It is evident from this submission that the best evidence claimed in support of the mosque was an edict on the door of the mosque which had the name of Allah inscribed there. This superscription of Allah had been seen by the Sub-Judge and the District Judge when they inspected the mosque in the presence of both the parties. During the inspection this was the only edict which contained only one word ‘Allah’ and nothing else. Had the inscription of Mir Bāqī really existed in the mosque, the petitioner must have proclaimed with pride that it was the best and conclusive proof. But since no other inscription except that which contained ‘Allah’ was on any part of the mosque, the petitioner Asghar claimed that it was the best evidence.
On 22nd December, 1885 Mohammad Asghar, Mutwali of Masjid Baburi and a defendant in the case Mahant Raghubar Das of Nirmohi Akhara vs. Sarkar Bahadur Kaiser-i-Hind and Mohammad Asghar, Khatib and Mutawalli of Jame Masjid filed a counter-affidavit and made the following claim:
"अव्वल 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 उसकी मसारिफ को तहरीर फरमायी तो बमुकाबिला मालिके मुल्क मकाँ तामरी शाह बादशाह वक्त के अन्दर मिकियत दूसरे शख्स के कहाँ बाकी रही।"
From the above statement of Mohammad Asghar in an affidavit before the Sub-Judge it is clear that the Emperor Babur had engraved ‘Allah’ only on the entrance of the compound wall and there was no other inscription anywhere in the mosque during the life of Mohammad Asghar. Since it is an admission on oath by the Mutawalli of the mosque, it has an added importance. Had there been any other inscription in the mosque, he would have claimed the right on the chabutara with more force in the Court.
(6) Inspection by Judges (1885-86 A.D.)
When the mosque was inspected by the District Judge Col. P.E.D. Chamier in 1886 A.D. nothing except Allah was found written in the mosque. In his judgment in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1885 passed on 18.3.1886 he wrote:
“I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties.... The entrance to the enclosure is under a gateway which bears the superscription ‘Allah’.”
Before this inspection, Pandit Hari Kishan, Sub-Judge, Faizabad had made a spot enquiry. In a judgment on 24th December, 1885 he wrote:
“An enquiry on the spot was made in presence of the parties and the pleaders for parties and Darogah of Nazul land. ...there is the wall of the mosque and the word ‘Allah’ is inscribed on it.”
Here it is to be emphasized that these two inspections were made by the Judges in the presence of all the parties concerned to decide the suit of Raghubar Das. Therefore, it can be reasonably presumed that had any inscription really been in any part of the mosque, it would have been certainly mentioned in the judgment. Thus, not even the mutavali of the mosque knew the existence of any inscription except the one having ‘Allah’ inscribed at the entrance. Now a million-dollar question arises where did the inscriptions of Buchanan’s time disappear during the court enquiry. Had there been any inscription there in 1885-86, the Muslims would have shown it at least at the time of the court enquiry.
Protagonists of the existence of an inscription inside the mosque since its inception will have to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why the detailed inscription at the time of Buchanan was missing in 1885-86 when two important court enquiries were held to decide the case. Was Buchanan a victim of a well-laid trap? Yes, he was. After his report was published by Martin in 1838; Buchanan’s wrong report overshadowed all other evidences and the construction of the mosque on the birthplace of Rāma was attributed to Babur instead of Aurangzeb. All subsequent writers started writing that it was Babur who built the mosque on the birthplace of Rāma. However, it appears that Martin made a very cryptic comment on Ayodhyā in his little known book ‘The History of the Indian Empire’. On Ayodhyā he wrote:
Oude or Ayodhya was famous in ancient Hindoo lore as the kingdom of Dasarath, the father of Rama, the hero of the famous epic the Ramayan. With the defects of its fall as a Hindoo kingdom as its history as a province of the Mughal empire, we are almost entirely unacquainted; but we know that it has retained its institutions to the present day, and that, in all respects, the Hindu element largely predominates throughout Oude.” (Vol. II, p. 59)
(7) Anton Fuhrer’s Report (1889 A.D.)
