Tansen's grave ‘deserves to be protected': Madhya Pradesh HC denies nod for religious, cultural activities at Gwalior monument
The tomb of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus was declared a protected monument of national importance in 1962 under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
A Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh noted that the monument 'deserves to be protected with utmost care and caution' and no such activities, as sought by the appellant, can be permitted.
'…Constitutional vision and constitutional morality ought to prevail over personal and vested interest. It (the monument) deserves to be protected with utmost care and caution, and no activity as sought by the petitioner can be permitted, lest the monument lose its originality, sanctity and vitality. It would be a national loss then,' the court said on June 16.
According to court documents, the premises of the monument contain the graves of musical maestro Tansen and Sufi saint Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus, both from the 16th century.
The court documents said Tansen was remembered for his classical Dhrupad compositions. 'Dhrupad, an epic form of music, is considered to be invented by Raja Man Singh Tomar (ruler of Gwalior), in medieval times,' the court said, while reasoning that the monument where he is laid to rest deserves preservation and protection.
The court was dealing with an appeal by one Syed Sabla Hasan, who claimed that he is the Sajjada Nashin (spiritual caretaker) and the legal heir of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus.
It was argued on his behalf that various religious and cultural practices had been performed at the dargah premises for over 400 years and that their discontinuation by the Archaeological Survey of India, following the declaration of the site as a protected monument, was arbitrary and illegal.
The court stressed that 'it is the duty of the ASI and the district administration to protect this monument of national importance with utmost care and strictness' so that the monument carrying history and culture can be preserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
ASI completes restoration of Draksharamam temple
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has completed the restoration of the 9th-century Bhimeswara temple, built by the Eastern Chalukyas, at Draksharamam village in Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Konaseema district. The Bhimeswara temple is a protected monument being conserved by the ASI. Responding to a question in the Lok Sabha by Amalapuram MP G. Harish Balayogi, Minister of Culture and Tourism Gajendra Singh Shekhawat stated on Monday: 'The Bhimeswara temple has been restored over the past four years beginning from 2021-22. The restoration includes conservation of Nivedhan sala, restoration of damaged flooring, chemical cleaning and pointing to ancient stone walls and ceiling inside goddess Manikyamaba temple'. Erection of stone apron around Somavarapu Mandapam, pointing to the inner prakara, chemical conservation to the main deity (Sivalingam), srichakra of goddess Manikyamaba have been completed, said Mr. Gajendra Singh.
The Print
3 hours ago
- The Print
Keezhadi excavation report under review—Centre on ASI's tussle with archeologist
New Delhi: Speaking for the first time in Parliament on the Keezhadi excavation report controversy, the Modi government Monday informed the house that there was no question of rejecting any report, and due process was being followed on the findings at the site of the 8th Century BCE settlement. 'The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is fully committed to follow the law and due scientific process for releasing the accurate findings based on the excavation at Keezhadi,' Union Culture Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat informed the Lok Sabha on the first day of the Monsoon session of Parliament. The Keezhadi excavation report has sparked a controversy involving the ASI and the Tamil Nadu government, with accusations of political interference and attempts to suppress Tamil heritage. The ASI requested revisions to the report submitted by senior archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna, who led the initial excavations, but he refused, leading to a clash with the central government. Tamil Nadu's Archaeology Minister accused the BJP-led central government of treating Tamils as second-class citizens, while the Union Minister for Culture stated that further scientific studies were needed. Show Full Article Keezhadi, near Madurai, has yielded significant archaeological findings, including evidence of a well-planned urban settlement dating back to the 8th century BCE, potentially older than previously believed. Excavations have unearthed artifacts such as pottery with Tamil Brahmi inscriptions, a literate society, and evidence of an urban planning system. In the Lok Sabha, T. Sumathy alias Thamizhachi Thangapandia, member of Parliament from Tamil Nadu, asked about the details of the specific deficiencies cited by the ASI leading to the rejection of Ramkrishna's report. Shekhawat replied that after duly verifying and incorporating the conclusions of experts in concurrence with the lead excavation Archaeologist, ASI releases an official report. 