis article is devoted to temple remains, wehave tocite him at some length and under several sections.

1. The Buried Temples

Forcarryingoutrepairstothebulgedwesternwallofthemasjidand overhangingfoundationofthesouth-westernshrine,itwasnecessaryto examinethefoundationbyexcavating. Ornamental plinthofapre-Solanki temple(Period-I)wasfoundinthecourseofexcavationforunderpinning overhanging foundation of south-western shrine. This plinth (jagatî) consistsofabhiTTa, kapotadecoratedwithkuDûs,karNikã,tamãla- paTTikã(friezedecoratedwithtamãlapatras), plainkhura,kumbha decorated withhalfdiamonddesignsandplainkalaa(Pl.I).Thedislodged coursesofthewestern wallofthemasjidbelowthegroundlevelwerealso revealedduringthecourseofexaminationofitsfoundationbyexcavation. A Jar in situ was also exposed over the plinth of this pre-Solanki temple.

Thedebrisneartheentranceofmasjidwasremoved.Thehiddenplinth of north-western shrine wasexposed asaresult ofexcavation forexamining itsfoundation.Duringthecourseofexamination ofthefoundationofthis north-westernshrine,theplinthofanotherpre-Solankitemplewasfound (Pl.II).Thestoneflooring oftheplinthshowedtheuseofclampsand dowelsforbindingthestonestogether.Themouldings ofthisplinthshow frombottomupwardsbhiTTa,kapotadecoratedwithkuDûs,antarapatra, karNikã,antarapatra, tamãlapaTTikãcarvedwithtamãla-patras,khura, kumbhadecorated withhalfdiamond designs,kalaaandkapotadecorated with kuDûs.

Anotherexquisitely carvedtempleattachedtotheaforesaidpre-Solanki temple(I)waslaidbareinthenorth-west corneroutsidethemosque while excavating forgardening(Pl.III).Theplinthofthistempleshowsfrom bottomupwardsbhiTTa,kapotadecorated withkuDûs,antarapatra, karNikã, antarapatra, tamãla-paTTikã carved with tamãla-patras, naratharaanddiamondsinpanels.OnlytheplinthofthemaNDapa ofthis temple hassurvived. The sanctum ofthis temple ismissing. The door-sill of thesanctumdoor-wayisfortunatelyinsitu.Themandãrakacarvedwith spiral lotusscroll isflanked oneithersidebyaboldkîrtimukha. Apanelon therightofthekîrtimukhaontherightdepictsworshipofGaNea(Plate- IV). Four-armed GaNea isseated inaniche. Heisflanked onthe right bya standing maleandontheleftbyastandingfemaleattendant.Thenicheis flanked on the right by a standing female standing in tribhañga and carryingkaTiandkalaaandontheleftbytwofemaleattendants, each standingintribhañgaandcarryingkaTi andupraisedin praiseof god (praansãmudrã).GaNeacarrieschoppedoffparau,padmaandmodaka- pãtra. He wears a karaNDamukuTa, hãra and sarpayajñopavîta.

Apanelontheleftofthekîrtimukhaontheleftshowsnichecontaining animageofafour-armedKuberaseatedinlalitãsanawithhisconsort.He isflankedontherightbyafemalechaurî-bearer standingintribhañgaand holding a chaurî byherrighthand.Theniche isflanked ontherightbytwo femaleattendants, eachstandingintribhañga andontheleftbyamale attendant standingintribhañga.Kuberaandhisconsortweareacha karaNDamukuTa. Kubera holds a purse. His belly has been chopped off.

A beautifully carvedpanelshowsafightingscene(Period-IA)with warriorsholdingswordsintheirhands,ahorseriderandanelephant(Pl. V).Another panel onnaratharadepicts afighting scene withthreewarriors holding swords, a galloping horse and a running camel.

Other noteworthy (Pl.VI)among thescenes carved onthenarathara isa huntingscenewhereinamanholdingabowandarrowisseenshooting an arrow at the band of seven deers. (Pl. VII).