However, Dr. Anton Fuhrer, Ph.D. was the first archaeologist who found three inscriptions in the mosque and translated them into English. His report was published in 1889 in the Archaeological Survey of India report titled “The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur, with notes on Zafarabade, Sahet-Mahet and other Places in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh”. In his report he wrote, “The following inscriptions are of interest:
(A) Inscription No. XL is written in Arabic characters over the central mihrab of the masjid; it gives twice the Kalimah:
Baburi mosque inscription No. XL read by A. Fuhrer.
“There is no god but Allah, Muhamad is His prohet.” (Quran, Surah II)
(B) Inscription No. XLI is written in Persian poetry, the metre being Ramal, in six lines on the mimbar, right hand side of the structure.
Baburi mosque inscription No.
XLI read by A. Fuhrer.
Translation:
1. By the order of Babur, the king of the world,
2. This firment-like, lofty,
3. Strong building was erected.
4. By the auspicious noble Mir Khan.
5. May ever remain such a foundation,
6. And such a king of the world.
The letters of this inscription have been mixed together by the copyist, and are therefore very indistinct.”
The salient features of this inscription are:
(i) It mentions Mir Khan and not Mir Baqi as the builder of the masjid.
(ii) No honorific title to the name of Babur, though he has been called the King of the world.
(iii) No date is given in this inscription.
(iv) A firment-like, lofty and strong building and not necessarily a mosque was erected and
(v) It was placed on the right-hand side from the pulpit of the masjid.
(C) “Inscription No. XLII is written in Persian poetry, the metre being Ramal, in ten lines, above the entrance door of the masjid. A few characters of the second and the whole third lines are completely defaced.”
Persian.
Baburi mosque inscription No. XLII read by A. Fuhrer.
1. In the name of God, the merciful, the clement.
2. In the name of him who…; may God perpetually keep him in the world.
3. ……………………………
4. Such a sovereign who is famous in the world, and in person of delight for the world.
5. In his presence one of the grandees who is another King of Turkey and China.
6. Laid this religious foundation in the auspicious Hijra 930.
7. O God! May always remain the crown, throne and life with the king.
8. May Babar always pour the flowers of happiness; may remain successful.
9. His counsellor and minister who is the founder of this fort masjid.
10. This poetry, giving the date and eulogy, was written by the lazy writer and poor servant Fath-allah-Ghori, composer.
The salient features of this inscription are:
(i) That the inscription is dated A.H. 930, i.e. 1523 A.D. i.e. three years before Babur’s conquest of Hindustan. Since it was a forged edict, the forger could not correctly place the date of the inscription.
(ii) It says that the foundation of this building
was laid in the presence of Babur and the founder is his subordinate.
(iii) Mir Baqi is not mentioned in this inscription. The founder of this fort-mosque has been called counsellor and minister.
(iv) It is surprising that one of Babur’s grandees in the inscription who laid the foundation in the presence of Babur, has been compared with the King of Turkey and China. Comparing a mere grandee with an Emperor of China or Turkey is very improper.
(v) The grandee is credited with laying foundation of the fort mosque. In the presence of an emperor, can his subordinate lay foundation of a mosque?
(vi) Can this mosque at Ayodhyā be called a fort mosque? Was it called a fort masjid because of the fact that it was within the Ram Kot?
(vii) Was Mir Baqi a counsellor and Minister of Babur? No, a person bearing a similar name was a mere junior army commander (Beg), as per the factual position gleaned from Babur-nāmā.
(viii) Though the name of Mir Khan or Mir Baqi is not mentioned in this inscription; the name of the inscriber is given as Fatah-allah-Ghori.
Anton Fuhrer wrote that some words in the second line and the entire third line were obliterated and therefore illegible. But that does not make much difference because this illegible portion might have contained usual eulogy of Emperor Babur.
