On the intervention of the National Minorities Commission in 1983, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has been prevented from carrying on any e… - Praful Goradia

The temple today is 55 feet tall. Before its upper part was destroyed on Aurangzeb's orders in anticipation of his visit to Vrindavan in 1670 AD, the mandir was reputed to be twice that height. On its roof, after the destruction, a mehrab or prayer wall was erected and the iconoclastic emperor offered namaaz. Almost two centuries later, F.S. Growse, who belonged to the Bengal Civil Service and was Collector of Mathura District, had the mehrab removed. First, because it was an eyesore, and second, in an endeavour to redeem whatever character was left of the temple. Although the original idol remained at Jaipur, another set of deities was installed by the pujaris or priests. Since then, the temple has a flat roof. Probably, no other desecrated temple had been the subject of so much repair and refurbishment by British rulers. Of supreme importance was the fact of the mandir being restituted to Hindu devotees. It was the greatest act of shuddhi or purification although performed before Swami Dayanand Saraswati reintroduced Vedic procedures.... The Gobind Dev temple at Vrindavan, Mathura, is indeed massive its plinth is 105 feet by 117 feet. It is estimated that the original height was about 110 feet without which it would not have been possible to see the mashaal or torch either from Agra or from Delhi. The temple was built in 1590 AD by Maharaja Mansingh of Jaipur.

Mind you, the ASI has done nothing to excavate or salvage anything in the complex since independence. With the passing of the Protection of National Monuments Act, 1951 (see Annexure II), all archaeological activities have been frozen. The credit for the excavations goes to Cunningham and Dr. D R Bhandarkar; during the first half of the 20th century by the latter.

The masjids being near the centre of Dhar, we were able to talk to several local residents who were not only pained at the prohibitory orders for Bhojshala, but also made repeated references to the Lat masjid. The central thrust of their complaint was that most of them could not afford to travel to distant places of pilgrimage. For them, therefore, Bhojshala represents about the only holy place within their reach. If access to that also is denied, were they expected to become Muslims, so that they could go in every Friday? *There is, as it were, a 364 day ban on the entry of Hindus to what is essentially a Hindu heritage and continues to be called Saraswati mandir. Even the Muslims call it Bhojshala masjid and show little interest in worshipping at this converted temple. Why should Bhojshala be inaccessible to the community to which it belongs?