(8)   Maha Ramayana (9)   Mantra Ramayana (10) Vedanta Ramayana

Purans

(11) Vishnu Purana (4thC.) (IV, 4,5)

(12) Brahmanda Purana (4th C.) (2.21)

(13)Vayu Purana (5th C.) (H, 26)

(14)Bhac5vata Purana (6/7th C.) (IX, 10-11)

(15)KurmaPurana(7thC.)(I.19, : 0.34)

(16) Agni Purana (8th C.) (Ch. 5.12) (17(Narada Purana (10th C.} (1.79, 11.75) (1H) Brahma Purana (Ch. 213, 70-175) (19) Garuda Purana (10th C.) (1.143) (20] Skanda Purana (ll/12th C.) (D.30)

(21)Padma Purana (l2/15th C.)(Para 116, Uttara 24, 43-48)

(22) Vishnu Dhannottara Purana

(23) Narasimha Purana

(24) Vahni Purana

(25) Shiva Mahapurana

(26) Devi Bhagvata Mahapurana

(27) Brihaddharmapurana

Upanishads

(28) Kama-Purvatapaniya Upanishad (29] Ramottaratapaniya Upanishad

(30) Rama-Rahasyopanishad

Pancharatra Works

(31)Agastya Samhita

(32) Kaliraghava

(33) Brihad-raghaua

(34) Raghaviya Samhitra

 

(C) Other Religious Literature

(1)   Jaminiya Ashvamedha

Mailarvana Carita or Hanumad-Vijaya

(3)       Sahashramukha-ravanacharitam

(4)       Satyopakhyana

(f))       Hanumat-Samhita

(6)       Brihat-Koshalakhanda

 

For the last two millennia, the tradition of veneration to Rama has existed in the Hindu society in one form or other. The earliest known inscription to testify to this is found in the Nasik cave inscription of 19th regnal year, that is 150 A.D., of Satvahana king Vasisthi-putra Pulurnavi which contains the following eulogisation of Gauitamiputra Satkarni ;

 

 

A series of subsequent inscriptions such as Gandhar inscription of Vishwavarman (423 A.D.), Chalukya inscription of Pulakesin 1 (543 A.D.), Mamallapuram inscription (8th century A.D.), Hansi inscription of Chahmanan Prithiraja n (1168 A.D.) establish the continuity of this tradition throughout.

 

Econometric evidence proved that the worship of Rama as an incarnation of Vishnu is at least as old as the time of Brihatsamhita of Varahmihir, (5th century A.D.) who prescribes the details of Rama's iconometry in chapter 57 verse 30. Till the end of the 12th century A.D., the canons of iconometry regarding the image of Rama was laid down in the Matsyapurana, Manasollas, Bhatta -uptal & Al-Beruni.

Not only the Padmapurana 1.2.3. Haribans 1.41, Brahmapurana, ch 180 Garudapurana 1.202, Varahpurana ch IV, but also the Gwalior inscription of the Gurjar Pratihar king Bhoja in the 9th century described Rama as an incarnation of Vishnu.

 

Besides Manasollas, Dasavatarcharit of Kasherner.dra, Gitagobindam of Jaidev, Naisarcharit of Sri Harsha & the Ram Charitam of Sandhyakarnandin adulate Rama as Vishnu's avatar.

 

Even the ancient Jain writers such as Amitagati (llth century) spoke of Rama as the all-knowing 9 all pervading protector of the World.

 

The evolution of the tradition of Rama worship at least from 4th century A.D. is established by the early Rama shrines surviving at ancient Ramgiri hill (modern Ramtek) 30 kms. from Nagpur, dedicated by the Vakataka queen Prabhawatigupta (5th century), Ambamat.a temple at Osion near Jodhpur, (llth century) containing images of Rama-Janaki & Hanuman, Rajivlochan temple (12th century) at Rajim in Raipur district erected by Jagapal the minister of Kalachuri king Pritideva II and dedicated to Rama by an inscription of 1145 A.D., and the Rama temple at Mukundapur in Reva district (12th century) built by Malaysingha. Paintings depicting episodes from Rama's life have adorned the walls of numerous temples in India and outside from the famous Deogarh temple in M.P. flate gupta period) to the Angkor Bat in Cambodia.

 

According to well researched conclusion of scholars, there existed at least five Vishnu temples in Ayodhya in the 12th century viz.

( l );     Harismriti (or Guptahari) at the Gopratar (goptar) ghat,

(2)       Chandrahari on the west side of the Swargadwar ghat,

(3)       Vishnuhari at the Chakratirtha ghat,

(4}       Dharmahari on the east side of Swargadwar ghat, and

(5)       Vishnu (Rama) temple on the Janmabhoomi.

The last three of these have been replaced on all accounts by mosques built by Mughal emperors.

These are both textual and archaeological evidence to prove that it was a common practice from early times for the devotees of Rama (or Krishna) to offer worship to a temple image which was looked upon as being an embodiment of Rama (archanavtar). Instead of worshipping Rama in his earthly human form, a practice has grown of devotees worshiping him in the form of one (Vishnu) whose avatar he was believed to be. The textual support to this practice is found in the Padmasamhita, a Vaishnav text dating before 1000 A.D. which says :

 

(That is, when an image of Rama is installed independently in the Sanctum for the sake of worship, it should have four arms).

 

This practice was quite natural, considering that Rama was initially seen as an incarnation of Vishnu, but came later to be seen as Vishnu himself. This practice is corroborated by the image installed in the ancient Rajivlochan at Ambamata temple referred to earlier. In the former, the temple has been specifically dedicated to Rama by an inscription (1145 A.D.) and been popularly known and revered as Rama temple, but the image inside is that of four armed Vishnu. In the latter, the imanes of Rama & Sita are completely like Laxmi-Narayana but are identified as Rama-Sita by the presence of the seated Hanuman at their feet. An inscription of 467 A.D. testifies to the installation by a devotee of the image of "Chitrakutsvami-Anantashayi" referring to both Rama & Vishnu.

 

An inscription of 467- A.D. testifies to the installation by a devotee of the image of "Chitrakutsvami-Anantashayi referring to both Rama & Vishnu. The same practice is indicated by an inscription found at Ayodhya which says that the Gahadval king Chandradeva visited Ayodhya on 23rd Oct. 1093 on a pilgrimage on the occasion of a solar eclipse when he bathed in the Saryu and performed the worship of Vasudeva the protector of the three worlds.

 

The long tradition of Rama worship as evidenced lay the numerous literary, scriptural and archaeological sources culminate in the 12th/13th century in the Ayodhya-Mahatmya forming part of the Skandapurana pilgrimage to the city as the best means to salvation. Along with various other holy sites associated with Rama such as Goptar ghat, Swargadwar, Sahasradhara (all of which exist till this day) etc; the Ayodhya-Mahatmya profusely eulogizes the Janmabhoomi shrine and gives it location. The merits of a visit by a devotee observing the vow (M) on the Ramanavami day to the Janmasthana has been described in Ayodhya-Mahatmya in the following words :

 

"A man who has seen the Janmasthan will not be born again even if he does not offer gifts, practise asceticism, goes on pilgrimages or make sacrifice-offerings. A man observing the vow world be liberated from the bondages of rebirth on arrival of the Navami day because of the miraculous power of a bath and a gift By seeing the Ramjanmabhoomi he shall obtain the result that accrues to one who gives away a thousand red cows day after day".

