Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  She further writes:

  “The inscription is incomplete and the above is the plain interpretation which can be given to the couplets that are to hand. Attempts may be made to read further meaning into them but the language would not warrant it.”

  Beveridge was not supplied the complete reading of the second inscription! So, a comparison with Anton Fuhrer’s inscription would not be appropriate. She herself wrote that ‘the inscription is incomplete’. It is intriguing why she was supplied an incomplete reading. Was the tampering in the Anton Fuhrer’s inscription still in the process? And since it could not be completed, she was not supplied the complete reading. Thus, the incomplete inscription given to Beveridge was in the process of being fabricated and hence the inscription above the chhajja was not genuine in nature.

  (10) Communal riot of 1934

  In the communal riot of 1934 the mosque was severely damaged, and the Hindu hooligans took away inscriptions from the mosque. All the three domes also were subjected to severe assault. During this communal trouble Hindu rioters took away inscriptions fixed in the mosque. An inscription in Urdu highlighting this attack and rebuilding the mosque was later fixed in the mosque. The British Government imposed community fines on the local Hindus and collected huge amount which was used for the restoration of domes.

  Maulana M. Ashraf Husain and Dr. Z.A. Desai drew the attention of readers to the following important information given in the inscription:

  “Below the restored epigraph is inscribed in four lines the following Urdu record concerning the fate of the original inscription:

  A small inscription produced by Dr. Desai.

  27 th March Sanah 1934 i. motābik 11 jilahijjah 1352 Hi. baroj hindū balabāi masjid shahid karake asli katabā uthā le gaye jisako Tahabbur Khan thikedar ne nihayat khubi ke sath tamir kiya.

  On 27th March, 1934, i.e. 11 jilahijjah, 1352 Hindu hooligans took away the original ‘katbā’ (inscription) after having razed the mosque (masjid shahid karke) but thikedar Tahabbur Khan rebuilt it with finesse.

  Though this inscription mentions that the mosque was razed (masjid shahīd karke) and the ‘katbā’ was taken away, yet the fact of the matter was that it was not razed to the ground entirely. However, its major upper portion was severely damaged.

  (11) Inscriptions submitted in Faizabad Regular Suit no. 29of 1945

  After 1934 communal riots the Muslim community made the restoration of two inscriptions. Texts of the restored inscriptions were placed before the court and examined by the Civil Judge, Faizabad in the Regular Suit no. 29 of 1945.

  The content of the first inscription fixed above the pulpit inside the mosque was almost the same as that of Beveridge’s reading except a very vital difference that at the end of the edict the date of the construction of the building was shown as , i.e. 923. This 923 Hijari comes to 1516-17 A.D. It is an improbable date which is based on several Urdu texts that wrongly show Babur’s presence at Ayodhyā during that period.

  In this judgment of Regular Suit no. 29 of 1946, dated 300346, there is a reference to the loss of original Katba (edict). This judgment has certain interesting references:

  The learned Judge made the following observation in his Judgment:

  “26-3-46. Inspected the mosque in the suit & found the following inscription on a stone tablet near the pulpit.”

  An inscription submitted to Court in 1945.

  Be faramudae’ shah Bābar ke adalash

  Benāī asta Bā kakh-i-garadūn mulākī

  Benā karade in mahabat kudasiān rā

  Amīr Sa’ādat nishān Mīr Bāqī

  Bobad khair bāqī chun sāl benāish

  Ayan skukari Kunam bobad khair bāqī 923

  Thereafter, the learned Judge writes:

  “The first inscription contains three (lines) in (sic) couplets in Persian and when translated runs as follows:

  “By the order of Shah Babar, whose justice went up to the skies (i.e. was well-known), Amir (Noble) Mir Baqi, of lofty grandeur, built this resting place for angels in 923 Hijri.”

  The second inscription engraved on a tablet in the central arch of the mosque, too, was substantially different from those of Anton Fuhrer and Desai. It showed Mir Baqi a resident of Isphahan which is in Iran. It was done to prove Mir Baqi a Shia, whereas from Babur-nama, he hailed from Taskind which is in Central Asia. The learned Judge writes:

  “There are verses engraved on a tablet in the central arch of the mosque which will be referred to later on, in which Mir Baqi has been described as an ‘Isphahani’ i.e. a resident of Isphahan.”

  On page 12 of the judgment it reads –

  “The second inscription is more elaborate and contains in the usual high-flown language on the eulogy of Babur and describes Mr. Baqi of Isphahan as his advisor and the builder of the mosque.”

  The second inscription reads as follows:

  Another inscription submitted to Court in 1945.

