The district of Fatehpur in Uttar Pradesh has witnessed escalating tensions over a disputed structure. What one side calls a historic maqbara (mausoleum), the other insists is an ancient Hindu temple. The controversy mirrors earlier disputes in places like Sambhal and has quickly turned into a high-profile political and communal flashpoint.

On Monday, hundreds of people, responding to the call of Hindu organizations and the local BJP district president, gathered near the structure located in Abunagar Reddaiya. They broke through police barricades, entered the premises of the so-called Abdul Samad Maqbara, and hoisted a saffron flag on top. They also recited the Hanuman Chalisa. The act drew immediate protest from members of the Muslim community, who assembled in opposition.

Police have since filed a case naming 10 individuals and listing 150 unidentified persons. The disputed site is now at the center of a legal and political storm.

The Maqbara Claim

Mohammad Nafees, who claims to be the current mutawalli (caretaker) of the site, asserts that the structure is an authentic Mughal-era mausoleum. According to him, it was built nearly 500 years ago by a grandson of Emperor Akbar. Construction, he says, took ten years to complete.

Nafees states that the mausoleum houses the graves of Abu Mohammad and Abu Samad. The site covers approximately 12.5 bighas of land. He alleges that the dispute is primarily about land, claiming that land mafias have been eyeing the property for years. Nafees maintains that the maqbara’s historical and religious identity has been documented for generations.

The Temple Claim

On the other side, Hindu groups claim the structure is the Thakurdwara Temple. They allege that a Shivling once stood inside the mausoleum area, and a statue of Nandi occupied the verandah where the graves now rest.

These groups point to carvings on the walls and domes, which they say depict flowers and tridents — symbols traditionally associated with Hindu temples. BJP district president Mukhlal Pal has publicly supported this claim, stating that the site is originally a temple where Lord Thakur once resided.

A local resident named Kumar Sambhav says he entered the disputed site during Diwali in 2007 and performed a puja inside. He claims to have seen Hindu religious symbols, along with the Shivling and Nandi. According to him, the temple’s appearance was altered around 2011. He alleges that Urdu and Arabic inscriptions of the kalma were painted on the walls, and a fabricated history of the maqbara was promoted.

Visual Evidence and Structural Remains

Those supporting the temple claim argue that several remnants still point to its Hindu origins. They note the presence of steps, chains, and certain structural elements that resemble features of Hindu temples. They allege that only the color and paint have been changed to make the site resemble a mausoleum, with a grave constructed inside.

In the past, organizations like the Mutt Mandir Sangharsh Sanrakshan Samiti submitted a memorandum to the District Magistrate, seeking permission to conduct worship at the site. The announcement to perform a ritual there was made recently, triggering a strong response from the National Ulama Council.

The Ulama Council sent a letter to the District Magistrate asserting that the site is officially recorded as the “Nawab Abu Samad Maqbara” in the government’s revenue records, under plot number 753 in Reddaiya, Abunagar. They described it as a national property under the classification of “Maqbara Mangi.”

The Land Ownership Dispute

Adding another layer to the controversy is a claim by Kanpur resident Vijay Pratap Singh, also known as Bablu Singh. He asserts that the land on which the maqbara stands is part of his family’s legally owned property.

According to Singh, his father, the late Ram Naresh Singh, purchased 10.5 bighas of land in 1970 from Shakuntala Man Singh. After his father’s death, Singh alleges that in 2007, an individual named Anees fraudulently managed to have the land registered as maqbara property.

He points out that before this disputed registration, the maqbara was never mentioned in the khatauni (land records) of the Waqf Board. Singh’s case is currently under consideration in the Civil Court of Fatehpur.

Escalation and Political Reaction

The events on Monday did not emerge in isolation. Reports suggest that tensions had been building for several days. Hindu organizations had been mobilizing support, while Muslim groups were preparing to defend what they see as a protected religious site.

When the crowd stormed the structure, damage was reported, and slogans were raised. The hoisting of the saffron flag and the recitation of the Hanuman Chalisa inside the disputed premises marked a significant escalation. The incident has now drawn political attention, with leaders from both communities making strong statements.

BJP’s local leadership has been vocal in claiming the site’s Hindu heritage, while Muslim community representatives and religious organizations insist it remains a legitimate Islamic monument.

Legal Complexity and Administrative Challenges

The district administration now faces a complex task. On one side, there is a religious and historical dispute over the identity of the structure. On the other, there is a legal battle over land ownership and registration.

The police have tightened security around the site, and further legal action is expected as the investigation proceeds. Officials have appealed to both communities to maintain peace while the courts decide on the matter.

The Fatehpur dispute reflects a wider pattern seen in several parts of India, where questions over the identity of historical structures have led to communal tensions. The blending of historical claims, religious beliefs, and legal arguments makes resolution challenging.

As the case unfolds, the outcome will likely have implications not only for local residents but also for how similar disputes are addressed in the future. The challenge lies in balancing historical preservation, legal ownership, and the religious sentiments of communities.