 

3.         Documentary evidence : Muslim testimony :

A large number of Muslim writers who have written detailed accounts of the regional history of Awadh since 17th century, based on older authentic contemporary . sources of various nature, have unanimously stressed the fact that on the basis of Babar's order, the Janmasthan of Sri Ram Chandra at Kot Ram Chander, Pargana Haveli, Awadh, which comprised not only the private apartments (mahal sarai) of King Dashrath and Sri Ram hut also a temple and a kitchen popularly known as Sita ki Rasoi were demolished and a mosque constructed thereupon m 1528 A D. under the guidance of the Commander Mir Baqi and the Patronage of a Muslim faqir named Sayed Musa Ashikan.

11

The earliest of such authors is none other than the grand daughter of Moghul emperor Aurangzeb. Many of these Muslim writers were residents of Awadh and some were eye-witness to or participants in the Hindu-Muslim clashes or the dispute in 1855.

 

The earliest of such authors is none other than the grand daughter of Moghul emperor Aurangzeb. Many of these Muslim writers were residents of Awadh and some were eye-witness to or participants in the Hindu-Muslim clashes or the dispute in 1855.

 

Let us now see what the Muslim writers have said :

 

(1)Abul Fazl (1598AD)

Abul Fazl, the author of Akbar Nama/Ain-i-Akbari (late 16th century) is an eminent writer of the Moghul age who has categorically associated Awadh {Ayodhya) with the residential place (banga) of Sri Ram Chandra who during the Treta age was the embodiment of both the spiritual sovereign supremacy as well as the mundane kingly office. Abul Fazl also testifies that Awadh (Ayodhya) was esteemed as one of the holiest places of antiquity. He reports that Ramanavami festival, marking the birthday of Rama continues to be celebrated in a big way. As in the Ain-i-Akbari Abul Fazl is basically concerned with the institutional and administrative system of the Moghuls (under Akbar), he does not provide any further detail about the disputed building; nor, for that matter, about any shrines or buildings in general.

 

(2) Safiha-i Chahal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, written by the daughter of Bahadur Shah Alamgir during the late 17th century/early 18th century.

 

The work entitled Sahif-i-Chiha! Nasaih Bahadur Shahi (comprising forty counsels) was written by the daughter of Bahadur Shah (ibin) Alamgir (Bahadur Shah I 1701 to 1712 A.D.) A copy of this work, the transcription of which was completed on 15th Shaban A.H. 1231/11th July, 1816 A.D. was deposited with the library of Mir2a Haider Shukoh bin Mirza Sulayman Shukoh- The text of the (relevant) twenty fifth counsel (nasihat) taken from the above manuscript copy is being reproduced appropriately.  Sahifa-i-Chihal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi is the oldest known account of the destruction of Ram-Janmabhoomi for construction of the Babri mosque, and its author is none other than Aurangzeb's grand­daughter.

 

Mirza Jan, the author of Hadiqa-i-Shahda, 1856, Lucknow, has reproduced the above text in Persian on pp.4-7 of his book. The text runs as follows:

 

"...The places of worship of the infidel Hindus (musharkin Hindu) situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh, etc., which the 'wicked and worthless' infidels (kufar-i-nakbar), according to their own belief and faith, consider these (places) as the birth place (mualad gha} of Kanhaiya (Lord Krishna), the place (mugami) of Rasoi Sita (pertaining to Lord Rama), the monument (makan) known as the seat of Hanuman, who, (according to the Hindus) was installed by Ram Chandra over there after the conquest of Lanka-were all demolished for the strength of Islam, and at all these places mosques have been constructed. They (the rulers) should not keep these mosques free from the Friday congregational prayers (jarna wa jamait}. Rather it is obligatory that no open ceremony of idol-worship should be performed over there and the sound of the Conch Shell should not reach the ear of the Muslims.."

 

3) Hadiqa-i-Shahada Mirza Jan (1856), pages 4-7

The author was an eye-witness and an active participant in the jihad led by Amir All Amethawi during Wazid Ali Shah's rule in 1855 for recapture of Hanumangarhi from the Hindus. His book was ready just after the failure of the jihad and was published the following year (1856) in Lucknow. In Chapter IX of his book, entitled Wazid AH Shah Aur Unka Ahd ("Wazid Ali Shah and His Regime"), we find his account of construction of the Babari Mosque.

 

Mirza Jan who claims to have gone through various old sources says in his own account as follows : "The past Sultans encouraged the propagation and glorification of Islam and crushed the forces of the unbelievers (kufar], the Hindus. Similarly, Faizabad and Awadh were also purged of this mean practice (of kufr). This (Awadh) was a great worshipping centre and the capita! of (the kingdom of) Rama's father. Where there was a large temple, a big mosque was constructed and where there was a small mandaf, there a small kanati masjid was constructed. The temple of Janmasthan was the original birthplace (masqat) of Rama, adjacent to which is Sita Ki Rasoi, Sita being the name of his wife. Hence at that site, a lofty (sarbuland) mosque has been built by Babar Badshah under the guidance of Musa Ashikan... That mosque is till date popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi..."

 

(4) Muhammad Asghar's petition (1858).

 

Muhammad Asghar, khatib and muazzan of the Babari Masjid, filed a representation dated 30.11 1858, in case no 884, muhalla Kot Ram Chandra, Ajodhya to the British Government. In this complaint against the Bairagis of Janrnasthan, he alleged that the Hindus had occupied the rnosque, constructed an earthen mound therein, hoisted a flag on a high pole, installed a deity, started puja, wrote the name of Rama all over the walls and .so on. The muazzin also observes that in the outer space of the constructed Bahari mosque (i.e. in the courtyard within the walled boundaries of the mosque), there had been Janrnasthan lying desolate where the Hindus had been worshiping for hundreds of years. This confirms the fact that even though the site of Janrnasthan had been converted by the Bahari Masjid, the Hindus had heen worshipping in the open space for hundreds of years, i.e. even during the Moghul and the Nawahi periods, and that they had maintained their claim on the entire Janmasthan area.)

 

(5) Fasana-i Ibrat by the Urdu novelist Mirza Rajah Ali Beg Surur.

Dr. Zaki Kakorawi has appended an excerpt from this book by Surur (1787-1867) in his work. The excerpt reads as follows ; "During the reign of Babar Badshah, a magnificent mosque was constructed in Awadh at a place which is associated with Sita ki Rasoi. This was Babari mosque. As during this period the Hindus could not dare to offer any resistance, the mosque was constructed under the benign guidance of Saiyed Mir Ashikan. Its date of construction could he reckoned from (the words) Khair-Baqi. And in the Rom Darbar, a mosque was constructed by Fidai Khan, the subedar."

 

After further describing the construction of another mosque at Hanurnan Garhi by Aurangzeb, the author states that later on, after the defeat of Nawab Shujauddaula at Buxar, the Bairagis occupied the Garhi; "The Bairagis mitigated the mosque at Hanuman Garhi and constructed a temple (thereon) in the Babri mosque comprising the site of Sita ki Rasoi. The (Nawabi) administration could not do anything about it."

 

It may he noted that Surur mentioned the Sahifa-i Bahadurshahi, copied in 1817, as the source from which his observations could he verified by anybody interested.

(6) Tarikh-i Awadh or Muraqqa-i Khusrawi by Sheikh Mohammed Azmat Ali Kakorawi Nami (1869]

Kakorawi (1811-1893) wrote this book in 1869, but it did not see the light of day for more than a century. When Dr. Zakri Kakorawi prepared a press copy, the F.A. Ahmad Memorial committee agreed to publish the book, in 1986, but without the chapter on the 1855 episode. Subsequently, Dr. Kakorawi published this chapter independendently in 1987, under the title : Amir Ali Shah aur Markoh-i Hanuman Garhi.

