The genealogy on the left top (segment 4) from Timur to Aurangzeb is an interpolation, for had it been written in 1528 at the time of the claimed construction of the mosque, it should have ended with the name of Babur. However, the genealogy was added by the copier but he, too, had the impression that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb, otherwise he should have continued the genealogy up to the contemporary Mughal King Akbar II who was on the imperial throne in 1813-14.
The following is the writing in segment 1 which is oft-quoted in the context of the claim that Mir Baqi built the mosque at the command of Babur:
It is a fabricated inscription because of the following factors:
(i) Here, one notices that five lines are horizontal and the sixth one appears vertical on the left margin. It has been done so because after the fifth line the second segment starts, and there is no space between the two. The vertical writing of the sixth line in the margin confirms that it could not be part of the original inscription. It appears that there existed a copy of the original inscription handed over by Buchanan on a piece of paper to some person who tried to add this factitious information. In doing so he faced paucity of space which compelled him in writing the sixth line vertically on the left margin. Had these texts of segments 1 and 2 been written in sequence this odd situation would not have arisen. In order to accommodate the sixth line he could have either shortened the size of the Tughra or omitted the content in segment 3, which is a repetition of the substance written at the top, in a simpler style. Apparently, the inscription which was shown to Buchanan is the segment 2 and the content in segment 1 is a later addition.
(ii) That the writing in segment 1 appears to be the addition made by the copier is further strengthened by the fact that the nature of the content in segment 1 is different from that in segment 2. If both segments were integral parts of the same inscription, their contents should have been in continuity and their subject should have been similar. Besides, they should have been written in the same calligraphy, as it has been done in segment 5 where some information about the name of the inscriber has been added in the same style of calligraphy to the sacred text, although the Tughra contains two different languages and two different scripts. Therefore, the first two texts in segments 1 & 2 could not be integral parts of the same inscription because it could not have been inscribed partly in the calligraphy and partly in diacritical marks. However, it is intriguing that no historian has ever doubted its veracity so far, despite so many glaring contradictions. When the size of letters in the inscription of Tretâ Kâ Thâkura was found slightly at variance, many historians made outcry and wrote that they were two separate edicts.
(iii) If they were the part and parcel of the same inscription the Kalma portion should have been at the top and the information about the construction of the mosque should have been written below the sacred Kalma.
Thus, the attribution of the construction of the Ayodhyā mosque to Mir Baqi at the command of Babur was not part of any inscription fixed in the mosque. It was the interpolation on paper by the copier of the inscription at the behest of some noble or clergy. It is clearly indicated by apparently vertical writing in the margin in a style different from that of the Tughra.
Buchanan was beguiled by a section of the clergy who conspired to declare Babur as the builder of the mosque. The atribution of the construction of Ayodhya mosque to Mir Baqi and Babur is as baseless as the fanciful story of Musa Asiqan. It is an irony that the whole course of history changed thereafter on the basis of a writing which was not part of any insciption. In Sanskrit this trend is called गतानुगतिक (gatānugatika), i.e. people blindly follow. No one ever examined this document and it was repeated mutatis mutandis in inscriptions fixed subsequently at intervals. Thus, the translation of the first segment given to Buchanan was a part of the fabricated paper. Nevertheless, he passed a verdict, against the people’s perception, that Babur had demolished the temple and built the mosque. According to people’s perception Aurangzeb was instrumental in demolishing the temple and building the disputed shrine, whereas according to Buchanan’s decree it was done by Babur five generations before Aurangzeb. After Martin published Buchanan’s report in his book in 1838 A.D., albeit without acknowledging Buchanan’s contribution, all subsequent writers attributed the construction of the mosque to Babur.
While one analyses the second inscription supplied to Dr. Buchanan’s translator, one finds that it has totally disappeared from all subsequent display of inscriptions.This is written in most elegant and handsome calligraphy. How could it disappear unless it was contrived? Buchanan’s Maulvi friend had read Moohummud Funa Ullah as the name of the engraver of the inscription. Some say it should be Fatā Ullāh because Funā Ullāh cannot be a proper name as Funā means annihilation. Moreover, Funā Ullāh will mean annihilation of God which is a ‘kufra’ in Islam.
