Following the Gyanvapi Mosque survey reports said that the government had asked the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct excavations to ascertain the builder of the minaret.
Khushi Shah – Mumbai Uncensored, 23rd May 2022
Union Minister of Culture, GK Reddy has denied media reports that his ministry has asked the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct an excavation at the Qutub Minar complex to ascertain the facts behind its origin. “No such decision has been taken,”
After the Gyanvapi Mosque survey, a controversy erupted over Delhi’s Qutub Minar. Some believe it was erected as a tower of victory to signify the beginning of the Muslim rule in India. Others say it served as a minaret to the muezzins to call the faithful to prayer. Dharamveer Sharma, the former Regional Director of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), recently claimed that Qutub Minar was actually Surya Stambh a “sun tower”
Dharamveer Sharma is one of the most respected archaeologists in India. He has served as Superintending Archaeologist in the Delhi division of ASI three times. As per a report in Hindi daily Jagran, he had worked extensively on the conservation of Qutub Minar and went inside the Minaret multiple times. He said he had seen Devanagari writing in the inner parts of the minaret. Every year on June 21, he takes astronomers to the complex.
History states that the Qutub Minar was built in the beginning of the 13th century by Quṭb al-Din Aibak and completed by his successor, Iltutmish. He said it was erected by Emperor Vikramaditya, not the Mughals. He presented a 20-point fact sheet to prove his theory that Qutub Minar was an observatory.
The origins of Qutab Minar are shrouded in controversy. According to certain groups, Qutub Minar was earlier a site of Hindu and Jain temples.
Two weeks ago, members of a right-wing group recited the Hanuman Chalisa outside the Qutub Minar complex and staged a protest demanding that the iconic monument be renamed ‘Vishnu Stambha’.
International working president of United Hindu Front, Bhagwan Goyal, alleged that the Qutub Minar is the ‘Vishnu Stambha’, which was built by the “great king Vikramaditya”. “But later, Qutubuddin Aibak claimed credit for it. There were 27 temples in the complex and those were destroyed by Aibak. Proof of all this is available as people can find idols of Hindu gods kept in the Qutub Minar complex. Our demand is that Qutub Minar should be called as Vishnu Stambha,” Culture Secretary Govind Mohan had visited the monument on Saturday and had spent over two hours at the monument along with a team of senior officials and historians to discuss aspects related to the upkeep of the Qutub Minar complex
Recently, it was reported that last month a letter was written by the National Monument Authority to the ASI on moving two idols of the Hindu deity Ganesha out of the complex, “owing to their disrespectful placement”, and the idols were relocated to Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque.National Monuments Authority chief Tarun Vijay, who is also a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party and a former member of the Rajya Sabha, had said that the placement of the idols was disrespectful. “I visited the site several times and realised that the placement of the idols is disrespectful,” he said. “They come near the feet of the mosque visitors.”Delhi court had last month directed the ASI not to remove two idols of Lord Ganesha from the Qutub Minar complex till further directions. A plea was filed in a Delhi Court against the removal of the idols by advocate Hari Shankar Jain on behalf of Jain deity Tirthankar Lord Rishabh Dev claiming that 27 temples were partly demolished by Qutubdin Aibak, a general in the army of Mohamad Gauri, and Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque was raised inside the complex by reusing the material. The court had directed the Archaeological Survey of India to maintain a status quo till further hearing of the case. It is also an established fact that Quwwat-Ul-Islam Masjid was built atop existing temples but the property was not being used for any religious purposes and no prayers were being offered here.
The court had observed that wrongs may have been committed in the past, “but such wrongs cannot be the basis for disturbing peace of our present and future”