It is intriguing to note that this inscription is dated 930 H. i.e. 1523 A.D. three years before Babur’s conquest of Hindustan at the battle of Panipat. The date in the inscription is checked and found to be the same as in the inscription which was available with Fuhrer. The Persian text is no sad sī and it means 930 A.H. It is in the 6th line which is quite legible. Babur or his junior general Mir Baqi could not have come to Ayodhyā in the year 930 A.H. i.e.1523 A.D. Though Babur’s diary is not written for the period from 25th January 1520 to 16th November 1525, his activities during this period are well-known. He did not visit, nor had he any reason or occasion to visit Ayodhyā in 1523 A.D. Thus, he was not in a position to erect a mosque at Ayodhyā.Therefore, it is evident that this inscription was fake and fixed subsequently. The forger had no definite idea about Babur’s conquest and rule in India. Therefore, he committed this blunder which exposes the forgery.
In 1891 Archaeological Survey of India published a book “The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-western Provinces and Oudh.” In this book Fuhrer wrote,
“It is locally affirmed that at the Musalman conquest there were three important Hindu temples at Ayodhya: these were the Janma-sthanam, the Svargadvaram, and the Treta-ka-Thakur. On the first of these Mir Khan built a Masjid, in A.H. 930 during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name.”
Even in this book Fuhrer held the view that the mosque was built in 930 A.H., i.e. 1523 A.D.
(8) Maulvi Shuaib’s Report (1906-07)
Maulvi Shuaib’s report is produced here for the first time in a discussion on the Ayodhyā dispute. Ashraf Husain/Dr. Z.A. Desai refers to it in the article to be discussed in this chapter later. Maulvi Shuaib submitted the “Annual report of the Office of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra” in 1906-07. The information relating to the inscriptions in the Ayodhyā shrine has been obtained by filing a petition under the Right to Information Act. The office of the Agra circle of Archaeological Survey of India vide its letter no. भा.पु.स. /17सू.09/ 55 dated 23 May 2001 furnished the relevant document. Appendix D of the Annual Report contains the list of inscriptions copied during the period. Serial Nos. from 10 to 12 contain the information on the three inscriptions in the disputed shrine at Ayodhyā and are shown below:
A portion of Appendix D from Maulvi Shuaib’s ASI Report (1906-07).
From the analysis of Shuaib’s report it is clear that there was one stone-slab below the pulpit of the mosque which was dated 930 A.H., i.e. 1523 A.D. This supports the Fuhrer’s testimony of 1891 A.D. However, the place is changed from the place above the entrance door to that below the pulpit of the mosque. Thus, the place of this inscription was changed in the intervening period i.e. after 1891 when Fuhrer wrote his article and before 1906 A.D. when Shuaib submitted his Annual Report. From Shuaib’s report it appears that there was one stone slab on the outside of the central arch and another on the inside of the central arch. No one except Shuaib ever saw any inscription on the inside of the central arch. The stone slab on the inside of the central arches of the mosque was a small one because it contains Kalmah only. The stone-slab on the outside of the central arch recorded “the erection of the mosque which was built on the same spot where the old temple of Janam Asthanam of Ram Chandra was.”
(9) Inscriptions mentioned by Beveridge in Babur-nama (1921)
Almost thirty-two years after A. Fuhrer read the inscription A.S. Beveridge published two inscriptions in 1921 in her famous translation of Babur-nama (Memoirs of Babur). She wrote in Appendix ‘U’ of her book that she got these inscriptions through Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad on her I.C.S. husband’s request.
Therein she first quotes the following Persian text and Roman transliteration with the observation that the first inscription is inside the mosque:
Baburi mosque inscription read by Beveridge in Babur-nama.
