Hindu Sena has formally urged the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) to undertake a scientific, non-invasive survey of Ajmer’s Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra, asserting that the monument may incorporate, overlay, or stand upon the remains of an ancient Sanskrit college and temple. The appeal underscores a broader public interest: establishing a clear, evidence-based chronology for one of Medieval India’s most discussed monuments, while advancing heritage preservation and interfaith understanding in a city long associated with diverse spiritual traditions.
Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra occupies a significant place in the cultural heritage of Ajmer. Scholarly consensus situates its principal construction phase in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, during the early Delhi Sultanate, commonly linked to Qutb-ud-Din Aibak with later works under Iltutmish. The building’s celebrated façadewith its early Indo-Islamic archessits alongside a colonnaded interior composed largely of spolia: pillars and architectural fragments repurposed from earlier Hindu and Jain structures. This material palimpsest has prompted continuing historical investigation into the site’s pre-Islamic layers and functions.
Epigraphic and art-historical studies, including documentation published in the ASI’s epigraphic series and subsequent research, record Sanskrit fragmentssome attributed to the Chahamana (Chauhan) milieu of Vigraharaja IV (Visaladeva)embedded within the complex. Iconographic motifs such as lotus medallions, kirtimukhas, and Jain-influenced carvings on reused pillars, together with selective defacement of figural elements, support the view that the mosque re-employed earlier sacred architectural elements. Whether those antecedent structures represented an integrated Sanskrit learning center with a temple core, a set of nearby shrines, or a broader temple-campus remains a testable hypothesis requiring methodical archaeological scrutiny.
Calls for a scientific survey at Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra echo recent heritage-management precedents in India, where courts have permitted or directed limited ASI surveys at contested or complex sites. A carefully designed investigation can be aligned with existing law, including the AMASR Act (1958) and its rules, and need not engage with questions of religious conversion or ritual control. Instead, the inquiry would pursue historical accuracy, conservation decision-making, and public transparencyobjectives that can help reduce rumor, lower social temperature, and anchor discussions in verifiable data.
A best-practice ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) survey design for Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra would begin with non-invasive geophysical reconnaissance to respect the structural integrity of the standing monument. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR), electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), 3D laser scanning (LiDAR), and UAV-based photogrammetry would map subsurface anomalies, foundations, and construction sequences without disturbing the fabric. High-resolution 3D documentation would also generate a precise digital twin to aid conservation, enable peer review, and create a durable research archive.
Architectural and materials analysis would complement geophysics. Petrographic thin-section microscopy of stone samples (where permissible), portable XRF for elemental signatures, and microstratigraphic study of lime plasters and mortars can differentiate construction phases. Where suitable and lawful, accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) of carefully prepared lime-mortar binder fractions, thermoluminescence (TL) or optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) for associated sediments, and Raman spectroscopy for pigment residues can refine absolute or relative dating frameworks. Together, these archaeometric tools allow the chronology of the structure and its reused components to be parsed with far greater precision than textual inference alone.
Epigraphy and iconography form a second, critical pillar. Systematic Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI), multispectral imaging, and raking-light photography can recover faint or abraded inscriptions on stone fragments. Epigraphic readingsSanskrit, Prakrit, and Persianshould be cross-checked against published corpora and fresh squeezes or 3D scans to eliminate legacy transcription errors. Iconographic cataloguing of pillar capitals, bases, and friezes can help attribute spolia to regional workshops, sectarian affiliations, and centuries, illuminating whether the assemblage derives from a single pre-existing complex (e.g., a Sanskrit college with a temple nucleus) or from multiple structures gathered over time.
Conservation ethics demand careful sequencing. Any survey should adopt a “minimum intervention” approach, adhering to ICOMOS charters and the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994). Stabilization of fragile elements must precede investigation; proposed sampling should be justified by research questions, and all interventions should be reversible wherever possible. The objective is knowledge and preservationnot alteration of use or ritualand full compliance with AMASR protections, site-bylaws, and National Monuments Authority guidelines is essential.
Equally important is inclusive stakeholder engagement. Ajmer’s civic and spiritual life brings together Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Muslims in close proximity to living shrines and historic precincts. Transparent terms of reference, public briefings on methods, and the publication of interim findings can cultivate trust. When framed as a joint pursuit of truthrather than a zero-sum contestsuch a survey can model Interfaith Dialogue and Communal Harmony, aligning with the Indian ethos of Unity in Diversity and the blog’s aim to strengthen bonds among dharmic traditions.
Comparative lessons from other heritage inquiries in India and abroad highlight the value of professional independence and peer review. External observersconservation scientists, epigraphists, and historians of Medieval Indiacan strengthen rigor, while open data policies (to the extent allowed by security and conservation needs) enable broader scholarly verification. This approach helps ensure that conclusions about Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra’s origins rest on replicable methods and clearly reported uncertainties.
Potential outcomes of a rigorous ASI survey span several scenarios. The investigation may substantiate the presence of a coherent pre-Islamic architectural phase consistent with a Sanskrit learning environment and temple sanctum; alternatively, it may reveal a mosaic of spolia sourced from multiple Hindu and Jain sites; or it may find only limited, non-diagnostic evidence beneath the existing footprint. In every case, the result would still be constructive: a refined site biography that informs better conservation, public interpretation, and school curricula, while demonstrating that complex histories can be approached with calm scholarship rather than speculation.
Ultimately, the request for a scientific survey at Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra should be seen as a call for Historical Investigation anchored in Archaeology and heritage preservation. By privileging data over rhetoric, respecting the sanctity and stability of the living monument, and engaging communities with empathy and clarity, such a study can clarify the monument’s layered past and, more importantly, contribute to social cohesion. Ajmer’s heritagelike much of India’sthrives when knowledge, care, and mutual respect guide decisions about shared sacred spaces.
Inspired by this post on Struggle for Hindu Existence.