 

It contains this account: "Awadh was the capital of the father of Lachman and Ram. (There) under the guidance of Musa Ashikan, a magnificent Babri mosque was constructed at the site of the temple within the premises of Janmasthan, which was popularly known amongst the Hindus as Sita Ki Rasoi. The date of construction can be reckoned from Khair Baqi ... And a mosque was also constructed at the site of Ram Darbar by Fidai Khan, Subedar, which was later demolished and renovated by the Hindus".

 

(7) Zia-i Akhatar by Haji Muhammed Husan (Lucknow 1878), p.38-39.

The author states : "The mosque which had been built by Saiyid' Musa Ashikan in 923 AH in compliance with the order of Zahiruddin Badshah, Delhi, after demolishing the private apartments (mahal sarai) of Raja Ram Chander and the kitchen of Sita, as well as the second mosque built by Muiuddin Aurarigzeb, Alamgir Badshah, (in fact) both these mosques had developed cracks at various places because of the ageing character Both these mosques have been gradually mitigated by the Bairagis and this very fact accounts for the riot. The Hindus have great hatred for the Muslims.

 

(8) Gumgashte Hatat-i-Ajodhya Awadh "Forgotten Events of Ayodhya", i.e. Tarikh-i Parnia Madina Alwatiya (in Persian) Lucknow 1885, by Maulvi Abdul Karim.

The author, who was then the imam of the Babari Masjid, while giving a description of the dargah of Hazart Shah Jama! Gojjri states : "To the east of this dargah is mahalla Akbarpur, whose second name is also Kot Raja Ram Chander Ji. In this Kot, there were few burjs (towery big halls). Towards the side of the western burj, there was the house of birthplace (makan-i paidaish) and th-? kitchen (bawarchi khana) of the above-mentioned Raja And now, this premises is known as Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji. After the demolition and mitigation of these houses (viz Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji), Babar Badshah got a magnificent mosque constructed thereon." In this work, the author has referred to numerous contemporary sources. It was translated into Urdu by his grandson Maulvi Abdul Gaffar in 1979.

15

 

(9) Kaisar-ut Tawarika ya Tawarika-i-Awadh by Kamaluddin Haidar Hosni al Hussaini al Mashahadi (Lucknow 1896), vol. II, p 100-112.

The author gives the same account of the construction of Babn mosque, as given in Mumggah-i Khusrawi.

(10) Tarikh 1 Awadh by Alarna Muhammad Najamulghdiii Khan Rampun (1909).

Dr Zaki Kakorawi has brought out an abridged edition of this book An excerpt from vol II (pp. 570-575) of this edition runs as follows :

 

(a) "Babar built a magnificent mosque at the. spot where the temple, of Janmasthan of Ramchandra was situated in Ayodhya, under the patronage of Saiyid Ashikan, and Sita ki Rasoi is situated adjacent to it The date of construction of the mosque, is Khair Baqi (923 AH). Till date, it is known as Sita ki Rasoi. By its side stands the temple. It is said that at the time of the conquest of Islam there were stiil three temples, viz Janmasthan, which was the birthplace of Ram Chanderji, Swargadwar alias Ram Darhar, and the TretakaThakur Babar huiltthe mosque after having demolished Janmasthan."

 

(b)" in short, the turbulence (of 1855) reached such a stage that apart from the mitigated mosque at Hanuman Garhi, the Hindus built a temple in tfie courtyard of Babri Masjid where Sita ki Rasoi was situated. "

 

(c)" ..Ultimately, on Zildaqqa 1271 AH (July 1855), for the tenth or twelfth time, nearly two or three hundred Muslims gathered at Babn Masjid which is situated inside the Sita ki Rasoi..

 

It is important to observe that the learned author used as many as eighty one sources (manuscripts and books) covering the history of India/Awadh from the 17th-19th centuries, comprising mostly Muslim authors, though a few Hindu and European writers have also been referred to.

 

In parenthesis, we remark that the calculation of the year 923 from the numerical values of the letters making up the expression "Khair Baqi" (as before the adoption of Indian numerals, letters were still used sometimes |o encode numbers), rests on a mistake. The full expression which is repeated in the inscription on the Masjid, is "Bavad Khair Baqi". of which the numeral value adds up to 935. the AH year partly coinciding with 1528 AD

 

(11) Hindustdii isldini Ahad Mein by Maulana Hakim Sayid Akhdul Hai.

Maulana Hakim Sayid Akhdul Hai (d. 1923), an eminent scholar on the history of Islamic culture and also rector of Nariwatul Ulama, wrote on "India under Islamic. Rule" in Arabic, in the early 20th century. The book was published in Hyderabad in 1972. It was translated into Urdu and published with a foreword hy his worthy son, Maulana Abdul Hasan Nadwi., alia Ali Mian, by the Nadwatul-Ulama, Lucknow 1973 An English translation was published in 1977.

 

The book contained a chapter on "The Mosques of Hindustan' (Hindustan ki Masjidein)- giving at least six instances of the construction of the mosques on the very sites of the Hindu temples demolished by the Indian Muslim rulers during the 12th- 17th centuries As regards Babri Masjid, he writes : "This mosque was constructed hy Bahar at Ayodhya which the Hindus call the birthplace of Ram Chanderji. There is a famous story about his wife Sita. It is said that Sita had a temple here in which she lived and cooked for her husband. On that very site Bahar constructed this mosque."

 

(12) Asrar-i Haqiqai hy Lachmi Narain Sadr Qanungo, assisted hy Munshi Maulvi Hashtni (Lucknow 1923).

The author, L N.S Qanungo, says that the book has been written with the active help of and in consultation with Munshi Maulvi Hashjin, who has collected all the material arid agreed to the contents of the book.

 

This is a unique book which is a product of joint efforts by a Hindu and a Muslim. Significantly, this book also confirms all that has been said in the Gumgashte Halat-i Ayodhya on the demolition of Janmasthan and the construction of the Babri mosque.

 

4.         Documentary evidence : European accounts

We now present a brief summary of all the posl-Bahar accounts of Ayodhya recorded hy European travellers, archaeologists and scholars

 

(1) Travel report hy William Finch, the European traveller (1608-11)

Finch, who visited Ayodhya, confirms the existence of the ruins of Rainkot, the castle of Rama where Hindus believed he had incarnated

thousands of years ago

 

(2) History and fjpoijrapliy of India, hy Joseph Ticffenthaler, (Published in French by Bernoulli in 1785)

Tieffenthaler, the Austrian Jesuit priest who stayed in Awadh in 1766-71. reports that Bahar destroyed the birth-place temple of Rama and constructed a mosque by using its pillars. However, Hindus refused to give up the place and in spite of the Moghul's efforts to prevent them, they were coming to the place for worship They had constructed the Ram Chabootra in the mosque's courtyard, which they used to perambulate thrice, then to prostrate on the ground. They practised their devotion at the chabootra and in the mosque. Tieffenthaler testifies that they continued celebrating Ram Navami with great gatherings of people from all over India.

 

(3) Report by Montgomery Martin, British Surveyor (1838).

He proposes that the Masjid was built on the ruins of the Rarnkot itself, rather than of a building constructed by Vikramaditya, and that the pillars used in the mosque have been taken from Ram's palace, the figures thereon having been damaged by the bigot (i e. Babar)

 

(4) East India Company Gazetteer, by Edward Thornton (1854).

