The ‘disputed’ structure
Literary evidence
Bibliography
For all the sound and fury in the media about Ayodhya, the
historical question is surprisingly simple: was there or was there not a
Hindu temple at the spot known as Ram Janmabhumi that was destroyed to
build a mosque? The answer is also equally simple — ‘yes’. There are two
parts to the question: (1) was there a Hindu temple, and (2) was it
destroyed and a mosque known as Babri Masjid built in its place. Again
the answer is — ‘yes’ to both questions. It is as simple as that.
We
should not allow ourselves to be diverted by the dispute whether Lord
Ram was born at Ayodhya. It can neither be proved not disproved on the
basis of existing evidence, just as we can neither prove nor disprove
that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Mohammed was born in Mecca. The
point of this essay is the destruction of Ram Temple to build a mosque
in Babar’s time.
There are basically two sources for studying the
history: literary sources and the archaeological record. Following the
demolition on December 6, 1992, a great deal of archeological and
historical information has come to light. Thus, much of the published
material, as well as the controversy about previous temples at the site
have been rendered moot by new discoveries following the demolition.
What is presented here is a summary of the latest evidence — literary as
well as archaeological.
Literary evidence
The
latest (fifteenth) edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in its
article on Ayodhya tells us: “Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque,
erected by the Moghul emperor Babur in 1528 on the site of an earlier
temple.” This is only one of hundreds of references to the destruction
several languages. One recent author (Harsh Narain, below) cites more
than a hundred and thirty references in English, French, Hindi,
Sanskrit, Urdu, Persian and Arabic. And I have identified several not
found in his work.
The most comprehensive discussion of the
primary material available is probably the book The Ayodhya Temple
Mosque Dispute: Focus on the Muslim Sources by Harsh Narain. We next go
on to examine several of these sources provided by Harsh Narain. When we
survey this vast literature, we see that until recently, until the
Secularists created the so-called ‘controversy’, no author — Hindu,
Muslim, European or British official — had questioned that a temple
existed on the spot which had been destroyed to erect the mosque. We may
begin with a couple of references from European writers provided by
Harsh Narain. These are from published sources that are widely
available.
A. Führer in his The Monumental Antiquities and
Inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Archaeological
Survey of India Report, 1891, pp 296-297 records: ‘Mir Khan built a
masjid in A.H. 930 during the reign of Babar, which still bears his
name. This old temple must have been a fine one, for many of its columns
have been utilized by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar’s
Masjid.’ [This is supported by archaeology, as we shall soon see.]
H.R.
Neville in the Barabanki District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 168-169,
writes that the Janmasthan temple ‘was destroyed by Babar and replaced
by a mosque.’ Neville, in his Fyzabad District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905,
pp 172-177 further tells us; ‘The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked
the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ayodhya and halted
here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a
mosque, still known as Babar’s mosque. The materials of the old
structure [i.e., the temple] were largely employed, and many of the
columns were in good preservation.’ [Again supported by archaeological
finds.]
In 1855, Amir Ali Amethawi led a Jihad (Islamic religious
war) for the recapture of Hanuman Garhi, situated a few hundred yards
from the Babri Masjid which at that time was in the possession of
Hindus. This Jihad took place during the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah.
It ended in failure. A Muslim writer, one Mirza Jan, was a participant
in that failed Jihad. His book Hadiqah-i-Shuhada was published in 1856,
i.e. the year following the attempted Jihad. Miza Jan tells us:
wherever
they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since the
establishment of Sayyid Salar Mas’ud Ghazi’s rule, the Muslim rulers in
India built mosques, monasteries, and inns, appointed mu’azzins,
teachers and store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously, and vanquished the
Kafirs. Likewise they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh, too from the filth
of reprobation (infidelity), because it was a great centre of worship
and capital of Rama’s father. Where there stood a great temple (of
Ramajanmasthan), there they built a big mosque, … Hence what a lofty
mosque was built there by king Babar in 923 A.H. (1528 A.D.), under the
patronage of Musa Ashiqqan! (Harsh Narain: p 105)
In fact, as
late as 1923, the book Asrar-i-Haqiqat written by the Hindu scholar
Lachmi Narain Qunango assisted by Maulvi Hashmi confirms all of the
above details. The book leaves one with the impression that many sources
were still available to them, especially to the Maulvi who served as
Pandit Lachmi Narain’s munshi. This brings us to a Persian text known as
Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasa’ih Bahadurshahi written in 1707 by a
granddaughter of the Moghul emperor Aurangazeb, and noted by Mirza Jan
in his Urdu work Hadiqah-i Shuhada previously cited. Mirza Jan quotes
several lines from it which tell us:
keeping the triumph of
Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should keep all idolaters in
subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in realization of Jizyah, grant no
exceptions to Hindu Rajahs from dancing attendance on ‘Id days and
waiting on foot outside mosques till end of prayer … and ‘keep in
constant use for Friday and congregational prayer the mosques built up
after demolishing the temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at
Mathura, Banaras and Avadh … (Harsh Narain: pp 23-24; emphasis added.)