Funa Ullah read by Buchanan’s translator may well be read Fataullah. But three initial words in the last line of the second Tughra are still not finally deciphered satisfactorily. Prof. Harsh Narain writes in his book “The Ayodhya Temple-Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources” that “it is not easy to decipher it fully and to our satisfaction.” When it was given to Dr. Nazre Ali, Head of the Arabic Department, Maulana Mazharul Haque Arabic and Persian University, Patna, he, too, is of the view that whatever is written cannot be equated with tarikh-i-maimun. However, he suggests that the writer of the Tughra is Muhammad Fataullah and not Fanaullah.
The two pieces of information in segments 4 & 6 on the same paper are found to have been added by the copier. The top addition in segment 4 is the genealogy of the Mughal dynasty from Timur to Aurangzeb and it has been discussed above in brief. In the next sub-chapter there is a detailed discussion about the absurdity of the story of Musa Ashiqan which is contained in segment 6 of Buchanan’s second report.
It was beyond my comprehension that how Buchanan, a native of Great Britain, wrote ‘an inscription on its walls (of which a copy has been given (drawing N1)”. I was wondering as to how an inscription and that, too, a small inscription could spread over many walls. I asked Prof. K.M. Tiwary as to how Buchanan could make such a silly mistake. He explained that Buchanan’s expression means that there was one inscription but its copy was fixed on many walls. Then I understood that the inscription in segment 2, which contained the sacred Kalma, might have been fixed on two or three walls. He explained to me that when Buchanan visited the area, there was only one inscription and that contained the Kalma only.
However, drawing N1 shows two inscriptions which contained the translation of five texts. Four of them varied from each other in content. All this shows that Buchanan was not only casual but callous also in collecting the copies of the so-called inscriptions. It appears that he himself had not seen any inscription inside the structure. The translator of the inscription was not sure of the date whether it was 935 A.H. or 923 A.H. Therefore, he asked Buchanan to decide it according to the correctness of the context.
Out of six segments in the two claimed inscriptions, segments 2 and 5 are the quotations from the holy Koran. The first Tughra is the text of the chapter CXII of the holy Koran and the second Tughra starts with the most sacred recitation ‘Bismillah’. It includes Kalma and ends with a Persian sentence. Contents in segments 1, 4 and 6 are interpolations by the copier.
Now after a detailed analysis made herewith, it appears that Buchanan had been supplied the copy of one inscription in the mosque. It was the same which has been shown in segment 2. He asked some friend to get it copied and translated by some Persian-knowing scholar. The person(s) who copied the inscription made at least 4 interpolations in the text and handed them over to the translator. The translator did his job earnestly and translated all the texts which were given to him. Amongst these interpolations lay the text which declared that the mosque was built by Mir Baqi at the command of Babur. After it was published in Martin’s book in 1838 an interpolated portion of an inscription written on paper b
ecame the gospel truth and all subsequent writers swore by that false information.
(4) The tomb of Musa Ashiqan
The next interpolation in the second inscription supplied to Buchanan is very interesting and reads as follows:
“We are informed by the ancients who were acquainted with the these facts that there was formerly a Prince named Saif Khan Oimyeed throne. His Wuzeer had a daughter betrothed to Moosa Ashiquan. (Lit. The conforter of Lovers). After some time the Wuzeer departed from this dwelling of mortality to the abode of Eternity.
The king having sent written orders for the purpose of seizing the property in the Wuzeer’s house; at that moment Moosa Ashiqan was struck with the reflection that “ This World is nothing”. He gave orders that all the people should plunder and carry off whatever money and effects were in his house’ – The people did as he directed. As soon as the plundering was over, he enquired whether anything remained. The attendants told him that there remained some grain. He directed them to carry off that also. After this he again made enquiry, if anything was yet left. The servants replied that there was only a piece of coarse canvas or Taut, upon which the horses were wont to eat their gram”. “That” said he “will be of use to me”. In short having taken and torn although the middle and threw it over his shoulders (or neck) he became a Durvish.