A small shrine ofIndrãNî opposite the aforesaid temple IA(pre-Solanki), was also laid bare during excavation for gardening after demolishing modernbuildings(Pl.VIII).Thisshrineiscomposedoftwoornamented pilastersandissurmounted byachhadya carvedwithlotuspetals.Eachof thepilastersshowsfrombottomupwardskumbhikã,decoratedwithhalf- diamond design,plainkalaa,shaftshowingsquare,octagonalandcircular sectionscarvedwithahumanfigure,kîrtimukhawithpearlscomingout, bharaNîconsistingofkarNîkã andpadmasurmountedbyvaseandfoliage motif.Thehuman figureontherightpilasterisafemalestandingin tribhañga andcarryingkaTiandpraansãmudrã.Abovethisiscarvedthe nameofthesculptorVoDadevainDevanãgarîcharacters.Thehuman figureontheleftpilasterisadancingmale.Abovethisiscarvedthename of the sculptor as Dadã.

Four-armed IndrãNîisseatedinlalitãsanaandcarriesvaradãksha, modakapãtra,lotus-stalk andkamaNDalu.ShewearskaraNDamukuTa, vaikakshayaka,hãra,keyûras,valayas,nûpurasandasãrîfastenedbya mekhalã.Themountelephantiscarvedbelow.Onthepedestalisinscribed the name of the sculptor in Devanãgarî characters (Pl. IX).

Themouldingsoftheplinthofnorth-western shrinewithfriezesof sculptures carvedonanumberofthem,wereexposedincourseofremoval ofdebrisanddiggingforgardening. Theyshowfrombottomupwards bhiTTa, bhiTTa,plainjãDaMba,antarapatra,karNikã,antarapatra, grãsapaTTi, gajathara, narathara, khura, kumbha, decorated with friezesof sculpturesandbejewelledkalaSa(Pl. X). Carvingson the plinthand parapetofthesabhãmaNDapaofnorth-west shrinewerealsorevealed duringclearance ofdebris.ThefullviewofthesabhãmaNDapaofnorth- westshrinewasexposedafterremovingtherubble-and-mudcompound wall(Pl.XI).TheplinthoftempleIIwhich served asbasefornorthwest shrine was also revealed (Pl. XII).

Theopenareainfrontoftheprayer hallofthemasjid withshabby pavement where shrubsand trees were growingand debris had accumulated andwhichwasnotusedforprayer,wasexcavated forlayingoutagarden. While excavating forgarden in the eastern part ofopen courtyard in front of theprayerhall,thesculpture ofanelephantandremainsofatemplewere found.Theornamented plinthofthistempleshowsfrombottomupwards jãDaMbadecoratedwithboldlotus-scroll, karNikã,kapotadecoratedwith kuDûs and grãsapaTTi(Pl.XIII).Theplinthshowsthatthetempleaboveit waspañcharatha inplan.Anundergroundpassagebelowtheplinthofthis temple(Period-II) alsocametolight.Wellpolishedstoneshavebeenused fortheconstruction ofthisundergroundpassage.Besidesthesculpturesof theelephantmentioned above,ahumanfigureandlotusdesignswerealso foundbythe side ofthe beautifully carved plinth ofthetemple. Thistemple foundduringexcavation forgardeningoperationisperhapsofthetimeof Mûlarãja (Period-II).⁴⁵

2. Smothered Sculptures

When thebulgedportionofthewesternwallofthemasjidwasbeing dismantled,itwasbroughttolightthatthiswallwasadoublewall.When theouterwallwasdismantled thedebrisincludingsculpturaland architectural fragments filledinbetweentheinnerandouterwallcameout.

Therewasadifferenceofonemetrebetweentheinnerandouterwalland all this space wasfilled with debris. Itcould nowbeseen that theinner wall wasbuiltoutofthevedikãpilastersandotherruinsofRudramahãlaya. Whentheouterwallwasremoved,anumberofhiddensculpturesofthe south-westandnorth-westshrine,whichwerepreviouslyhiddendueto wall, were also exposed to view (Pl. XIV). Noteworthy among the sculptures of the south-western shrine are:

1. A standing apsaras.

2. A standing ascetic.

3. Four-armed VaruNa standing in tribhañga.

4. Four-armed Vãyu standing in tribhañga.

5. A standing ascetic.

6. A standing naked ascetic.

7. Two-armed dancing female-deity holding a sword and a chopped head.

8. Two-armed female-deity holding añkua and kapãla.

9. A standing ascetic.

10. A standing female with her right hand upraised and left hand in kaTi.

11. A niche-shrine on the northern bhadra (central projection) containing an image of eight-armed ChãmuNDã standing in tribhañga.

