Ayodhya Revisited
Page 3
40. In 1870 A.D. P. Carnegy published the book ‘Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad’’ wherein he stated that the Hindus and Muslims were performing puja and namaz in the disputed shrine before its takeover by the British Government.
41. On 24th December, 1885 Pandit Hari Kishan, Sub Judge, Faizabad made a spot enquiry of the disputed mosque in the presence of both the Hindus and the Muslims, and found nothing except ‘Allah’ superscribed on its wall. He dismissed the petition of Raghubar Das, lest riot should take place.
42. On 17th March, 1886 the District Judge Col. P.E.D. Chamier inspected the disputed mosque in the presence of all parties and found nothing except ‘Allah’ written there. He lamented the demolition of the premier Hindu temple but dismissed the petition of Raghubar Das to build a temple.
43. In 1889 A.D. Fuhrer found three inscriptions on the mosque. In one inscription the date was 930 A.H., i.e. 1523 A.D. instead of 935 A.H., i.e. 1528 A.D. and in another the name of the builder was Mir Khan and not Mir Baqi.
44. In 1902 A.D. the District Administration placed markers for all important places of Ayodhyā. The first stone marker was fixed in front of the eastern entrance of the disputed mosque as “No. 1, Rāma-janma-bhūmi”.
45. In 1906-07 A.D. Maulvi Shuaib submitted his Annual Survey Report wherein he mentioned three inscriptions in the disputed shrine. One inscription was dated 930 A.H. i.e. 1523 A.D.
46. In 1934 A.D. there was a serious communal riot at Ayodhyā. The disputed mosque was damaged extensively. Thereafter Muslims went to the disputed shrine only once in a week to perform Jumma Namaz.
47. On 26th March, 1946 the Civil Judge of Faizabad S.A. Ahsan inspected the mosque in Faizabad Regular Suit No. 29/1946 and got the inscriptions read out. One inscription referred to the date 923 A.H. i.e. 1516-17 as the year of the construction of the mosque.
48. On the night of 22nd-23rd December, 1949 Rāmalalla was placed in the central hall of the disputed shrine by the Sadhus of Ayodhyā.
49. On 1st April, 1986 the lock on the main door of the disputed shrine was opened by the order of the District Judge Faizabad, Shri K.M. Pande.
50. On 6th December, 1992 the disputed shrine was razed to the ground by the unruly Kār-sevaks.
51. On 30th September, 2010 the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court pronounced the detailed Judgment.
Preface
Mallinātha, the celebrated Sanskrit commentator, in his famous commentary on the Raghu-vamśa of Kālidāsa, lamened that the literature of Kālidāsa lay in a swoon under toxic misinterpretations, and asserted that he would resuscitate it with his Sañjīvanī tīkā:
भारती कालिदासस्य दुर्व्याख्याविषमूर्च्छिता।
एषा सञ्जीवनी टीका तामद्योज्जीवयिष्यति।।
Mallinātha further declared that he would explain all by the method of ‘anvaya-mukha’, i.e. the natural order of words construing grammatical relation which does not give liberty to make an arbitrary interpretation. He exuberantly boasted that he did not write anything which was without basis and did not utter a single word which was unwarranted:
इहान्वय-मुखेनैव सर्वं व्याख्यायते मया।
नामूं लिख्यते किञ्चिन्नापेक्षितमुच्यते।।
Similarly, for the last two decades I have been mutely witnessing the excruciating death of the real history of Ayodhyā on account of false and misleading interpretation of historical facts. Earlier I kept silent primarily because in the early nineties I was officially associated with the negotiations on Ayodhyā between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Since I did my duty diligently and punctiliously in the official capacity I remained aloof from the historical debate. But in the last leg of the legal proceedings before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, I thought that as our national motto is सत्यमेव जयते, truth alone triumphs, I must intervene in the Ayodhyā dispute and thus prepared this thesis assiduously, a part of which was brilliantly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court by Advocate P.N. Mishra, one of the outstanding civil lawyers in the country.
