Even in the face of controversy, the DDA’s bulldozer at the Mehrauli Masjid in Sanjay Van, Delhi, is not stopping. This time, the action has happened in Baba Haji Rozbih’s grave. An earlier anti-encroachment campaign also included the demolition of Akhoondji Masjid. Later, word leaked out that this mosque had been noted in ASI documents dating back to 1922. The Delhi High Court then issued an order to keep things as they were.
The DDA action was taken on the tomb of Baba Haji Rozbih, which dates back to the eleventh century. The DDA has started an initiative to get rid of encroachment on Sanjay Van’s southern ridge. Its report is currently being reviewed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The newspaper claims that DDA discussed eliminating numerous encroachments, including numerous multi-storied buildings, in its study.
All those structures were in reality mentioned by Maulvi Zafar Hasan, the Assistant Superintendent of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at the time, in his 1922 publication, “List of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments, Volume III – Mehrauli District”. which this bulldozer operation has destroyed. Whether it is Baba Haji Rozbih’s tomb or Akhundji’s mosque. As stated in the same ASI document
“Baba Haji Rozbih is considered one of the oldest saints of Delhi. It is said that he came during the time of Rai Pithura and made his abode in a cave near the moat of the fort.”
ASI’s report of 1922 also mentions regarding mehruli masjid demolition-
“On the advice of Baba Haji Rozbih, many Hindus converted to Islam. Astrologers considered this a bad omen and told the king that Baba Haji’s The arrival foreshadows the arrival of Muslim rule in Delhi.”
According to local custom, he also facilitated the conversion of Rai Pithura’s daughter to Islam, and it is believed that she is the owner of the second plaster tomb within the enclosure
In such a case, is it appropriate to target historically and archaeologically significant buildings and monuments in the name of clearing encroachment? The tomb, according to ASI, was not included in the list of monuments covered by ASI protection. Another issue is that, in ASI’s opinion, neither the DDA nor any other organisation got in touch with him prior to the bulldozer operation.