Noteworthy among the sculptures of the north-western shrine are:

1. A chopped niche.

2,3. A standing bearded ascetic holding a dagger in his right hand.

4. Four-armed standing NiRriti with a serpent canopy above his head.

5. Four-armed standing Yama with his head and hands chopped off.

6. A standing ascetic holding a kamaNDalu in his left hand.

7. A standing ascetic wearing a kaupîna. His right hand is upraised.

8. Two-armed dancing female-deity. A dancing dwarf male attendant is seen on her right.

9. Two-armed standing female-deity.

10. A standing ascetic.His right hand is upraised and he holds a knife by his left hand.

11. Two-armed dancing female-deity.

12. A niche-shrine on the southern bhadra containing an image of sixteen- armed Shiva with his right foot upraised and placed on a lotus. A warrior with a sword is shown below the lotus. Shiva holds sarpa, khaTvãñga and kheTaka in his surviving hands. He is multi-headed.⁴⁶

3. Inside the Qibla Wall of the Masjid

While the bulged andoutofplumb western wall oftheJami Mosquewas beingdismantledthefollowingsculpturesandarchitectural members embedded inside the wall came to light:-

1. An elephant rider.

2. A beautiful head of Shiva.

3. A dancing gaNa.

4. A bust of a four-armed bearded male-deity.

5. A bearded male drummer.

6. Fragments of an elephant.

7. Three busts of ãlabhañjikã bracket figures.

8. An image of four-armed dancing Siva (NaTarãja).

9. Fragments of an ãmalaka.

10. Fragments of chandrikã.

11. Fragments of SaMvarNã roof of the maNDapa.

12. Fragments of hikhara decorated with chaitya-gavãkshas.

13. Fragments of vedikã, kakshãsana and rãjãsana.

Amongthesculpturesrecoveredfromthewesternwallofthemosque noteworthy isaheadofSivawearingelaboratelycarvedjaTãmukuTa.The expression ofhisfacewithhalfopeneyes,gracefullycarvednoseand prominent chin is serene (Pl. XVI). It measures 40 x 25 x 25 cms.⁴⁷ 

4. Converted Shrines

Duringthecourseofdismantling ofthewesternwallofthemosque,two ofthethreeshrineswhichwereconvertedintomosque,werealsoexposed toview.Thedebrisfilledinsidethemwasremoved. Theshrineonthe southernsidehasinsideitacircularyonipaTTa fixedintoitsfloor.The Shivalinga above thisyonipaTTa is missing. Therearwallofthisshrinehas niches composed of three pilasters and each surmounted by a small pedimentofchaitya arches.OneofthenichescontainsseatedUmã- Mahevara on the mount bull and the other contains a donor couple (probably KingSiddharãjaJaisinghandhisqueen).Thebeardedmale (Siddharãja Jaisingh)isshownstandingwithfoldedhandsinanattitudeof supplication.Hisqueenisstandingonhisleft.Onthesouthwestern corner is a small water cistern for storage of water (Plate-XVI).

Theceiling oftheshrineiselaborately carved.Thearchitraveofthe ceilingiscarvedwithpadmalatãandcut-triangles.Theceilingiscarved withakîrtimukha ateachcorner.Thisdomicalceilinghasfourconcentric coursesoflotuses. The centre ofthe dome iscarved with afull-blown lotus. Ithasanelaborately carveddoor-way.Theceilingoftheantarãlaiscarved with fine full blown lotuses. The shrine measures 2.08 x 2.15 x 3.07 mtrs.

The northern shrine measures 2.19 x 2.02 x 2.95 mtrs. internally.

Thearchitraveoftheceilingiselaborately carvedwithlotusscrolland cut-triangles. Eachofthecorners oftheceilingiscarvedwithakîrtimukha. Thedomicalceilingconsists ofthreecoursesoflotuscoursesofconcentric circles.Atthecentreofthedomicalceilingiscarvedafullblownlotus. There is a chandrailã in front of the shrine.

Theshrinehasanelaborately carveddoorwaywhichhasbeenbadly damaged. The ceiling of the antarãla is carved with five full blown lotuses.