This mentions the Babar's mosque is embellished with 14 columns of elaborate workmanship taken from the old Hindu temple. It also mentions that the Hindus practised pilgrimage and devotion on the Ram Chabootra which they believed to be Ram's cradle.

 

(5) Encyclopedia of India by Surgeon General Edward Balfour [1858]

It mentions that Ayodhya has three mosques on the sites of three Hindu shrines : the Janmasthan, the site where Ram was born; the Swargadwar Mandir, where his remains were buried; and the Treta ka Thakur, famed as the scena of one of his great sacrifices.

 

(6) Historical Sketch of Faizabad by P Carnegy (1870)

He describes the Ramkot with all its bastions and palaces and says that the columns of Janmasthan temple made of strong close-grained dark slate-coloured Kasauti (or touch-stone) and carved with different devices were used by Muslims in the construction of Babar's mosque. Carnegy also notes the construction of the new Janmasthan temple on the neighbouring plot of land in the early 18th century. He reports that until 185S both Hindus and Muslims worshipped alike in the mosque-temple.

 

(7) Gazetteer of the Province Oudh (1877).

It confirms that the Moghuls destroyed three important Hindu temples at Ayodhya and constructed mosques thereon. Babar built the Babri mosque on Ram Janmabhoomi in 1S28, Aurangzeb built one on Swargadwar, and either Aurangzeb or Shahjahan did the same on Treta ka Thakur. All other assertions from Carnegy's Historical Sketch of '. Faziabad are confirmed in this Gazetteer.

 

(8) Faizahad Settlement Report (1880).

The report confirms that Babar built the Babri mosque in 1528 on the site of Janmasthan temple marking the birthplace of Rama. On Swargadwar Mandir, Aurangzeb constructed a mosque, and on Treta-ka-Thakur the same was done by either Aurangzeb or Shahjahan, according to the well-known Mohammedan practice of enforcing their religion on others. The columns of the destroyed Janmasthan temple have been used in the Babri mosque .

 

(9) Imperial Gazetteer of Faizabad (1881).

It confirms the construction of three Moghul mosques at Ayodhya on the site of three celebrated shrines, viz. Janmasthan, Swargadwar and Treta-ka-Thakur.

 

(10) Court verdict by Col. F.EA. Chamier, District Judge, Faizabad (1886).

 

In delivering his judgement in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1885, the Judge, after visiting the Babri mosque site for personal inspection, observed : "It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance."

 

(11) Archaeological Survey of India Report by A. Fuhrer (1891)

Fuhrer accepts that Mir Khan built the Babri mosque on the site of the Rani Janmabhoomi temple, using many of its columns. He also confirmed that Aurangzeb had constructed two other mosques in Ayodhya on the sites of Swargdwar and Treta-ka-Thakur temples.

 

(12) Barabcmfci District Gazetteer by H.R. Neville (1902).

Neville reports that "numerous disputes have sprung up from time to time between the Hindu priests and the Mussalmans of Ayodhya with regard to the ground on which formerly stood the Janmasthan temple, which was destroyed by Babar and replaced by a mosque".

 

(13) Faizabad District Gazetteer by H. R. Neville (1905).

This chronicle confirms that the Janmasthan temple marking the birthplace of Ram at Ramkot was destroyed by Babar and replaced by a mosque using the materials and columns of the temple. In spite of its desecration, Hindus continued to regard it as a holy spot. The desecration  caused  numerous disputes  and  clashes  between  the communities.

 

(14) Babur Nama in English by Annettee Beveridge (1920)

After anyalysing the inscriptions on the Babri mosque and studying the archaeological features, she says that Babur was impressed with the dignity and sanctity of the ancient Hindu shrine it displayed, and that as an obedient follower of Mohammed, Bahar regarded the substitution of temple by a mosque as dutiful and worthy.

 

(15) Archaeological Survey of India (1934).

It identifies all the holy sites of Ayodhya with reference to the ancient texts, numbered them and put up sign posts in stone to mark the sites. The Babri mosque was identified as the Ram Janmabhoomi and a sign post was embedded there saying : "Site no. 1: Janmabhoomi".

 

This Gazetteer records that under Babar's orders the ancient Janmasthan temple was destroyed and the Babri mosque was constructed on its site. The material of the old temple including some of the original columns were employed in building the mosque.

 

(17) Encyclopedia Brittanica (1978, 15th edition, vol.1).

This most authentic Encyclopedia records that Rama's birthplace is marked by a mosque erected by the Moghal emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple The Encyclopedia also provides a photograph of the present structure, describing it as the mosque on Rama's birthplace, Ayodhya, U.P., India.

 

(18) Ayodhya by Hans Bakker (1984)

In his most comprehensive study, the Dutch scholar Bakker has repeatedly and categorically accepted that an old Vaishnava temple was situated on the holy spot where Rama descended on earth. This Janmabhoomi temple was destroyed by Bahar in 1528 and replaced with the now-existing mosque structure, 14 black-stone pillars from the temple were utilized by Mir Baqi in the construction of the mosque. Two more pillars have been driven upside down into the ground at the grave of the Muslim saint Musa Ashiqan, who is said to have incited Babar to demolish the Janmabhoomi temple. A seventeenth specimen which i« a door-jamb with matching sculpture and similar age (and possibly from the same temple) is kept inside the new Janmasthan temple on the neighbouring mound. Bakker concludes that Ram Janmabhoomi temple was one of the oldest Ram temples in the country which was in existence in the 12th century, (cfr. Bakker, Ayodhya, Egbert Forsten,

Groningen 1986, part I, pp. 43-59, 60-66, 119-153 part D, pp. 118-121, 143-149, 173-175)

 

(19) Ram Janmabhoomi us. Safari Masjid by Koenraad Elst (1990).

The Belgian scholar Elst centred his study of the Ayodhya controversy on a critical examination of the anti-Mandir argumentations of Mrs. Surinder Kaur (The Secular Emperor Babar), Syed Shahabuddin (articles in Muslim India and Indian Express), and a group of JNU historians (The Political Abuse of History). Confronting these argumentations with the available evidence, as well as checking them in terms of logic and methodology, he concludes, that the anti-Mandir thesis is untenable, (cfr. Elst : Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Safari Masjid, a Case Study in Hindu-Muslim Conflict, Voice of India, Delhi 1990)

 

5. Evidence from the revenue records

In the revenue records, Hot Ram Chandra, the residential headquarters of Sri Ram Chandra has been shown quite distinct from the city (shahar) of Ayodhya. In the records, Janmasthan, a large complex .serves as a landmark in Kot Ram Chandra. The first regular settlement Report (1861) as well as the later records confirm that these records are in continuation with the Summary Settlement (1858-59) as well as with the earlier records of the Nawabi period. The revenue records clarify the factual proprietary position of Janmasthan vs. Babri Masjid, and show how the site has generally been treated as Janmasthan and nothing else.

 

In the first settlement report (1861), the entire complex of Janmasthan shown under abadi (populated) is covered under khasra No. 163 with 10 plots with superior ownership declared in the name of Sarkar Bahadur Nazul (government), and the mahants of Janmasthan along with their names and title to land have been shown with subordinate proprietary right (malikan-i matahit).

 

The map of Hadbast of the village Kot Ram Chandra appended to the Settlement Report (1861) shows only Janmasthan and the symbol of Mosque is not indicated any where on the plot in question.