'Keezhadi excavation has been conducted under the aegis of ASI and a report of lead Archaeologist is under review,' he said, adding that the comments of experts have been shared with the lead archaeologist, which are still to be finalised. Weeks after the rejection, ASI had responded, saying the reports submitted by excavators are sent to various subject experts, who are requested to vet the reports for publication. 'Various alterations, as suggested by subject experts, are carried out by the excavators and resubmitted finally for publication. These are then published as Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India (MASI),' said ASI, adding that the Keezhadi excavator (Ramkrishna) has been communicated the suggestions of the experts for making necessary corrections in the draft report submitted by him, but he did not carry out the correction. Also read: Tamil Nadu is waging a new North-South clash of civilisations— Sivagalai to Keezhadi 'Missing details' Ramkrishna has been transferred 12 times in the last 21 years of his service in ASI. In June he was transferred just a month after the rejection of his report by ASI. Ramkrishna, in the 982-page report, classified Keezhadi into three periods: Pre-Early Historic (8th century BCE to 5th century BCE), Mature Early Historic (5th century BCE to 1st century BCE), and Post-Early Historic (1st century BCE to 3rd century CE). But the Parliamentary answer said, as per the experts suggestions, the nomenclatures of the three periods require change and the time bracket of the 8th century BCE to 5th century BCE given for period I is not justified at all. It also said that in the report, some details are also missing—a village map has to be redrawn, contour map, and images of graffiti. There was much political outrage after the Ramkrishna's report on Keezhadi was rejected. Many Tamil Nadu leaders and the Stalin-led DMK raised questions. 'Keezhadi is more than just mud and pottery, it serves as a mirror reflecting a 3,000-year-old Tamil civilisation that was urban, literate, and thriving long before the myths of the Ganges Valley,' said Stalin. (Edited by Viny Mishra) Also read: Journey of excavator Amarnath Ramakrishna who led Keezhadi dig & has seen 12 transfers in 21 yrs
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11 hours ago
- First Post
NCERT's tame revision and distorians' loud outrage: Why Bharat is still in search of its true history
The time has come to challenge Leftist distorians and expose their hollow intellectual halo. Only then will Bharat's history be salvaged read more The Mughal dynasty as a whole has often been portrayed as the pinnacle of Bharatiya civilisation. Image: Wikimedia Commons The recent storm over changes in NCERT's history textbooks has reignited an old and unresolved debate: Who owns Bharat's history, and who has the right to narrate it? Critics—largely from the academic and media establishment—have slammed the revisions as politically motivated, accusing the government of 'saffronisation' and ideological distortion. But this outrage, however loud, sidesteps a deeper truth: For decades after Independence, Bharat's historiography—particularly what entered school curricula—was crafted not by a plurality of scholarly voices, but by a small coterie of Marxist and Nehruvian intellectuals who captured the country's academic institutions and think tanks through political patronage and interference. Such was the stranglehold of Leftist historians such as Romila Thapar, Bipan Chandra, Irfan Habib, and R S Sharma that there was no space for historiography other than the one rooted in economic determinism—a worldview that was dismissive of Bharat's civilisational achievements and ethos. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This intellectual monopoly romanticised Islamic invaders, ignored indigenous resistance, and downplayed Bharat's ancient (Sanatana) accomplishments. Babur was, thus, portrayed as a curious naturalist and a doting father (Nehru called him a 'renaissance prince'), Akbar as a liberal genius, and Aurangzeb as a misunderstood ruler. In contrast, Hindu figures like Krishnadeva Raya, Maharana Pratap, and Shivaji were relegated to the margins. Even native empires of repute such as Vijayanagar, Ahom, and Karkota were reduced to footnotes. The guiding ideology seemed to be: De-sacralise Bharatiya civilisation and sanctify its conquerors. The NCERT Controversy The latest controversy surrounding the NCERT textbook of Class VIII centres largely around Akbar, long celebrated as a liberal visionary. His policies of religious tolerance and Rajput alliances have always dominated textbook