A recent verdict from the Madhya Pradesh high court declared a 700-year-old mosque to be a temple of Hindu goddess Saraswati. The Kamal Maula Mosque, a 14th century hypostyle mosque, which was also the first Jama masjid (congregational mosque) of Dhar, was said to be built on a pre-existing temple in a court ordered Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The history of the dispute surrounding the mosque, popular by the modern misnomer of Bhojshala (hall of Bhoja, an 11th century Paramara king), the ASI survey as well as the court verdict are problematic in its understanding of historical sources, the phenomenon of architectural reuse and the historical evolution of religions.The verdict relies on the ASI survey to declare the Kamal Maula mosque as an 11th century temple. The brief findings of the ASI survey as recorded in the court order indicate a pre existing structure underneath the mosque which was “massive perhaps for public purpose”(p. 186). It further states that the pre-existing structure was “damaged and modified for reuse” (Ibid). Later, on page 189, the ASI contradicts itself when stating that the “art and architecture of these pillars and pilasters in colonnades suggest that they were originally part of temples.” Interestingly, the remains then do not come from a single structure but from multiple temples (p. 189). The identification of the underneath structure as a temple is done purely on the basis of the material reused in the mosque. According to the ASI, figures of four-armed deities as well as of other Puranic gods such as Ganesha can be found on the reused pillars, albeit defaced owing to Islamic iconoclasm. The ASI in its survey does not entertain the possibility that the structure underneath could be a palace and that the material reused to make the mosque could have also been sourced from a palace. Sculptural reliefs featuring deities were a common feature of palace pillars, cornices and doors. Felix Otter in his study (2010) on Residential Architecture in the Samranganasutradhara has argued how both sacred and profane sculptures were used to decorate residential spaces including palaces. The Sanskrit text Samranganasutradhara is incorrectly attributed to the 11th century Paramara king Bhoja, even though writing analysis done by Otter shows how multiple authors put together the text. The ASI also overlooks its own finding that the material reused in the mosque comes from multiple sources and not just one structure (p. 189). Furthermore, the survey provides no evidence for its assertion that the pre-existing structure was the one that was damaged and re-used in the mosque. The 2019 Ayodhya verdict, p 906-907 had proven how a full fledged excavation underneath the illegally demolished Babri mosque could not show that the structure underneath had been destroyed. How is then ASI able to prove destruction of the underneath structure with just a GPR survey? That the pre-existing structure was possibly a palace is also bolstered by the “discovery” of the “Vagdevi” statue. This is first introduced on p. 12 and it is alleged that the statue is the “idol of Goddess Vagdevi (Maa Saraswati) which had been buried there by Muslim rulers”. This is followed by a website link, which misspells British Museum and is therefore a broken link. This idol is discussed again on p. 44 and here as well the website link leads to nowhere because it again manages to misspell British Museum. The correct website link presents a curious picture. The exhibit is mentioned as a “Standing figure of the Jaina yakṣiṇī Ambikā carved in a coarse white marble”. The figure is nowhere in the British museum website identified as that of Goddess Saraswati. The identification of this figure as Jaina Yakshini Ambika is done by the inscription on the figure which dates the sculpture to 1034 CE and states that Vararuci after fashioning the idol of Vagdevi and three Jinas, made this image of Amba. In fact, Vararuci identifies himself in the inscription as one who is intent on the dharma of the Chandranagari and Vidyadhari, which are branches of Jain religion. Not only then is the sculpture that of a Jaina yakshini it is also made by a Jaina. This information is thoroughly ignored, on page 12 and both Vagdevi and Amba are regarded as forms of goddess Saraswati, without giving any evidence to support such a ridiculous assertion! What is completely omitted from the verdict is also the fact that the figure of the Jaina Yakshini was found in the ruins of a city palace in Dhar in 1875 by colonial surveyor William Kincaid. This information is clearly listed on the British museum’s website but is completely absent from the court order. The deliberate misrepresentation of the Jaina Yakshini Ambika as the idol of Saraswati is the only evidence produced to allege that a Saraswati temple made by Paramara king Bhoja existed here and was built in 1034 CE. Given how important the misrepresentation of the figure is to the entire case, one wonders if the link to the British Museum website, which identifies the figure as being found in a palace not a temple and being of Jaina origin, was deliberately misspelt not once but twice in the order. That the figure found by Kincaid in 1875 was found in palace ruins and was a Jaina yakshini was already documented not just by Kincaid in 1875 but also by Michael Willis in his study on the Bhojshala (2012). What further supports the possibility that the pre-existing structure was Jaina in origin is the finding of a statue of a Jain Tirthankara in the mosque premises in ASI’s court ordered survey. The