 

This position is maintained even in the later three Settlements effected during the 19th-20th centuries (Fasli 1301, 1344 and 1397, corresponding to AD 1893, 1939 and 1989). In the 1937 settlement and latest Khasra Kistwar map the position is the same as in 1861 Hadbast map. As per revenue practice, numbers of the plots in the various categories of the revenue documents have however undergone change from one settlement to another. In the 1989-90 Settlement, the erstwhile Janmasthan complex has been shown under four khasra numbers, viz. 159, 160, 146 and 147 R. Ram Janmabhoomi, without being mentioned have been shown in two numbers, 159 and 160. Of these, most of the area has been shown in the ownership of the local mahant while some portion has been put under Nazul. The new Janmasthan monument rnisnornered as Janmasthan to the north of the latter, shown in khasras Nos. 146 and 147 R is vested in the ownership of the local mahant.

 

Even though the amended khasra records of the Nazul Department (1931) under No. 580 put both the structure of the Babri Masjid and the Chabootra Temple in Waqf possession, Mahant Raghunath has been declared as subsidiary proprietor of the entire plot. However, the position taken by the Nazul records (1931) is not further reflected in any of the regular revenue settlements of 1936-37 and 1989-90.

 

In the Settlement Reports since 1861, no plot or sub-plot has been shown as Waqf. Muhammad Asghar and Mir Rajab Ali who claimed themselves to be khatibs and muazzana of the Babri Mosque were in fact and zamincfars of village Shahanwa, about 6 miles from Kot Ram Chandra, and held nankar/muafi (maintenance grant) on account of services rendered by them to the British government.

 

There is no record of the Babri Masjid as a Waqf in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act of 1936 or its re-enacted version of 1960.

 

6. Archaeological evidence

The text in annexure, Rom Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid at Ayodhya.- an Archaeological and Art-Historical Examination, by Dr. S. P. Gupta, is a detailed survey of those findings at the disputed site which are relevant for the present discussion. It lists the details about the components of an earlier temple that have been re'employed in The Babri Masjid, and the results of exacavalions just outside the building. These excavations were carried out in 1975-80 by the Archaeological Survey of India, and led by Prof   B.B. Lal  Their object of investigation was primarily the early period, presumed to have been the period of the events  which   formed   the   historical   core   of   the   Ramayana   epic.  Therefore the findinqs relating to the medieval period have not been highlighted in the concise ASI excavation reports published so far.

 

Dr. S. P. Gupta, former director of the Allahabad Museum, who participated in the excavations, has written this first-hand report on the category of findings pertinent to the present discussion. His conclusions have been broadly confirmed by Prof. B. B. Lal, in an article published in Manthan (October 1990), as well as in an interview with BBC television.

 

Incidentally, we have taken note of the fact that some historians of Jawaharlal Nehru University have thought it necessary to raise suspicions against the professional integrity of Dr. Gupta and Prof. Lal. In a statement published in Indian Express (December 5, 1990), they insinuate that Dr. Gupta falsely claims participation in the excavations, and that Prof. Lal has changed his archaeological conclusions in order to satisfy newly arisen political exigencies. Both these insinuations are baseless. The fact that the JNU historians, protagonists of the anti-Mandir camp in the present historical debate, now find it necessary to resort to personal attacks, may indicate an increasing loss of confidence in their own arguments.

7.        Untenability of the alternative hypothesis

 

7-1       No Second Janmasthan

A thesis advanced by the anti-Mandir people is that the new Janmasthan temple (also known as Sita Ki Rasoi) on the mound adjacent to the north of the Babri structure is itself the original Janmasthan shrine. On many grounds, this proposition is untenable :

(1)        This is relatively new temple and there is no archaelogical evidence to suggest that it is more than 250 years

(2)         Available historical evidence shows that this shrine was originally started by a sadhu named Ram Dasji in about 1704 AD, on a piece of land donated by Mir Masoom AH Mafidar. Subsequently, the present impressive structure was built by a Hindu minister of Safdarjang (the Shia Nawab of Awadh), Naval Rai, who rebuilt many temples during this period of relative benevolence, mostly on sites of original site destroyed by Muslims. Where the original site was occupied, as in this case, a neighbouring site was used for the construction.

 

(3}        Tieffenthaler described the Babri Masjid in detail as being the site of the original Ram Ja/imabhoomi, while he also mentions the new Janmasthan temple (Sita ki Rasoi) as a very famous one in the city.

 

(4)        The thesis that the original Ram Janmabhoomi shrine continued without any interference leaves unexplained the origin of the persistent controversy about Ram-Janmabhoomi on the Babri Masjid site.

 

7.2       Hindus never ceased claiming the site

It is well-attested that the Hindus persistently tried to retrieve their holy land, which led to conflicts between Hindus and Muslims. The Hindus regained control of the courtyard by the 18th century and kept up their pressure on the site under the domed structure. There is no reasonable explanation for this persistent attachment to the site, except that it was in continuation of an older, pre-Masjid tradition.

 

A document enclosed with a letter dated 12th August, 1855 from Wazid Ali Shah, the king of Oudh, to the British Resident Major James Outram, carrying the seal of the Qazi of Faizabad in the year 1735 A.D., mentioned that a serious riot had taken place over the Masjid "built by the emperor of Delhi" (apparently a conflict of the kind that took place in 1855) between Hindus and Muslims, during the times of Burhan-un-Mulk Saadar Ali Khan, the first Nawab of Oudh (1707-1736) over the possession of this mosque. (NAI, Foreign, Political Proceedings, 28th December, 1855, No. 355.

 

Maratha documents show that one of the main objectives of the Maratha operations and policy in North India was the liberation of the sacred cities of Ayodhya, Varanasi and Prayag. In the year 1751 Maratha armies led by Malhar Rao Holkar, at the invitation of Safdarjang, the second Nawab of Oudh, defeated the Pathan forces in Doab. Immediately after his victory Maihar Rao Holkar requested Safdarjang to handover Ayodhya, Kashi and Prayag to the Peshwa. (A.L.Srivastava: The First Two Nawabs of Oudh).

 

Again, when in 1756 the third Nawab Shujauddaula invited Maratha help against impending Afghan invasion, the Maratha agent of the Court of Oudh demanded the transfer of these three holy places induding Ayodhya and the negotiations lingered on for more than a year on this one point. Ultimately in July 1757, Shujauddaula agreed to transfer the holy cities of Ayodhya and Kashi to the Maratha leader Raghoba. But the transfer could not be implemented as Maratha armies got entangled in the conquest of the Punjab which ultimately led to the tragedy of Panipat (1761 A.D.).

24

But Peshwa Balaji Bajirao's eagerness to acquire Ayodhya is reflected in one of his letters dated 23th February, 1759 to Dattaji Scindia, his General in the North wherein the Peshwa reminds Scindia that 'Mansur All's son (i.e., Shujauddaula) had promised to Dada (i.e. Raghobajto cede Benares and Ayodhya" and instructs him-to take hold to those places alongwith Prayag. (Cf. Sarkar J.N. Fall of the Moghul Empire, Vol. D, Calcutta, 1934 ff 231-233).

 

Historians Dr. A.L. Srivastava, Sir J.A. Sarkar, G.S. Sardesai and Dr. Hari Ram Gupta who have studies this period of history very deeply have concluded that "Had the Bhau (Sadashiv) emerged successful from Panipat, within a few years Kashi, Prayag and Ayodhya would have been emancipated". (Hari Ram Gupta : Marathas & Panipat, Chandigarh 1961, p.292).

 

In 1767 Tieffenthaler found that in spite of the Mughal kings' efforts to prevent them, the Hindus had re-occupied the courtyard, raised the Ram Chabootra thereon, and were worshipping there as well as under the domed structure.

In 1854 Thornton recorded in his Gazetteer exactly the same situation as Tieffenthaler had found.