While critically appreciating the historical facts I have always been guided by the famous saying of Kalhana, the renowned author of the Rājataranginī:
श्लाघ्यः स एव गुणवान् रागद्वेष-बहिष्कृता।
भूतार्थकथने यस्य स्थेयस्येव सरस्वती।। (I.7)
That man of merit alone deserves acclaim whose writing, like that of a judge, discards bias and prejudice in recounting the events of the past.
Besides, one is reminded of Abu Raihan Alberuni, who said in the Preface to his famous book ‘Kitabul-Hind’ - “That man only is praise-worthy who shrinks from a lie and always adheres to the truth, enjoying credit even among liars, not to mention others.”
My association with Ayodhyā dispute started officially in 1990 when I was made Officer on Special Duty (Ayodhyā) to the then Minister of State for Home Affairs Shri Subodh Kant Sahay who had been appointed by the then Prime Minister, Vishwanath Pratap Singh and retained on the same post by his successor Shri Chandra Shekhar. During the tenure of these two Prime Ministers several rounds of negotiations were held between the representative organizations of the two communities in the presence of Shri Sahay and three Chief Ministers Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav of U.P., Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat of Rajasthan and Shri Sharad Pawar of Maharashtra. After initial rounds of negotiations both sides were requested to present their respective evidence in writing, so that they could be exchanged for better appreciation of each other’s viewpoints. Accordingly, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Babri Masjid Action Committee submitted written evidence and documents in support of their case and all they were exchanged between the two parties promptly by the Government. I was custodian of these documents and was largely instrumental in the exercise. As an O.S.D. on Ayodhyā, I classified the evidences and documents in three categories and after discussing the matter with the Chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research, Director General of Archaeological Survey of India and Director General of Archives, Government of India, I sent the relevant documents to them for extensive scrutiny and appropriate appraisal.
The Director General of Archives performed his duty professionally and after verifying the documents received by him, a verification report was sent to me vide their office letter no. F. 8-1/91-R-II dated 16 May, 1991. The letter reads as follows:
“To
Shri Kishore Kunal
Officer on Special Duty
Minister of State Home
North Block
New Delhi.
Subject: Verification of documents (Xeroxed copies) submitted by V.H.P. and All India Baburi Masjid Action Committee – reg.
Sir,
Please refer your letter Dy. No. 5800 MOS (S)/91 dated May 10, 1991 which was received in the department on 15th May 1991 on the subject referred above.
It may be stated in this connection that the three lists of documents comprising of 850 pages of xerox copies have been examined by the Department as per three lists of Documents placed below along with the documents. However it may be mentioned in this connection that we could only verify and attest those documents whose originals are available with us in our Record holdings and the library. As directed by you we are handing over these documents (850 Xeroxed sheets) to Shri Bhola Nath (D/U) Identity Card No. D No 036 along with their three lists on duplicate of documents. Kindly acknowledge receipt of these papers at the earliest.
Yours faithfully
For Director General of Archives
Government of India”
Similarly, the Director General of Archaeological Survey of India promptly replied
to all my letters and queries. Mr. M.C. Joshi sent his reply vide his D.O. letter No. 20/37/90-EE(Part) dated 2nd May, 1991 in response to my D.O. letter Dy. No. 5602/MOS/91 dated 16th April, 1991, which is produced hereinunder:
“Dear Shri Kunal,
Kindly refer to your D.O. letter Dy. No. 5602/MOS/91 dated 16th April, 1991 regarding the views of Archaeological Survey of India on annexure 28 related to Ramjanambhoomi Babri Masjid dispute.
In this connection I may say that there should not be any doubt to anyone regarding archaeological facts (remains and antiquities) unearthed by Prof. A.K. Narain and Prof. B.B. Lal or about the nature of the structure of Babri Masjid,which though a mosque built in 1528-29 as per the inscribed record, shows internally the reuse of earlier carved structural members including the pillars of pre-13th century AD (dating around circa 11th century AD or so).