Then
there is the evidence of the three inscriptions at the site of the
mosque itself, at least two of which mention its construction by Mir
Baqi (or Mir Khan) on the orders of Babar. Babar’s Memoir mentions Mir
Baqi as his governor of Ayodhya. Some parts of the inscription were
damaged during a riot in 1934, but later pieced together with minor
loss. In any event, it was well known long before that, recorded for
instance in Mrs. Beveridge’s translation of Babur-Nama published in
1926.
Overwhelming as all this evidence is, the archaeological evidence is still stronger.
Discoveries at the site I: The Temple City of Ayodhya
Let
us next look at what archaeology has to say about the Ayodhya site. The
first point to note is that Ayodhya lies in a region that is generously
watered, and has therefore been densely populated since time
immemorial. As a result, archaeological work at Ayodhya is more
difficult, and has not been on the same scale as at Harappan sites lying
a thousand miles to the west. Here is what a leading archaeologist, Dr.
S.P. Gupta (former director of the Allahabad Museum), has to say about
recent excavations at Ayodhya.
From 1975 through 1980, the
Archaeological Survey of India under the Directorship of Professor B.B.
Lal, a former Director General of the Survey, undertook an extensive
programme of excavation at Ayodhya, including the very mound of the
Ramajanmabhumi on which the so-called “Janmasthan Masjid” or Babri
Mosque once stood and was later demolished on 6th December 1992.
At
Ayodhya, Professor Lal took as many as 14 trenches at different places
to ascertain the antiquity of the site. It was then found that the
history of the township was at least three thousand years old, if not
more… When seen in the light of 20 black stone pillars, 16 of which were
found re-used and standing in position as corner stones of piers for
the disputed domed structure of the ‘mosque’, Prof. Lal felt that the
pillar bases may have belonged to a Hindu temple built on archaeological
levels formed prior to 13th century AD…
On further stratigraphic
and other evidence, Lal concluded that the pillar bases must have
belonged to a Hindu temple that stood between 12th and the 16th
centuries. “He also found a door-jamb carved with Hindu icons and
decorative motifs of yakshas, yakshis, kirtimukhas, purnaghattas, double
lotus flowers etc.”
What this means is that Lal had found
evidence for possibly two temples, one that existed before the 13th
century, and another between the 13th and the 16th centuries. This
corresponds very well indeed with history and tradition. We know that
this area was ravaged by Muslim invaders following Muhammad of Ghor’s
defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan in the second battle of Tarain in 1192 AD.
This was apparently rebuilt and remained in use until destroyed again in
the 16th century by Babar.
Temple Ruins found at the demolished site of Babri Structure.
Excavation
was resumed on July 2, 1992 by S.P. Gupta, Y.D. Sharma, K.M. Srivastava
and other senior archaeologists. This was less than six months before
the demolition (which of course no one then knew was going to take
place). Their particular interest lay in the forty-odd Hindu artifacts
that had been discovered in an adjacent pit that had been missed by Lal.
These finds had been widely reported in the newspapers. Gupta, a former
Director of the Allahabad Museum and an expert on medieval artifacts
had a special interest in examining the finds. He tells us:
The
team found that the objects were datable to the period ranging from the
10th through the 12th century AD, i.e., the period of the late
Pratiharas and early Gahadvals. The kings of these two dynasties hailing
from Kannauj had ruled over Avadh and eastern Uttar Pradesh
successively during that period.
These objects included a number
of amakalas, i.e., the cogged-wheel type architectural element which
crown the bhumi shikharas or spires of subsidiary shrines, as well as
the top of the spire or the main shikhara … This is a characteristic
feature of all north Indian temples of the early medieval period and no
one can miss it — it is there in the Orissa temples such as Konarak, in
the temples of Madhya Pradesh such as Khajuraho and in the temples of
Rajasthan such as Osian.
There was other evidence — of cornices,
pillar capitals, mouldings, door jambs with floral patterns and others —
leaving little doubt regarding the existence of a 10th – 12th century
temple complex at the site of Ayodhya. So B.B. Lal had been right in
believing there was an earlier temple — prior to the one destroyed by
Babar. More discoveries were made following the demolition of December
6. All these discoveries leave no doubt at all about the true picture.
So
archaeology also leaves little doubt about the existence of the prior
temple. Then came the explosion of Decembr 6, 1992, which demolished not
only the Babri Masjid but also the whole case of the Secularists and
their allies. It revealed a major inscription that settled the question
once and for all.