ThenorthernshrinehasinsideitssanctumaShivaliñgainstalledona yonipaTTa. Therearwallofthesanctum iscarvedwithtwoniches,oneof whichcontainsadonor,aroyalcouple(probablySiddharãja Jaisinghwith hiswife).Afemaleisseenholding aparasolabovetheheadofthebearded kingtheheadofwhosewifehasbeenchoppedoff.Thepilastersofthis nichearehighlyornamented. Theothernichecontainsanimageofaqueen standing in tribhañga. Herboth handsandhead have been chopped off.She isflankedoneithersidebytwofemaleattendantsstandingintribhañga. (Pl.XVIII).Bothofthesesculptures areofwhitemarble.Theotherimages which are at present kept in the sanctum are:

1.Bustofadancing apsaras,hermaleattendantholdingaparasolabove herheadisdepictedonherleft. HerrightbreasthasbeenChoppedoff.It measures 45 x 17 x 12 cms.

2.ShivaNaTarãja inside anichewithamakaratoraNa.Thenicheis flankedoneithersidebyastandingmaleattendant.Itmeasures48x58x 25 cms.

3.Astoneslabcarvedwithanichecomposedoftwocircularpilasters and surmounted byasmall pediment ofchaitya-arches. Thenicheiscarved with an elaboratedoor from which a womanis seen coming out and catching holdofachildinherrighthand.Herheadhasbeenchopped off. Thenicheisflankedoneithersidebyadwarfmaleattendant. Itismadeof white sand-stone and measures 70 x 60 x 42 cms.

4. Four-armed dancing NaTarãja inside aniche, carrying indistinct parau, khaTvãñgaandkapãla.Itismadeofwhitesand-stoneandmeasures40x 55 x 8 cms.

5.HeadofadeitywearingkaraNDamukuTa.Itismadeofwhitesand- stone and measures 20 x 15 x 15 cms.

6.Adancingmale.Itmeasures35x27x7cms. Madeofwhitesand- stone.

7.HeadofYamawearing karaNDmukuTa.Hehaslongmoustaches, protruding teeth, bulging eyes, and is bearded. It measures 27 x 15 x 7 cms.

8. Bust of a bearded male drummer measuring 20 x 19 x 20 cms.

9. Head of an apsaras measuring 20 x 20 x 20 cms.

10. Bust of a dancing apsaras. It measures 40 x 15 x 20 cms.

11.Adancing maleinsideasmallniche.Attheleftendofthisslabis carved abeautifulheadofanapsaraswhosehairareveryelaborately arranged. It is made of white sand-stone and measures 40 x 40 x 25 cms.

12.Astoneslabcarvedwithadancingmale.Onhisrightiscarveda bearded maledrummerwhoseheadhasbeenpartlychoppedoff.Itismade of white sand-stone and measures 32 x 35 x 12 cms.

13. A bearded male dancing. Both his legs have been chopped off. He has moustaches. Itmeasures52x35x20cms.Itismadeofwhitesand-stone. He wears earlobes.⁴⁸

ThearticlebyB.L.Nagarchisaccompanied byeighteenplatesof photographsandaplanoftheRudramahãlayacomplex.Thephotographs showthetempleremains,sculpturalandarchitectural, discoveredinand aroundtheJãmiMasjid.Theplanshowsthreeunexcavatedzoneswhereit ismostlikelythatmanymoretempleremainsarelyingburied,waitingto be exposed some day by the excavator's spade.

1 Fourth Annual Report of the Minorities' Commission for the Period 1.1.1980 to 31.3.1981, New Delhi, 1983, p. 130. 

2 Ibid., pp. 130-31. 

3 Ibid., p. 131. 

4 Ibid., p. 129. 

5 Ibid., p. 133. 

6 Ibid., pp. 133-34. It may be noted that no Jana Sangh existed at that time, the party having merged itself in the Janata Party in May, 1977. 