 

In 1855 there was a big clash in which nearly 300 Muslims under Shah Ghulam Hussain took possession of the Babri mosque and tried to fix doors on it. On protests from Hindus, clashes started. Muslims attacked Hanumangarhi, but were driven back with considerable loss. Then the Hindu counter attacked, stormed the Janmasthan and killed 70 Muslims who were burried nearby. Shah Ghulam Hussain jumped over the wall and fled.

 

In 1856, the Muazzin of the Babri mosque, in a petition before the British authorities admitted that the courtyard had been in possession of the Hindus for hundreds of years and now they were interfering with the domed structure as well.

 

In 1934, serious Hindu-Muslim clashes occurred in and around Babri mosque, occasioned by a cow slaughter. Many people were killed and the structure was seriously damaged.

In November and December 1949, the Hindus held large sessions of Ramayana-recitation around the site, in order to purify it. On December 22/23, idols were installed (some say they miraculously appeared} and the place was re-consecrated for Rama worship.

 

7.3       Attempts to suppress Muslim testimony

While all Muslim writers before 1949 proudly proclaimed the destruction of the Ram Janmabhoomi for construction of the mosque, hailing it was virtuous act of proclaiming the victory of Islam over Hinduism, there are definite indications that in the recent years (especially since the Hindus strenghtened their claim over the site) attempts have been made to suppress evidence and manipulate records. The following cases will show this.

 

1}         Gumgashte Halat-i Ajodhya Awadh by Maulvi Abdul Karim (referred to in 3:8), was translated from Persian to Urdu by his grandson Maulvi Abdul Gaffar. The first edition of his translation, published in Lucknow in 1979 retained the description of demolition of the temple at Janmasthan, but this portion was removed from the second edition published in 1981 (p.53-54).

 

2)         In 1989, a leading intellectual of this country looked for the book "Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein" (Hindustan under Islamic Rule), by Maulana Hakim Saiyid Abdul Hai (referred to in 3:11), which included a chapter on Hindustan ki Masjidein, containing a description of the demolition of several temples in the country including the Ram Janmabhoomi, and their replacement by mosques. He found that many people who certainly should have known the book, were not willing to recall it. The book was also missing in the libraries of famed Muslim institutes, including AMU. If one perforce wants to consider all this mere concoction and insinuation, this much is verifiable fact: the English version (1977) has the tell tale passage in the descriptions of seven mosques built on temples, including babri masjid, censored out or substituted.

 

3)         The manuscript of the Muruqqa-i Khusrawi by Sheikh Mohammed Azamat Ali Nami, was only available in the Tagore Library, Lucknow, for over 100 years. In 1986, when the F.A. Ahmad Memorial Committee published it, they omitted the chapter relating to the destruction of Ram Janmabhoomi and the Hindu-Muslim clashes in 1855. Later Dr. Zaki Kakorawi had to get this published independently without getting any financial aid from the committee.

 

4)         The Setllement Record of   1861  (First Khasra Kishtwar Settlernent Report) contained only the name of Janmasthan on d i the plots of Khasra No. 163. But in the copy of the report kept in the Faizabad Mahafazkhana, someone has made interpolations to insert, the names of Jama Masjid and Muafi against one of the plots. The interpolation becomes evident if one looks at the record available at Tehsil Office, the record of second Revenue Settlement 1893 AD) and the Revised Khasra record of Nazul department of 1931 A.D.

 

The fact that some people thought it necessary to conceal, manipulate or even obliterate pieces of testimony to the history and the actual use of the disputed structure and its courtyard, corroborates our view that these pieces do have proof value in favour of the Mandir hypothesis.

 

7.4        Total Lack of counter-evidence

The thesis recently advanced by some persons that Babri Masjid did not replace to any extent Ram temple goes against common sense in many ways. The well-attested fact that the Hindu offered Rama Puja in the mosque courtyard even under Muslim rule, the rows of llth century pillar-bases along with the wall of the present structure, the touch-stone pillars incorporated in it, the Hindu sculptures they carry, all these indications converge on the thesis of a pre-existent Ram temple replaced by the Babri mosque. This thesis is also in perfect conformity with historically attested behaviour patterns of Hindu devotees and Muslim conquerors. Indeed, the Rain Mandir hypothesis postulates little more than the general patterns applied in Ayodhya too

By contrast, the anti-Mandir thesis rests on a number of untenable assumptions ;

 

1)     The babri masjid was built on empty land. But the site is highest point in central Ayodhya, the place of honour : in no city in the world would it ever have been left empty, much less in a temple city of long standing.

 

2)     Mir Baqi went elsewhere to' collect the touch-stone pillars, but at that other place where the material was readily available, he did not build a mosque (for no other mosque with such pillars is known).

 

3)     The tradition associating the site with Rama was created out of nothing while the site was occupied by an imperial mosque. Hindus left whatever place they had earlier considered the birthplace, without a trace, arid started an exclusively Hindu worship in a

mosque courtyard taking the unparalleled risk of confronting the Muslim power, for no historical reason at all.

 

4)    The British concocted the story, even though their knowledge of these traditions was scant, no priests or sadhus belonging to this tradition would ever believe an outsider's theory (till today they reject any scholarly chronology of Indian history), plenty of temples-turned-mosques were in existence without needing concoction, and no similar rumour-mongering by the British has been reported anywhere in India.

 

In an academic context, the burden of proof would rest squarely with the those coming up with such a string of far-feteched hypothesis to contradict a well-established hypothesis attested by a long list of uncontroverted independent testimonies by local Muslim as well as European writers spanning 4 centuries. More so because the Mandir is not only well supported by the evidence which we have presented, but is coherent with well-attested behaviour patterns:

 

1)    Muslim conquerors destroyed many temples and replaced them with mosques.

 

2)    In a few cases, they left the whole building standing (Kaaba, Aya Sophia), but far more often they left the earlier building only partly standing or razed it completely, but visibly used parts of the destroyed temple, to flaunt the victory of Islam over paganism, e.g., the Jama Masjid of Damascus (Syria), the Gyanvapi mosque (Varanasi), Jami Masjid of Rajamundri (Andhra), Quwwat-ul-Islam Masjid (Delhi), Adhayi-Din-ka-Jhonpra mosque (Ajmer), Jami Masjid of Kannauj (U.P.), Jami Masjid of Sambhal (U.P.).

 

3)    As N. Manucci (17th century) and A. Cunningham (19th century) have testified, Hindus often kept returning to places on which a mosque had been imposed, and this more so to the extent that the place itself, rather than the erstwhile temple, was sacred to them.

 

A simple test whether the anti-mandir hypothesis deserves any consideration at all, is the element for which evidence should be most easy to find : the British concoction hypothesis, in the plentiful and well-kept archives which the British have left us, it should not be too difficult for genuine historians to find some pieces of evidence. But so far, no proof whatsoever has been given either for such an actual course of even for similar British tactics at another time and place. If the anti-mandir polemists cannot even come up with that, their whole hypothesis stands exposed as a highly implausible and purely theoretical construction.

 

7 5 Conclusioin

The choice is between two hypothesis. Actually, the hypothesis that a Mandir stood on the Ram Janmabhoomi site until Babar's troops destroyed it and replaced it with the Babri Masjid, has only been made into a 'hypothesis' and forced to compete with the alternative aiiti-mandir hypothesis. Until recently, the pre-existence of a Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir at the Babri Masjid site was a matter of established consensus. It was confirmed by a large number of Hindu, Muslim and European sources from 17th century onwards, and never "• once put in doubt. And it explains all the relevant facts and observations mentioned in all the sources, and all the iconographical and archaeological findings at the site.