Discoveries at the site II: the Hari-Vishnu inscription
The
demolition on December 6, 1992 changed the picture dramatically,
providing further support to the traditional accounts — both Hindu and
Muslim. Some of the kar-sevaks, no doubt influenced by all the publicity
about history and archaeology, went on to pick up more than two hundred
pieces of stone slabs with writing upon them. A few of these proved to
belong to extremely important inscriptions, more than a thousand years
old. In effect, the kar-sevaks had done what archaeologists should have
done years ago; they had unearthed important inscriptions — in howsoever
a crude form — something that should have been done years ago by
professional historians and archaeologists. The inscriptions, even the
few that have been read so far, shed a great deal of light on the
history of not only Ayodhya and its environs, but all of North India in
the early Medieval, and even the late ancient period. Here is what S.P.
Gupta found upon examining the two-hundred and fifty or so stone pieces
with writing upon them. The most important of these deciphered so far is
the Hari-Vishnu inscription that clinches the whole issue of the
temple. It is written in 12th century AD Devanagari script and belongs
therefore to the period before the onslaught of the Ghorids (1192 AD and
later). Gupta tells us:
This inscription, running in as
many as 20 lines, is found engraved on a 5 ft. long, 2 ft. broad and 2.5
inches thick slab of buff sandstone, apparently a very heavy tablet …
Three-fourths of the tablet is found obliterated anciently. The last
line is also not complete since it was anciently subjected to chipping
off. A portion of the central part is found battered, maybe someone
tried to deface it anciently. The patination [tarnishing including
wearout] is, however, uniform all over the surface, even in areas where
once there were inscriptions. (In The Ayodhya Reference: pp 117-18)
Gupta
is an archaeologist and not an epigraphist trained to read ancient
inscriptions. It was later examined by Ajay Mitra Shastri, Chairman of
the Epigraphical Society of India who gave the following summary. What
the inscription tells us is of monumental significance to the history of
Medieval India.
The inscription is composed in high-flown
Sanskrit verse, except for a very small portion in prose, and is
engraved in chaste and classical Nagari script of the eleventh-twelfth
century AD. It has yet to be fully deciphered, but the portions which
have been fully deciphered and read are of great historical significance
and value … [It has since been fully deciphered.] It was evidently put
up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in
the text inscribed on it. Line 15 of this inscription, for example,
clearly tells us that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with
heaps of stones … , and beautified with a golden spire … unparalleled by
any other temple built by earlier kings … This wonderful temple … was
built in the temple-city of Ayodhya situated in Saketamandala. … Line 19
describes god Vishnu as destroying king Bali … and the ten headed
personage (Dashanana, i.e., Ravana). (op. cit. 119; emphasis mine.
Original Sanskrit quotes given by Shastri have been left out.)
Need
we say more — a temple for Hari-Vishnu who killed the ten-headed
Ravana, in the temple city of Ayodhya? So Ayodhya was known as a temple
city even then; Saketa was the ancient name of the district. The
inscription confirms what archaeologists Lal and Gupta had earlier found
about the existence of a temple complex. And yet the Secularists and
their allies have been telling the world that there was no temple!
Summary of findings
We may now sum up the findings based on both literary and archaeological/epigraphic evidence:
1. All the literary sources without exception, until the Secularists
began their negationist masquerade, are unanimous that a Rama temple
existed at the site known since time immemorial as Rama Janmabhumi.
2. Archaeology confirms the existence of temples going back to Kushan
times, or about 2000 years. This date may well be extended by future
excavations assuming that such excavations will be permitted by
politicians.
3. Archaeology records at least two temple destruction: the first in the 12th-13th century; the second, later, in
all probability in the 16th. This agrees well with history and tradition
that were temple destruction following the Ghorid invasions (after
1192 AD) and restored, and was destroyed again in 1528 by Babar who
replaced it with a mosque. This is the famous — or infamous — Babri
Masjid that was demolished by kar-sevaks on December 6, 1992.
4. A
large inscription discovered at the site dating to 11th-12th century
records the existence of numerous temples including a magnificent one in
which Hari-Vishnu was honored as destroyer of the ten-headed Ravana.
Ayodhya was always known as a temple city.
These facts drawing
upon several literary and archaeological sources leave no doubt at all
that a temple located at a site sacred to the Hindus was destroyed to
build a mosque under Babar’s express orders.
Bibliography
The Ayodhya Reference: Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries. 1995. New
Delhi:Voice of India. Ayodhya and the Future of India. 1993. Edited by Jitendra
Bajaj. Madras: Centre for Policy Studies.
Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor. 1996. Edited, translated and
annotated by Wheeler M. Thacktson. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
Elst, Koenraad. 1990. Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid. New Delhi: Voice of India.
Goel, Sita Ram. 1991. Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them. Volume I (A
Preliminary Survey). New Delhi: Voice of India.
Goel, Sita Ram. 1991. Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them. Volume II (The
Islamic Evidence). New Delhi: Voice of India.
Harsh Narain. 1993. The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources.
Delhi: Penman Publishers.
Rajaram, N.S. (1998). A Hindu View of the World: Essays in the Intellectual Kshatriya
Tradition. New Delhi: Voice of India.
Rajaram, N.S. (2000). Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New
Delhi: Voice of India
BY
Dr N S Rajaram
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment