Cunningham had personally visited Malwa during 1874 AD as well as 1876 AD. This is what he had to write in Volume X of the ASI Report: Inside the town there is a stone masjid called Bijay Mandir, or the temple of Bijay. This Hindu name is said to have been derived from the founder of the original temple, Bijay Rani. The temple was thrown down by the order of A urangzeb, and the present masjid erected in its place; but the Hindus still frequent it at the time of the annual fair. By the Muhammadans it is called the Alamgiri masjid, while Bhilsa (earlier name ofVidisha) itself is called Alamgirpur. The building is 78'hfeet long by 26'h feet broad, and the roof is supported. on four rows of plain square pillars with 13 openings to the front.

Aurangzeb, 1658-1707, was the last of the iconoclasts who had a go at this edifice which was then known as the Vijay Mandir from which the successor mosque was known as Bijamandal. He celebrated the visit by renaming Vidisha as Alamgirpur. Despite some excavations between 1971 and 1974 which clearly showed that Bijamandal was originall y a temple, namaz at Eid time continued right until 1965 when Dr. Dwarka Prasad Mishra's government banned worship in, what was, a protected monument. Mishra earned the gratitude of most Vidishans and many others in Madhya Pradesh.

One night during the monsoon of 1991, the rain was so heavy that it washed away the wall that was concealing the frontage of the Bijamandal mosque established by Aurangzeb in 1682. This masjid is a centre of attraction in the district town of Vidisha situated some 40 kms from Bhopal. The broken wall exposed so many Hindu idols that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was left with no choice but to excavate. For three centuries, the idols were buried under the platform, on the northern side, which was used as the hall of prayer conducted specially on days of Eid. Fortunately, the district col lector in 1991 happened to offer protection to the surveyors of ASI, who were otherwise reluctant to expose themselves to the wrath of bigots.

Within just a year of ascending the throne, in 1659 ce, Aurangzeb ordered the demolition of the famous Shiva temple of Krittivaseshwara situated in Daranagar, the heart of Varanasi. In its place, the Alamgiri mosque was constructed. To this day, there is just a small, empty tank that marks the site of the first, second, and third reconstructions of this temple. It was kept open to devotees for brief worship only on the occasion of Mahashivaratri on the specific condition that the offerings were to be shared with the mutawalli (a person appointed orally or under a deed to administer a waqf property) of the mosque.

Cunningham called it a masjid which was made up of Hindu materials. It is difficult to agree with Cunningham. The author feels that a Hindu building was converted into a masjid and not made up or rebuilt with Hindu materials. If it had been rebuilt, its Muslim builder would have excluded the inscription of Raja Ajaya as well as all the statuettes on the pillars and walls. The fact that they have been mutilated is a clear indication that the then existing Hindu edifice was quickly converted into a masjid. Apart from the factor of quickness, there must have been the lack of readily available architects and artisans familiar with Islamic architecture. Hence, a great deal of the early Muslim buildings in Hindustan were conversions of Hindu temples. A distinctly Islamic style did not emerge until about the advent of the Lodis in the course of the 15th century.

However, to avoid giving a religious or a communal colour to the shuddhi or reconversion, the idol installed in the sanctum sanctorum was that of Bharat Mata. It is therefore now known as the Bharat Mata temple, although for 700 years it had been called Jami masjid. The mandir was built on a plan not dissimilar to Palitana in Gujarat and Dilwara at Mount Abu, Rajasthan. There is a large courtyard. There were the usual traditional 52 pillars as in Jain places of worship. At the western end was a hall, typical of an ancient temple. A flat roof was held aloft by 152 stone pillars. The author and his colleagues during their visit in 200-1 were told on authority that the pillars were constructed according to the Himar Panti style of architecture, one of whose special characteristics was the interlocking of stones without the use of any cementing material.

Even today, the ruins demonstrate the finery of the sculpture. Human faces have been mutilated. The tablet displayed at the spot by the ASI says the following: This is the grandest and the most impressive conception of a temple dedicated to Siva associated with Siddharaj who ruled in the 12th century AD though tradition accords its construction to Mularaj during the lOth century AD. The Jami Masjid (mentioned in the blurb) is a modest affair. Its gate is so small that not more than two persons can enter at the same time. On its top are two minarets less than three feet tall. As one crossed the gate, there are four small temple sancti, one on the left and three on the right. It is clear that the sancti had been walled up and converted into a mebraab for the prayer space; Beyond this is the square tank from ancient times which was also used by those who came for ibadat. Beyond, stand a few handsome pillars and carvings that have survived from ancient times.