Ba farmuda-i- Shah Babur ki ‘adilas
Bana’st ta kakh-i- garadūn mulaqī
Bana kard īn muhabit-i- qudsiyan
Amīr-i-sa‘adat-nishan Mīr Baqī
Bavad khair baqī! chū sal-i-bana’ish
‘Iyan shud ki guftam, Buvad khair baqī (935)
She emphatically asserts that ‘the translation and explanation of the above, manifestly made by a Musalman and as such of special value, are as follows:
1. By the command of the Emperor Babur whose justice is an edifice reaching up to the very height of the heavens.
2. The good-hearted Mir Baqi built this alighting place of angels.
3. Bavad khair baqī! (May this goodness last forever!). The year of building it was made clear likewise when I said, Buvad khair Baqi!
Thereafter, Beveridge writes:
“The explanation of this is:
1st couplet: The poet begins by praising the Emperor Babur under whose orders the mosque was erected. As justice is the (chief) virtue of kings, he naturally compares his (Babur’s) justice to a palace reaching up to the very heavens, signifying thereby that the fame of that justice had not only spread in the wide world but had gone up to the heavens.
2nd couplet: In the second couplet, the poet tells who was entrusted with the work of construction. Mir Baqi was evidently some nobleman of distinction at Babur’s Court. The noble height, the pure religious atmosphere, and the scrupulous cleanliness and neatness of the mosque are beautifully suggested by saying that it was to be the abode of angels.
3rd couplet: The third couplet begins and ends with the expression Buvad khair baqî. The letters forming it by their numerical values represent the number 935 thus:
The poet indirectly refers to a religious commandment (dictum) of the Qoran that a man’s good deeds live after his death, and signifies that this noble mosque is verily such a one.”
Though there is not much difference in the content of the texts, given to Buchanan and Beveridge, yet the format is quite different. In Beveridge’s book the following differences emerge:
(i) The Tughra was an integral lower part of the inscription in the Buchanan’s epigraph. But it has disappeared in subsequent versions of the inscriptions. It finds no place in either Beveridge’s version or the stampage obtained by Ashraf Husain.
(ii) This Tughra is the text of Chapter CXII of the Holy Quran. The translation of the text handed over to Buchanan reads as follows:
“There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Prophet of God.
Say, O’ Mohmmad, that God is one, that God is holy, unbegetting and unbegotten, and that he hath no equal.”
(iii) Though this Tughra was the integral part of the copy of the inscription supplied to Buchanan and said to have been fixed on the wall, yet its fir
st part (There is no god, but God, and Muhammad is the Prophet of God) travelled to the chhajja after being separated from the original inscription and the second part was forgotten for ever. How could only half portion of the Tughra which was an integral part of the inscription on the wall, reach the chhajja has not been explained by anyone so far.
(iv) Though there is not much difference between the texts of Buchanan and Beveridge, yet the reading Shukri Kunam in Buchanan’s text makes difference from Shud chu guftem of subsequent readings. The first one means that we are grateful to Allah.
Then Beveridge deals with the second inscription in the following words:
“The inscription outside of the mosque is as follows:
Persian text:
Baburi mosque inscription given to
Beveridge quoted in Babur-nama.
Ba nam-i-anki dana hast akbar
Ki khaliq-i-jumla ‘alam la-makani
Darid Mustafà ba’d as sitayish
Ki sarwar-i-ambiya’ di jahani
Fasana dar jahan Babur qualandar
Ki shud dar daur giti kamrani
Thereafter, she produces the explanation received from the Muslim scholar:
“The explanation of the above is as follows:
In the first couplet the poet praises God, in the second Muhammad, in the third Babur. There is a peculiar literary beauty in the use of the word la-makani in the 1st couplet. The author hints that the mosque is meant to be the abode of God, although. He has no fixed abiding-place. In the first hemstitch of the 3rd couplet the poet gives Babur the appellation of qalandar, which means a perfect devotee, indifferent to all worldly pleasures. In the second hemistich he gives the reason for his being so, that Babur became and was known all the world over as a qalandar, because having become Emperor of India and having thus reached the summit of worldly success, he had nothing to wish for the earth.”
Ayodhya Revisited Page 27