narratives. So, when the revised syllabus now includes unsavoury details such as the 1568 massacre at Chittorgarh—where over 30,000 civilians were killed after the fort had already fallen—it's seen as an assault on his legacy. There is no denying Akbar was an able ruler, far ahead of many contemporaries, especially in the Islamic world. But glorification should not come at the cost of truth. The Chittorgarh massacre was not a battlefield tragedy—it was an act of vengeance after a successful siege. To hide such acts is distortion; to justify them by citing plunders by Hindu rulers is lazy scholarship. A massacre is not just a plunder, and inventing false equivalences to cover up omissions is intellectual dishonesty. No historical figure—however revered—should be above scrutiny. If Akbar has been over-glorified, the Mughal dynasty as a whole has often been portrayed as the pinnacle of Bharatiya civilisation. This historical approach needs recalibration. Yes, the Mughals built a vast empire, set up uniform law and order machinery across the subcontinent, and promoted art and architecture. But they were also foreigners, as 17th-century French traveller François Bernier observed, who needed large standing armies even in peacetime to suppress dissent. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Babur's own memoir, Baburnama, revels in violence against 'infidels', as it mentions how he would, after a battlefield, build 'a tower of infidels' skulls'. Jahangir, the lover-boy Salim of Mughal-e-Azam, ordered the killing of Arjan Dev, the fifth Sikh guru, in the very first year of his reign. Shah Jahan, romanticised for building the Taj Mahal in memory of his wife, Mumtaj Mahal, oversaw the construction of this 'monument of love' while famines ravaged the countryside. Such was the destitution at that time, as Abdul Hamid Lahori writes in his biography of Shah Jahan, that 'dog's flesh was sold for goat's flesh and the pounded bones of the dead were mixed with flour and sold'. As for Aurangzeb, he institutionalised bigotry by reviving jizya, banning Hindu festivals, and demolishing temples. These accounts aren't fringe—they come from the Mughals' own court chronicles. To question this kind of lopsided narrative is not communalism—it's historiographical integrity. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Slow and Cautious Reforms Despite media alarmism, the NCERT revisions are neither sweeping nor comprehensive. They are excruciatingly slow and excessively cautious, to the extent of appearing apologetic. The textbooks continue to uphold a worldview where invaders are humanised, native resistance is sidelined, and Bharatiya civilisational achievements are ignored, if not totally dismissed. Rather than boldly rewriting history with balance and authenticity, NCERT often appears hesitant—fearful of pushback from entrenched guardians of the academia, of being branded communal and Islamophobic, and of challenging globally palatable 'secular', Leftist narratives. The outrage against textbook revisions is less about defending historical objectivity and more about resisting a long-overdue correction. For decades, history writing in the country has been filtered through a narrow ideological prism—one that celebrated foreign invasions, concealed Islamic brutality, and undermined Sanatana ingenuity and fightback. Bharat, even after more than seven decades of its Independence, is still in search of a history that's truly its own. A history where Akbar is studied not as a saint, not as a villain, but as a ruler with his strengths and weaknesses intact. A history where the Mughal empire is examined for both its splendour and its savagery. And more importantly, a history that is truly Bharatiya in nature, after being rescued from the vice-like grip of Leftist historians, who in reality are distorians… err, eminent distorians. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The time has come to challenge these distorians—and expose their hollow intellectual halo. Only then will their iron grip be slackened. And Bharat's history will be salvaged for good. P.S.: The Leftist intellectuals hijacked the history of Bharat in the 1960s by proposing to write from the 'people's perspective'. Romila Thapar, in fact, went a step ahead when she, in 1962, promised to come up with a new way of history writing that would let the readers know 'what the elephant keeper of the emperor Ashoka thought of his edicts' or what the lives and thoughts of the masons who built the Taj Mahal were. More than six decades later, Thapar's grand promise remains unfulfilled. The Left-dominated history of Bharat is today stuck in a soulless, ideologically obsessed terrain where neither the story of the king nor the 'lives and thoughts' of the masses are told effectively. The writer is the author of the book, 'Eminent Distorians: Twists and Truths in Bharat's History', published early this year by BluOne Ink publications. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