Babur, one of the Princes, hearing the report of his becoming a Durvish and the other circumstances, privately presented himself before his Highness. Beholding the wretched condition of Babur, he gave him some sweetmeats to eat and (addressing him) “thou”, said his Highness “shalt be King” Babur arose and having made his Salam, was departing. His Highness again said: “I am annoyed by the Hindoos who are constantly ringing their Bells when thou becomes King thou shalt build a Musjid at this place.
Sometime afterwards Babur mounting the royal throne was created King; but forgot His Highness’s directions. Moosa Ashiqan sending a person from himself remined him of it. Upon this the Soo bedar received His Majexty’s commands- Meer Baqaoolla Khan then Soo bedar, and he erected this Massjid.”
It shows that by this fiction written on the copy of the inscription an attempt was made to create a general impression on Muslims in and around 1810 A.D. that Babur, even before becoming the king, had gone to Ayodhyā where darvesh Musa Ashiqan is said to have blessed him to become Emperor and asked him to build a masjid at the place where Hindus, by constantly ringing bells, had annoyed him. It is mentioned that Babur was beholden in a wretched condition by Musa Ashiqan. Babur became king at the age of 12 and if the story of Musa Ashiqan’s blessings is believed to be true, Babur visited him 32 years before his conquest of Hindustan. When Babur became the Emperor of India, he forgot this direction and on the reminder by Ashiqan, Babur directed Subedar Meer Baqaoola Khan to construct the mosque.
It is a myth in toto, as Babur had never visited Ayodhyā before or after becoming the emperor of Hindustan nor had he ever sought the blessings of Musa Ashiqan. Who was this Musa Ashiqan and who has heard of Prince Tugli Khan Oimyeed? Prince Tugli Khan Oimyeed is not known to history and similarly history is not familiar with Saint Musa Ashiqan before 1813 A.D. His name prominently figures in books starting from 1856 A.D. But all is based on this myth which was communicated to Buchanan. Musa Ashiqan does not figure in the list of 226 Sufi saints whose brief biographies have been written in the book “Biographical Encyclopedia of Sufies: South Asia” by N. Hanif. Nor does he figure in the list of Muslim Saints whose brief biographies have been written by Abul Fazl in the Ain-i-Akbari. Abul Fazl has called saints ‘Awliya-i Hind’ and narrated brief biographies of all these saints with the following introduction:
“Inasmuch as the writer is a suppliant before the servants of God and the love of them is innate in his heart, he concludes this work with a notice of such among them as have been either born or have their last resting places in this country. He trusts that this course will be pleasing to many minds and a source to them of eternal bliss. For himself he will inhale fragrance from the garden of truth and receive the meed of his abundant toil.” (Ain-i-Akbari, translated by Col. H.S. Jarrett, Vol. III, p. 388.
In the long list of saints (walis) Musa Ashiqan does not figure at all. Prof. A.R. Khan, too, doubts the historicity of Musa Ashiquan. He writes:
“Of my research scholars (Dr. Yogaraj Malhotra and Tej Ram) and I have worked out the biographies from the contemporary and near-contemporary sources of all the persons in Babur’s service. No person by the name of Musa Ashiqan or Sayyid Mir Ashiqan under whose ‘patronage’ the mosque in question was supposed to have been built is traceable in Babur’s times.” (The Indian Express, March 17. 1990)
Of course, his tomb at Ayodhyā near Rāma-janma-bhūmi has been highlighted very much in the recent past and it has been claimed by many writers that two ‘kasauti’ pillars similar to those inside the extant mosque were erected in this graveyard. In the Annexure C of P. Carnegy’s book which contains some details of 31 Muslims’ monuments and tombs at Ayodhyā and its vicinity, there is no mention of any tomb in the name of Musa Ashiqan. Thus, it is clear that there was no tomb of Musa Ashiqan at Ayodhyā till 1870.
However, there was a tomb of an unknown Moor (Muslim) where these two columns were erected. Tieffenthaler had seen them and noted thus:
“There are to be seen fourteen columns of black stone, five spans in height which occupied the site of the fortress. Twelve of these columns now support the interior arcades of the mosque: the two others form part of the tomb of a certain Moor.”
