Not many temples have had the misfortune of having been desecrated four times. Being a huge structure, built in solid stone, it was able to survive a… - Praful Goradia

It is strange that what a writer on Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti and the Dargah Sharief at Ajmer has said about the role of Raja Jaichand should have precipitated our visit to Kannauj on August 2, 2001. Equally strange is the fact that our interest in this great capital city of ancient Hindustan was first aroused in 1983 by Dr N .K. Bezbaruah, the versatile grand old man of Assam. He then told us how proud he was to claim direct lineage from one of the chosen Kannauj Brahmins, who were invited specially to introduce Hinduism amongst the Ahoms who had captured power in Assam and had set up their capital city at Sibsagar in the 13th century. Incidentally, the Ahoms belonged to the Shan race whose base was in Thailand. The doctor was bemoaning the paradox of his clan being, on the one hand, so proud of its Hindu ancestry and, on the other, a few sons of the same proud families taking to gun s and terrorism, as it were, against the rest of Hindustan.

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?

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.