7 Ibid., p. 134. 

8 Ibid., p. 132. 

9 Ibid., p. 134. 

10 Ibid., p. 132. 

11 Ibid., p. 134.

12 Ibid. 

13 Ibid., p. 140. 

14 Ibid., p. 141. Emphasis added. 

15 Ibid., pp. 141-42. 

16 Ibid., p. 142. 

17 Ibid. 

18 Ibid. 

19 Ibid., pp. 149-50. 

20 Ibid., p. 150. 

21 Ibid., p. 143. 

22 Ibid. 

23 Ibid., Emphasis added. 

24 Ibid., p. 144. 

25 Ibid., p. 151. 

26 Ibid., pp. 132-33. 

27 Ibid., p. 133. 

28 Ibid., p. 146. 

29 Ibid., pp. 151-52. 

30 Ibid., p. 152.

31 Ibid., p. 146. 

32 Ibid., p. 147. 

33 Ibid., pp. 134-35. 

34 Ibid., p. 135. 

35 Ibid., p. 139. 

36 Ibid., pp. 136-37. 

37 Ibid., p, 137. 

38 Ibid., p. 138. 

39 Ibid., P. 9. 

40 Indian Archaeology 1979-80 - A Review, p. 99. 

41 Ibid., P. 148. 

42 Indian Archaeology 1980-81 -A Review, p. 90. 

43 Fourth Annual Report, pp. 135-36. 

44 Ibid., p. 144. 

45 Recent Archaeological, Discoveries from Rudramahãlaya and Jãmi Masjid, Sidhpur, Kusumãñjali: Shri Sivarãmamûrti Commemoration Volume, Delhi, 1987, Vol. II, pp. 396--97. 

46 Ibid., pp. 397-98. 

47 Ibid., pp. 398-99. 

48 Ibid., pp. 399-400.

2. The Story of Rudramahãlaya

Inordertounderstand fullythemeaning ofwhatwasexposed atSidhpur and the strife it caused, we have to know what the Rudramahãlaya was, how itcametobebuiltatSidhpur andhowaJãmiMasjidwasraisedonitssite andfromitsdebris.TheReportoftheMinorities' Commissionprovides somehistoricalbackground. SodoestheNotefromtheGovernmentof Gujarat.Buttheinformation ismeagreandleavesalottobetold.Bothof them were dealing with acommunal problem andwere notexpected togive a detailed history of Sidhpur, the Rudramahãlaya and the Jãmi Masjid.

Sidhpur

The Note from the Government of Gujarat gives no information about the historicalorreligiousimportance ofSidhpur.TheReportoftheMinorities' CommissionsaysthatSidhpurisahistoricaltownandthatitwasruled successively byHinduRajasandMuslimSultans.¹ Thereisnoreferenceto thereligiousimportanceofSidhpurasaplaceofHindupilgrimage.The articlebyB.L.Nagarch bringsoutthatpointwhenitsaysthatasthe obsequial offeringstothepaternalancestorsmustbemadeatGaya,so corresponding offeringstothematernalancestorshavetobeperformedat Sidhpur. NagarchtellsusalsothattheancientnameofSidhpurappearsto havebeenrîsthalaorrîsthalaka andthatthenameofSidhapurwasgivento thisplaceinhonourofSiddharãja JayasiMha whocompleted theTemple of Rudra-Mahãdeva in the twelfth century here.²

ThePurãNasregardrîsthala asthemostsacredspotintheSãrasvata- maNDala ofGujarat.TheBhãgvata PurãNaassociates itwithKardama rishi, who had his hermitage here, and also with Kapila muni, who was born in thisplaceonthebankofthesacredSarasvatiriver.Itwasalsoknownas Vindusara.³ ItissaidthatANahillapãTaka orANahillapaTTaNa, thecapital ofmedievalGujaratbeforeAhmadabad cameupinthefirstquarterofthe fifteenth century,wasfoundedwhereitwasbecauseofitsnearnessto rîsthala.

ANahillapaTTaNa, nowknownasPatan,wasbuiltinAD745by Vanarãja,thefounderoftheChãvoTkaTa orChãpãorChãvdãdynasty.It reacheditsgreatestglory,however,inthereignofJayasiMha(AD1094-1143),themostillustrious ruleroftheChaulukyaorSolãñkîdynastyof Gujarat. Jayasimhawasverymuchdevotedtorîsthalaandvisiteditoften inordertokeepthecompanyofsagesandsaintslivingatthisplace.There is apopularlegendthatJayasiMha defeated andcaptured Barbara, ademon whowasmolestingtheholymenatrîsthala.Barbara,wearetold,became hisobedientservantandperformedmanysuperhumandeedsforhim.That ishowJayasiMhaearnedthesobriquetofSiddharãja. Hebuiltatrîsthalaa templededicated toRudraMahãkãlawhichbecameknownas Rudramahãlaya orsimplyRudramãla. Becauseofitscloseassociationwith Siddharãja, rîsthala became known as Siddhapura which name was corrupted to Sidhpur in course of time.

The spiritual fame ofSidhpur, however, proved tobe its misfortune when