Had this been the tomb of Musa Ashiqan, the saint who blessed Babur with the kingdom of Hindustan and who directed him to demolish Rāma temple and build a mosque thereon, it would have been popularly and reverentially known as Musa Ashiqan’s tomb. But Tieffenthaler casually mentions it and with no reference to Musa Ashiqan.
I was very curious to visit the tomb of Musa Ashiqan and know its details. What I learnt from the present mutwali of the tomb Ishtiaq Ahmed may be shocking for many historians.
Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed informed me in January 2011 that he was the second mutwali of this place and was looking after it since 1980 A.D. His mother Hasmati Begum was the first mutwali and had remained so for a period of 15-20 years till 1980. How she became the first mutwali of this tomb is very interesting. Ishtiaq’s sister Munni Begum had been married to Muhammad Yasin, an affluent person of this locality. When his sister left for Bombay along with her husband, she entrusted her house to his mother for guarding it. His father Jawed Khan was no more in the world by then. Therefore, Ishtiaq started living with his mother in his sister’s house. One day he saw this tomb which was in close proximity and after having seen the two attractive columns, an idea just struck him that the tomb could be a source of getting quick money. So, after sometime he declared that he had a dream which enlightened him to proclaim that the tomb near his house was that of Musa Ashiqan. Thereafter he made his mother Hasmati Begum the first mutwali of this tomb. He further informed me that earlier when the two ‘kasauti’ pillars were erected in the tomb upward-down, there were many visitors to the tomb and the earnings were satisfactory. But after the demolition of the so-called Baburi mosque on 6th Dec. 1992 the kar-sewaks damaged the tomb also and took away those pillars. Thereafter, it had no attraction. So, he started Urs in 2000 A.D. with chadar and gagar. When I asked him what ‘gagar’ meant, he informed me that it was ‘sherbet’. He started some construction there but it was stopped on the complaint of Haji Mehboob on 17th April, 2000. Thereafter, he has been getting some offerings, mostly from the Hindus who live in the vicinity. This is the story of the tomb of Musa Ashiqan. The mutwali is not much educated but intelligent enough to associate a neighbouring tomb with the name of a legendary person. Thus, this fake tomb of Musa Ashiqan was created in 1960’s and historians have been declaring it to be Musa Ashiqan’s real tomb without adequate scrutiny. Now it is clear that everything associated with the fake inscriptions is fancy and far from truth.
(5) Asg
har’s petition (1877 A.D.)
On 13th December 1877 A.D. Syyed Mohmmad Asghar s/o Syyed Rajab Ali, Khatib and Mutawalli of the Masjid Bāburi at Janmasthan, Awadh filed a petition before the Commissioner, Faizabad and made the following claim in para 4:
"यह कि सुबूत तहरीरी जो हाकिम मातेहत ने मुनदरिज हुकुम फरमाया है कैफियत उस की यह है कि एक उम्दा सुबूत यह है कि दीवार अहाता बेरूने मस्जिद के दरवाजे पर नाम अल्लाह का कुन्दा व तहरीर है। चूँकि यह सुबूत तहरीरी बेहिस वहरकत है लायक मुलाहेजा मौका के है पस क्योंकि अदालत मातहेत में पेश हो सकता था अन्दरीन सूरत अपीलांट उम्मीदवार है कि बनजर इन्साफ मुलाहेजा मौका फरमाया जाये ताकि सुबूत बवजेह (अपठनीय) बहक अपीलांट जाहिर हो जाये।चघअव्वल यह कि जब बाबरशाह मालिके मुल्क व बादशाहे वक्त ने यह मस्जिद तामीर किया व अहाता मस्जिद के दरवाजे के उपर संगी पर लफ्ज अल्लाह कुन्दा कराके नसब किया व माफी उसके मसारिफ को तहरीर फरमायी तो बमुकाबिला मालिके मुल्क मकाँ तामरी गाह बादशाह वक्त के अन्दर मिलकियत दूसरे शख्स के कहाँ बाकी रही।"
Ayodhya Revisited Page 26