 

By contrast, the alternative hypothesis is a recent invention of armchair theorizers, under political compulsions. Formally, it does no more than put into question a number of the courses which confirm the Mandir hypothesis It does not offer a coherent scenario that would explain all the available facts. It goes against the general historical knowledge in a number of respects, and fails to justify its extraordinary assumptions. Materially, it does not come up with any proof : no proof that any of the pro Mandir documents is telling lies, much less any proof of the events that would make up an alternative non-Mandir scenario.

 

The choice is between a hypothesis firmly rooted in reality, and a hypothesis constructed in the air and totally out of tune with general knowledge and particular evidence. Faced with this choice, any sincere scholar, and indeed any citizen with common sense, will not find it difficult to makeup his mind.

 

Excerpts from the Rejoinder to the AIBMAC documents

Submitted to the Government of India on January 6, 1991 We have given evidence: 

 

The Government of India had asked both parties to this dispute to present historical evidence onerning the question whether a Hindu temple was demolished to make way for the Babri Masjid. Evidence means, human or material testimony for the scenario that a flourishing Hindu temple stood there and that it was forcibly replaced by a mosque;

29

or for the alternative scenario, that .something else than a Hindu temple was there, such as empty space, and that the mosque was built without interfering with the existing customs of worship.

 

We have given evidence: solid archaeological and iconographical evidence that a Hindu temple existed there and a mass of documentary evidence of different types, showing the unanimous tradition, held since at least the early 17th century, that the Babri Masjid was built on a very sacred but forcibly demolished Hindu Temple, believed to indicate Rama's birthplace.

 

But in the long list of documents submitted by the All India Babri masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC), we do not find any primary evidence: testimony that the Masjid was built on an empty spot, or that the owner of the plot had willingly sold it to the Muslim rulers for constructions of the Babri masjid We also do not find any secondary evidence in the AIBMAC bundle of documents : authentic testimony from local people or from travellers saying explicitly that they had always believed that the Masjid had been built on empty land

 

Allow us to make a few genera! observations concerning the evidence offered by the BMAC. The very first striking fact about the documents, as already noted, is that none of them contain evidence for the point which the AIBMAC was required to present proof. In a few cases, they contain scholarly arguments. While not strictly evidence, we do not agree that they deserve to be in this dossier. Quite a number of the documents, however are the pieces written by politically minded people with no scholarly competence in this field at all. And even among the genuine academics, there are some with a strong ideological bias . history, as well as literature science, cannot be equated with physics, as far as strict neutrality is concerned It follows that even the opinion of big names cannot count as proof, unless the actual evidence on which their tall opinion is based, is added.

 

A second observation is that all these separate pieces of 'evidence' do not yield a coherent scenario at all. In fact, many of the documents contradict each other Thus, some ancient sources integrate the Rama story into Buddhist tradition, while some modern pamphleteers say the Ramayana symbolizes the victory of Brahmmism over Buddhism. Some say there is no historical core at all, others say the Ramayana dramatises the 'Aryan' conquest of South India. Some say the Janmabhoomi site was empty, others that it contained a Buddhist stupa. Some say that Masjid was built by Babar. others say it was built one or two centuries earlier.

 

There can be only one history, one scenario that took place in reality. The AIBMAC people have not made clear for which scenario this evidence musters proof.

 

A third observation is that the AIBMAC evidence is quantitatively very copious, yet very meagre as far as the central issue is concerned: proving or disproving that the Babri masjid forcibly replaced a flourishing Hindu place of worship.

 

There is much about the legal story, which proves little more than the obvious fact that after the Muslim take-over the place was considered Muslim property both under Nawabi and colonial rule. So, that part of the 'evidence' simply restates the judicial problem, but does not clinch the issue of its historical rights and wrongs. But then again, it also proves that Hindus kept on claiming the place, both in court and on the ground. The point is precisely that it was unjustly in' Muslim possession, and that Hindus kept on fighting for what was theirs but was denied to them by the Muslim and British rulers.

 

But there is in these documents only little about the events in Ayodhya in the Moghul and Nawabi periods. And what is conspicuously missing, is any kind of testimony that Babar or another Muslim commander saw this empty piece of land and, out of an abhorrence of emptiness, ordered a Masjid to be built. That would have been evidence for an alternative to the Mandir scenario.

 

In the AIBMAC documents pertaining to ancient history, especially to the period when Rama supposedly lived, we see the same failure. There is not one contemporary or near-contemporary testimony of Valmiki inventing the character Rama out of nothing. There is not one line from any of the many Ramayana versions, that declares the Rama character was merely invented to build a good story around. That would be something of a proof that Rama was purely fiction. Failing that, it becomes quite hard to prove that someone did not exist. We have offered proof that Rama was at least considered and treated as a historical character by ancient Hindu writers, including Purana writers whose dynastic histories have been at least partly confirmed by modern historical research, even while this was not the question for which evidence was requested. But our AIBMAC friends, even while trying to smuggle Rama's historicity into the debate, do not come up with any evidence, merely some latter day opinions.

 

We reiterate that for us, the historical details of the events that became the subject matter of the Ramayana are not what is at stake in this debate. The point is whether it is a traditional Hindu sacred place, not why it is one. Therefore, all documents pertaining to other aspects of the matter than the existence of a temple which was forcibly replaced by the Babri Masjid, are really beside the point.

 

The tactics of dispute

Though some of our documents have been dug up from the archives only recently, a number of them had been drawn attention to in public forums, so the AlBMAC could have attacked the reliability of those evidences. However, in the long list of AlBMAC documents, there is not a trace of a critique of the four Muslim testimonies presented by Harsh Narain (IE 26/2/1990} or Tieffenthaler's testimony presented by A.K. Chatterjee (IE 26/3/1990). There is also not a trace of evidence for the oft-used explanation that the local people, gullible as Hindus and Muslims both can be swallowed a story purposely concocted by the British.

 

There have been a few attempts to discredit the archaeological conclusions, made public by Prof. B.B. Lal and Dr. S.P. Gupta. These attempts are not made by competent archaeologists or people who have any kind of first -hand knowledge of the Janmabhoomi archaeology, but by armchair historians like Prof. R.S. Sharma or the JNU historians, who happen to be firmly rooted in a Marxism, a tradition notorious for its numerous brutal falsifications of history. In particular, there heave been baseless insinuations against the professional integrity of both archaeologists. On top of that, all kinds of untenable denials as well as fantastic alternative explanations of the archaeological findings have been floated. But no evidence.

 

Competent archaeologists and art historians have come out in support of Prof. Lal and Dr. Gupta, including Muhammed K.K. (Dy. Superintending Archaeologist, ASI Madras circle, in IE 15/12/90), Mr. Iravatham Mahadevan (indiologist and editor of Dinamani, IE 5/12/90), and Dr. R. Nath, author of History of Mughal Architecture, whom the AlBMAC had quoted in support of its case. He has confirmed "I have been to the site and have had occasion to study the mosque, privately, and have absolutely no doubt that the mosque stands on the site of a Hindu temple on the north western corner of the temple-fortress Ramkot." (IE2/1/091) But so far, not one among the Hindu-baiters who have lectured us about the primacy of science over myth, has given up his attachment to the anti-Mandir myth in the fact of the incontrovertible scientific evidence.

 

There is a method in these unscholarly attempts to sow suspicions against the undeniable archaeological facts, though it is not the scientific: method. It is like a defence lawyer's attempt to create confusion and thus hold up the clear-cut case of prosecutor. Perhaps such tactics are alright in court, but in a scholarly debate they are considered highly objectionable and a definite indication of a commitment to something else than the truth.