verdict on p. 234 explains this away by claiming that “in India, Jainism and Hinduism are not distinct entities. Although the rituals of worship in these two religions may differ, both faiths have evolved side by side since ancient times, worshipping the same supreme being”. This assertion is historically untenable. Studies in Jaina history (see Peter Flugel, 2006, Julia Hegewald, 2013 and 2025 and Champaklakshmi, 1996) show how Jainism’s origin were firmly rooted in repudiating the authority of the Vedas and resisting the supremacy of Brahmins in the Vedic religion. K.R. Srinivasan in his study (1975) on rock cut temples in Tamil Nadu shows how several Jaina rock cut shrines were converted into either Shaiva or Vaishnava shrines in 8th-9th century. This was followed even in medieval Karnataka where the coming of Virashaivism led to a spate of conversions of Jaina shrines to Virashaiva temples during the 12th-13th century (Hegewald, 2013). Bhakti texts of the Alvars and Nayanars regard both Buddhism and Jainism as separate religions from their own and allude to hostilities (in some cases violent enmity) between the Alvar-Nayanars and Buddhist-Jains. This led to the extinction of Buddhism and the decline of Jainism in south India during the 8th-9th century (Champaklakshmi, 1996). The identification of Jainism and Hinduism as not distinct entities also reiterates the colonial definition of Hinduism, as being “not Muslim, not Christian”. This incorrect understanding of Hinduism was also followed by colonial surveyors chiefly James Fergusson who in his 1876 work on Indian architecture groups Jaina basadis and Buddhist stupas under the rubric of Hindu architecture. If the deliberate obfuscation of the pre-existing structure being of Jaina origin is not enough, the order also misquotes a number of historical sources. On page 194, when reporting the findings of the ASI survey, a 14th century Jaina work Prabandha Chintamani by Merutunga is quoted as saying “the famous Raja Bhoj of Parmara dynasty got constructed the Bhojshala temple at Dhar, Madhya Pradesh”. However, such a quote is completely absent from the Jaina work, the term Bhojshala is not mentioned in the Sanskrit work. In fact the term is not mentioned in any Sanskrit work as it is a modern term, having first been coined in 1903 by K.K. Lele, associated with the ASI in the Dhar state. Lele interpreted the term to mean Bhoja’s school. However, Michael Willis (2012) has shown how the term is a null term, for shala in Sanskrit just means a place, the words for school in Sanskrit being a Vidyalaya or a Gyanpeeth. The order not only relies on the British definition of Hinduism but also on colonial sources for the understanding of the Sanskrit inscriptions found inside the mosque. No Sanskrit source has been cited that records the presence of a temple around the mosque. As for the Sanskrit inscriptions, several of them contain the Sanskrit text Parijatamanjari, a 13th century play written by Madana, the disciple of a Jaina scholar. The preface of the text says that the play was performed in a Saraswati temple in the presence of the 13th century Paramara king Arjunavarman. Since the text is copied on to stone slabs reused in the mosque, so is the preface. However, this is again taken as a proof of there being a Saraswati temple underneath the mosque when no archaeological evidence points to this. Just as the figure of Jaina Yakshini Ambika found in connection with a palace is misrepresented as Saraswati belonging to a temple, an inscription found approximately three kilometres away from the dispute site, in the tomb of a sufi saint Abdullah Shah Changal is taken as proof of destruction of the pre-existing structure. On page 193, an inscription issued by Mahmud Khalji, 15th century ruler of the Malwa sultanate is quoted alleging that Changal “destroyed the effigies of idols made this temple into mosque violently”. However, the inscription written 300 years after Changal’s death records a legend famously attributed to him. The text is rhetorical and not factual. Even more importantly, the inscription is not found in the Kamal Maula mosque premises, but a few kilometres away from it. How the ASI is making the connection between the alleged destruction of a temple on the Kamal Maula mosque’s site and the inscription on Changal’s tomb is not explained. Apart from presuming the underlying structure to be a temple, the material reused to be from the destruction of the pre-existing temple, a Jaina figure to be the idol of Saraswati, and Hinduism and Jainism not being entirely distinct religion, what has been glossed over is the history of the structure being a mosque for the past 700 years. An inscription found at the site (also listed in the ASI survey) records the governor of Malwa Dilawar Khan Ghori to have repaired the mosques of Dhar in 1392-93. This confirms that the Kamal Maula mosque was built in the early 13th century, possibly by Delhi sultan Alauddin Khalji’s governor, Ulugh Khan. The mosque features a mihrab, with quranic inscriptions (verses from the Surah Adh-Dhariyat), a minbar (a pulpit) as well as a zenana on the mezzanine floors. Not only then does the verdict erase the Jaina history associated with the site and the region, but also the long history of the structure being a mosque, associated with the tomb of the Chishti sufi saint Kamal Malawi. Ruchika Sharma is a Delhi based historian and professor. She runs a popular Youtube channel on Indian history called Dr. Ruchika Sharma Official. A shortened version of this was published in the National Herald today.