The authenticated preliminary report of Prof. Lal, which has already been sent to you vide D.O. letter of even number dated 11 04 91, explains the purpose of taking up the project called Archaeology of Rãmãyana Sites by him under which he excavated besides Ayodhya three or four other related sites. As the Babri Masjid is not a centrally protected monument, Archaeological Survey of India has not so far made any detailed study of the monument.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
M.C. Joshi)”
From Shri Joshi’s replies the following facts emerge:
(i) There should be no doubt on the authenticity of the reports of Prof. A.K. Narain and Prof. B.B. Lal.
(ii) The structure of Babri Masjid “shows internally the reuse of earlier carved structural members including the pillars of pre-13th century A.D.”
(iii) Babri Masjid was not a centrally protected monument, and A.S.I. had not made any detailed study of the monument.
(iv) Shri Joshi had sent an authenticated preliminary report of Prof. Lal to me vide D.O. letter of even number dated 11.4.91.
The background of my meeting with Prof. B.B. Lal is very interesting. Long back when I was Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna in 1983-84, I had an occasion to travel along with Dr. Kumar Suresh Singh, an I.A.S. officer who edited the monumental work ‘People of India’ published by ‘Anthropological Survey of India’. In the course of talk he told me that Prof. B.B. Lal had once told him that in the course of excavation at Ayodhyā he (Prof. Lal) had found the remains of a temple beneath the Baburi Mosque. When he informed the authorities concerned including Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi, it was decided after due deliberation that the excavation should be abandoned, lest it should create a serious contentious issue. Thereafter the excavation was stopped. Our talk ended there.
In 1990 when I was appointed Officer on Special Duty on Ayodhyā during the premiership of Shri Vishwanath Pratap Singh, I called on Prof. Lal and asked him about the excavation and its abandonment in consequence of finding a temple’s remains. He confirmed it and showed me many slides to prove how the remains of a temple were found at the site. He told me that since the 14 Kasauti pillars existed in situ, they were parts of a temple which existed earlier at the site. After some time the Government of Shri V.P. Singh was voted out in the Parliament and Shri Chandra Shekhar became the Prime Minister. In the first meeting on Ayodhyā I informed him about my discussion with Prof. Lal and requested him to ask Prof. Lal to send a written report on the Ayodhyā excavation. On Chandra Shekharji’s request Prof. Lal sent a report promptly on 3rd December, 1990 which is as follows:
“A note on the brick-bases of pillars found in the excavations in the Janma-Bhumi area at Ayodhya.
Under a project called ‘Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites’ excavations were carried out between 1975 and 1986 at five sites, viz. Ayodhya, Sringaverapura, Bharadvaja Asrama, Chitrakuta and Nandigrama, all associated with that epic.
At Ayodhya, as many as fourteen trenches were laid out at different spots, one of which was the area known as the Janmabhumi. Over here is a trench hardly three metres to the south of the compound wall of the structure known as Babri Masjid, a series of square brick-bases, running in parallel east-west and north-south rows, were discovered within about 25-30 cm. below the surface. Since one row of these pillar-bases lay under the edge of the trench towards the compound wall of the mosque, it is likely that there may exist many more such pillar-bases in the unexcavated area in that direction. Stratigraphic evidence indicates that these pillar-bases are ascribable to a period around A.D. 1100. From the level associated with the destruction of these pillar-bases has been found glazed pottery ascribable to fourteenth-fifteenth century A.D.
In the mosque there are fourteen stone pillars some of which appear to be in position and oriented east-west and north-south. On the basis of the decorative motifs, sculptures, etc. these pillars are also ascribed to the eleventh century A.D. In all probability, there the brick-bases found in the excavations and the stone pillars standing in the mosque belong to one and the same structural complex which stood at the site immediately before the Babri Masjid.