 

A distraction tactic, that is what the entire anti-Mandir argumentation amounts to. Instead of coming up with one genuine piece of evidence, the habn polemists merely raise new distractions to create confusion.

 

A strong example of these distraction tactics in the AIBMAC bundle of documents, is the fact that no less than seven different hypotheses regarding Rama's birth place have been given ; (1} He was never born at all. (2) He was born at an unknown place. (3) He was born at Ayodhya, a few dozen yards north of the Ram Janmabhoomi site, where now the Sita ki Rasoi stands. (4) He was born in the village Ghuram in Punjab (B) He was born in Afghanistan (6) He was born on the banks of the Saryu in Nepal, (7) He was born in Beneras. So, they expect us to go and disprove all these seven hypotheses, of which they themselves disbelieve at least six.

 

The larger picture

"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history it is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within." Those are the words of Will Durarit, a Western scholar who was not a "Hindu communalist'. Its basic statement is but a summary of the massive testimony given by the Muslim invaders and their chroniclers themselves. It is also confirmed by the "silent witnesses", all the leftovers of destroyed temples which have been incorporated in mosques. It is therefore not a "prejudice1 or "communal distortion of history", it is just factual.

There is a convenient contention these days, the "communal" view of history, which sees the Islamic onslaught as the materialisation of a consistent Islamic doctrine rather than as a diffuse coincidence of economical arid other secular factors, is merely a British concoction in order to 'divide and rule' Thus, R.S. Sharma attributes to the British scholar H.M. Elliot 'the best example of British communal historigraphy' because Elliot 'denounces the Muslim rulers in the most severe terms'. (Communal History and Rama's Ayodhya, p.11).

 

So, when Indian historians have recognised Islamic doctrine as the largest single factor of communal strife in India, it was not because they 'were caught in the communal trap laid by British historians", as R.S. Sharma wants us to believe. It was because, as historians, they had to take the authentic testimonies into account. By contrast, the 'secularist' historians have glossed over a mass of authentic information in order to impose their secular explanation on the unwilling facts.

 

That is how, Hindu society came to suffer under the systematic onslaught of invaders who had been taught to take pride in killing and oppressing the Pagans.

 

Our demand

The Pagans of Arabia are not there anymore to reclaim their Kaaba. Islam has destroyed them. After that, it has destroyed many more cultures, starting with their place of worship. The Manichaeans, Nestorians and Buddhists of Iran and Central Asia are not there anymore to reclaim their temples and monasteries (and the few Zoroastrians that have survived are too oppressed, too few and too afraid to raise their voice)

 

But we have survived, though not unscathed, and we do demand the restoration of our most sacred places. We demand that the Muslim community of India recognizes the rights of Hindu society to these three shrines : Kashi Vishvanath in Varanasi, Krishna-Janmabhoomi in Mathura, and Ram-Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya.

 

Against this perfectly reasonable demand, yet another smear campaign has been unleashed, saying that we preach "revenge". Revenge would mean that we go and destroy the Muslim sacred places in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. We have no opinion of doing that. It would also mean wars of conquest, persecution, killing of millions, abducting millions of women and children into slavery, short, a mirror-image of what the Muslim conquerors and rulers have done to Hindu society. We have no inclination at all to inflict revenge on the Muslim community

 

We do not even demand the return of the thousands of places of worship that have been forcibly replaced with mosques. Let the local Muslim communities continue to use them. All we demand, is the return of three sacred places.

 

Right now in the Soviet Union, Muslims as well as Christians and Buddhists are claiming and getting their erstwhile places of worship back which the Communists had confiscated and put to all_ kinds of secular uses. The offices and whatever else had been installed in them, have to be lodged some place else now. But that, as well as the fact that communities had been doing without these places of worship for seventy years, has not been taken as a reason for keeping the status-quo.

 

We merely want three places back, three age-old sacred places. And we would prefer getting them back from the Muslim community, this is an excellent opportunity to make up voluntarily for the huge massacres, persecutions, slave-taking, abductions, temple destructions and sword point conversions which its earlier generation inflicted upon Hindu society, as no other non-Muslim communities both in India and elsewhere.

 

In the past two years, many nations arid communities have chosen to make a formal recognition of past errors, and apologized to the victims or their descendants. The Japanese people, through their prime minister as well as their new emperor, have apologized to the Korean people for the oppression in the half century preceding 1945/ The Soviet Union has apologized to the Koreans for the start of the Korean war The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa has apologized to the blacks for its ideological support for the Apartheid system. The Soviet leaders have recognised the guilt of their predecessors in the Karyan massacre of Polish officers. They have corrected the text on the Katyan monument and held a joint ceremony on the spot with the Polish president. The way to make a new beginning goes via the recognition of the wrongs of the past.

 

So, the time is ripe. And we would like the Indian Muslim community to rise to the occasion of its own free will. After all, two mosques and one non-mosque are a very small price for an immense gesture of goodwill, which will convince Hindu society that the Muslims have effectively broken with the unhappy record of their predecessors. For us these places are no less sacred than Kerbela or the Al-Aqsa mosque are for the Muslims. Muslims should understand what kind of message they are sending by insisting on continuing the occupation of our sacred places, an occupation which was started by fanatics and mass-murderers like Bahar and Aurangzeb. We do not like to think of our Muslim compatriots as heirs and followers of such invaders and tyrants. It is upto them to make a gesture that will signify a formal break with this painful past.

 

We do believe that religions and societies can be reformed. When the Christians came to India, they broke our idols and practised conversion by force. They don t do that anymore. So, we are convinced that religious reform in the sense of a profound humanisation is possible. We do not want to keep identifying the Muslim community with the crimes inflicted on us by some of their predecessors. And precisely because we believe that the past can be forgotten as soon as concerned parties agree to do so, we expect the Muslim community in India to come forward and make a gesture that will turn this unfortunate page

 

We will conclude this plea for a gesture of goodwill and historical honesty, with a quote from one of the AIBMAC documents This document, Bahar's testament to Humayun, which is such a nice piece of secularism, has unfortunately been shown to be a forgery. Not that this is dramatic : so many declarations of secularism are also of doubtful genuineness.

 

Anyway, since our AIBMAC friends believe that Babar's will is an authentic and authoritative statement, we appeal to them to abide by it, especially where it says : 'People of diverse religions inhabit Hindustan. You should not allow religious prejudices to influence your mind, and administer impartial justice, having the due regard to religious susceptibilities and religious customs of all sections of the people. In particular, refrain from the slaughter of cows, for that is the way to win the hearts of the people of Hindustan .. You should never destroy the places of worship of any community... ' (p.272 of S.R... Sharma : The Crescent in India)

 

So, we appeal to the All India Babri masjid Action Committee, to all Muslim Indians and in fact to all people of goodwill, to fulfil Babar's last wish. We call on them to join Hindu society in enacting an all-India ban on cow-slaughter, and to respect the Hindu sacred places, especially Kashi Vishvanath, Krishna-Janmabhoomi and Ram-Janmabhoomi.

36

 

 

Detail of purnaghata with a goose on a lotus flower on the wail of a pillar inside the existing structure

 

Published By

SAHITYA EVAM DRIK - SHRAVYA SEWA NYAS

Regd Office • 8,  Todar Mal Lane. Bengali Market. New Delhi    110001 Office . Sankat Mochan Ashram, 6, Ramakrishna Puram New Delhi- 110022 Tel. : 6178992, 6103495