One of the contenders in the Ayodhya history debate, the “hypothesis” that the Babri Masjid had been built in forcible replacement of a Hindu temple, had been a matter of universal consensus until a few years ago. Even the Muslim participants in court cases in the British period had not challenged it; on the contrary, Muslim authors expressed pride in this monument of Islamic victory over infidelity. It is only years after the Hindu take-over of the structure in 1949 that denials started to be voiced. And it is only in 1989 that a large-scale press campaign was launched to deny what had earlier been a universally accepted fact.

Bijai Singh and several other Hindus were reported to be carrying on public worship of idols in a temple in the neighbourhood of Ajmer. On 23 June, 1694, the governor of Ajmer was ordered to destroy the temple and stop the public celebration of idol worship there. In a.d. 1696-97 (1108 a.h.) orders were issued for the destruction of the major temples at Sorath in Gujarat.

Sherring appreciates that Muslims yearn to visit Mecca and the Christians desire to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem but the Hindu heart goes out to Benares. If the Hindus refer to any one city as their holiest, it is Benares. Yet, Aurangzeb thought it fit to change its name to Muhammadabad. The temple of Bisheswar, who was regarded as king of all the Hindu gods, was systematically demolished by Aurangzeb during the 17th century. The large collection of deities stored on a platform called the court of Mahadev on the northern side of the temple, were found from the debris. As recorded by Sherring, extensive remains of this ancient temple are still visible and they form a large portion of the western wall of the mosque which was built upon its site by the bigoted oppressor. Evidently, the former temple was much larger than the present one, which is really small for so important a shrine. But there was a reason for it.

According to Luard,35 the inscriptions on the eastern and northern _gates indicate that the mosque was inaugurated by Amid Shah Daud Ghori, also known as Dilawar Khan, on January 17, 1405. The word "inaugurated" has been intentionally used, instead of Luard's use of "erected" because, evidently, the edifice is a mandir converted into a masjid. Incidentally, Emperor Jehangir called it Jami masjid. The Lat masjid has no minarets nor the traditional hauz in which the devotee can wash his hands and feet before performing namaz. It is a large rectangular pavilion with a great deal of open space in the centre. The four sided pavilion originally stood on some 300 square shaped stone pillars. On conversion by Dilawar Khan, the spaces between the outermost row of pillars were evidently filled with a wall somewhat thinner than the pillars. The entire scene is reminiscent of a temple rather than a mosque. However, such a feeling is not evidence enough of conversion by Dilawar Khan. Any number of pillars, however, on the eastern or the end opposite to where the mehrab and the mimbar are, have at their lower end, defaced carvings of murtis reminiscent of Vishnu. Every effort has been made on most such pillars to erase the statuettes but the outline of the murti is clearly seen. For example , the pillar at the corner of the eastern and the northern end has two statuettes on two faces of the pillar. Similarly, on the next pillar. Then coming to the south-eastern corner, every pillar bears Vishnu's image outline. All this shows that the Lat masjid is a blatant case of conversion from a mandir. It is not like several thousand mosques which were built with stones and statues, taken from demolished mandirs.

The foregoing study of the architecture and site of the Baburi Masjid has shown, unequivocally and without any doubt, that it stands on the site of a Hindu temple which originally existed in the Ramkot on the bank of the river Sarayu, and Hindu temple material has also been used in its construction.

The foregoing study of the architecture and site of the Baburi Masjid has shown, unequivocally and without any doubt, that it stands on the site of a Hindu temple which originally existed in the Ramkot on the bank of the river Sarayu, and Hindu temple material has also been used in its construction, and we are of the firm opinion that the mosque was never built anew on virgin land. Syed Shihabbuddin and his associates have already agreed, in principle, ‘to demolish the mosque with their own hands’ if it is proved that it stands on a Hindu temple site and is built with Hindu temple materials. It is.

Throughout the Muslim rule destruction of Hindu shrines and construction of mosques and other building from their materials and at their very sites went on as a normal practice. From the Quwwal-ul-Islam mosque in Delhi built out of twenty-seven Hindu and Jain temples in the twelfth century to the Taj-ul-Masajid built from hundreds of Hindu and Jain temples at Bhopal in the eighteenth century, the story is the same everywhere.