3 December 1990 B.B. Lal”
Now, I would like to make certain clarifications on the following observation made in “Ramjanmabhumi-Baburi Masjid: A Historians’ Report to the Nation”:
“The Government of India, under circumstances that are well known, began negotiations with the VHP and the Baburi Masjid Action Committee (BMAC), with a view to examining the historical and legal merits of the case of both parties. Thus, the dispute over the facts of History was now to be decided by the litigants, with the Government of India as an umpire, and not by any independent forum of historians. This seemed to us, as professional historians, a very unhappy procedure. We therefore, approached the Government of India to include impartial historians in the process of forming judgment on historical facts and to let us have access to such evidence, archaeological and textual, as has been presented to it or is in possession of government organisations, such as the Archaeological Survey of India. We regret to say that the Government of India’s response to this was largely one of silence.”
The Government of India was not acting in the capacity of an umpire. Since the evidences and related documents broadly fell in three categories, they were sent to the three national institutions of great repute. I myself had called on the then Chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), Prof. Irfan Habib and after obtaining his consent I had sent all the historical evidences of both sides for scrutiny and appraisal. I met the then Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, Shri M.C. Joshi and submitted all the archaeological evidences and reports to him. Thereafter I sent all relevant records to the Director General of Archives, Government of India for verification and submitting reports.
The charge of four historians in their ‘Report to the Nation’ that “the dispute over the facts of history was now to be decided by the litigants, with the Government of India as an umpire,” is not correct because we had invited both sides to include reputed historians in their respective panel for having meaningful debates and discussion so as to reach some objective decisions. Each of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and All India Babri Masjid Action Committee suggested the names of ten persons each as their experts. Accordingly, they were invited to participate in the negotiations. One such letter dated January 23, 1991 to Shri Surya Krishna and Shri Javed Habib is quoted below:
विशेष कार्याधिकारी
गृह राज्यमंत्री, भारत
Kishore Kunal
Officer on Special Duty
Minister of State Home, India
January 23, 1991.
To
Shri Surya Krishna
Vishwa Hindu Parishad,
Shri Javed Habib
All India Babri Masjid Action Committee
As per the resolution dated 10.1.1991, the experts’ meeting will begin from 24.1.1991. The Meeting will be held in Gujarat Bhawan from 11.00 A.M. onwards.
The names of experts suggested
by both groups are as follows:
A. The names suggested by V.H.P.
1. Prof. B.R. Grover
2. Dr. S.P. Gupta
3. Prof. Devendra Swaroop
4. Justice Guman Mal Lodha, MP
5. Justice Deoki Nandan Aggarwal
6. Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary
7. Justice D.S. Sehgal
8. Dr. B.P. Sinha
9. Prof. Harsh Narain
10. Prof. K.S. Lal
B. The names suggested by A.I.B.M.A.C.
1. Prof. R.S. Sharma
2. Prof. Athar Ali
3. Prof. D.N. Jha
4. Prof. Suraj Bhan
5. Shri Abdul Mannan
6. Shri Zafarayab Jilani
7. Shri M.A. Siddiqui
8. Shri Zafar Ali Siddiqui
9. Shri Javed Habib
10. A.A. Siddiqui
It is requested that the afore-mentioned experts may kindly be intimated to attend the meeting on time. Both Parties are requested to bring their original documents in the meeting.
With thanks,
Yours faithfully,
(Kishore Kunal)”
This letter of mine was produced before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court by Zafarayab Jilani, Advocate and Counsel for Defendant No. 4 i.e. Central Sunni Waqf Board in O. O. S. No. 5 of 1989, Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and others Vs. Shri Rajendra Singh and others during the cross examination of OPW–3 Dr. S.P. Gupta. It was marked Ex. 005–5–D 20 in the court proceeding with the following remark- “Genuineness admitted’. It would thus appear that the four historians who wrote the ‘report to the nation’ were really experts nominated by All India Babri Masjid Action Committee and were not independent. But they always pretended to be impartial professional historians. In fact, in their ‘report to the nation’ they criticized the claims of V.H.P. only and made no comments on the documents submitted by A.I.B.M.A.C. Had they really been truly impartial historians, they would have commented on the evidence submitted by both parties and presented their report to the nation or M.H.A. without any bias or prejudice.