  Bismiltahir rahamanir rahīm va be Sikatī

  Benāme unake ū dānāst akabar ke khāliqa Jumalah ālam lā makānī

  Durūde mustafā bād aja sanāish ke saravar anabiā Jubadah Jahānī

  Qhānah dar jahān Bābur qalandar ke shud dar daure getī kāmarānī

  Chunān kash hafat kishavar dar girafatehJamīn rā chūn misāle shādamānī.

  Dar ūn hajarāt yakī mīra moajjam ke nāmash mīr Bāqī Asfahānī

  mushīr-i-saltanat tadabīr-i-mulakash kajīn masjid va hesār hasat bānī

  Khodāya dar jahān pāyande bādā ke chataro takhato bakhato jindegānī.

  Benāe ahad jin tārīkhe maimūn keh noh sad sī panja bebad nishānī.

  Tammata hājāta tauhīd madah va nāt va sifat nurūllāh burahā naha khata abaduja

  jaīfa nahīfa Fatahullāh Mohammad Gaurī.

  The learned Judge comments that:

  “The above inscription was read by Sheikh Karamatullah (D.W. 5) who climbed up the arch by means of a ladder & the verses are written in Arabic character.”

  Sheikh Karamatullah was a witness (D.W. 5) in the case and he himself was Sunni, so his reading should not be doubted.

  The text and the translation of this inscription are similar to those of Husain/Desai except the fact that here it is Baqi Isphahani, i.e. the resident of Isphahan in Persia and in Desai’s reading it has been deliberately changed to Asif Sani which means second Asif. Since Maulana Ashraf Husain and Dr. Z.A. Desai knew very well that Baqi was the native of Tashkind and not of Isphahan in Iran, he changed it to Asif Sani, i.e. second Asif.

  (12) Ashraf Husain/Z.A. Desai’s reading of the inscriptions

  Dr. Z.A. Desai, Superintendent, Persian and Arabic Inscriptions, Nagpur, published an article written by the Late Maulavi M. Ashraf Husain in “Epigrahia Indica, Arabic and Persian supplement (In continuation of the series Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica) 1965” published by Archaeological Survey of India. Dr. Desai has written a brief introduction that a rough draft of this article by his predecessor Maulavi M. Ashraf Husain, who retired in 1953 was found amongst sundry papers in his office with a note that it might be published after revision by his successor. Consequently, he claims, the same is published after ‘incorporation of fresh material and inferences and also extensive revision and editing’. But nowhere Dr. Desai has mentioned that which portions of Ashraf Husain’s article are revised by him and on what ground these revisions have been made. Therefore, it will be referred to as Husain/Desai’s reading.

  About inscriptions at Ayodhyā Husain/Desai writes that the mosque contains a number of inscriptions. He further adds that on the eastern facade is a chhajja, below which appears a Quranic text, and above it there is an inscription in Persian verse. He further adds that “on the central mihrab are carved religious texts such as the Kalima (First Creed), etc.” Thereafter, he mentions the spots of other edicts in the following words:

  “On the southern face of the pulpit was previously fixed a stone slab bearin
g a Persian inscription in verse. There was also another inscription in Persian verse built up into the right hand side wall of the pulpit. Of these, the last mentioned two epigraphs have disappeared. They were reportedly destroyed in the communal vandalism in 1934 A.D.; but luckily, I managed one of them from Sayyid Badrul Hasan of Fyzabad. The present inscription, restored by the Muslim community, is not only in inlaid Nasta’liq characters, but is also slightly different from the original, owing perhaps to the incompetence of the restorers in deciphering it properly.” (pp. 58-59)

  Now the following questions arise from the above-mentioned comments:

  (i) Why did Sayyid Badrul-Hasan make inked rubbing of only one inscription and leave another?

  (ii) Who was this Sayyid Badarul Hasan? Was he a real or fictitious person?

  (iii) How the ink-estampage was luckily recovered has not been disclosed in the article?

  (iv) Why did Husain/Desai not produce the text restored by the Muslim community in his article? According to him this restored text is slightly different from the original, i.e. the inked rubbing. How did he believe that the inked rubbing is the original and the restored one is defective because of the incompetence of the restorers?

  (v) Is it in the usual practice of epigraphic studies that the inked rubbing of an inscription without the presence of even a single witness should be accepted as evidence?

  (vi) Did any established historian ever object to the authenticity and acceptability of this method when the Ayodhya debate was at its peak?

  Husain/Desai produces the following text restored from the estampage. He informs that the epigraph below was inscribed on a slab of stone 68 by 48 cm, which was built up into the southern side of the pulpit of the mosque:

  Dr. Desai’s reading of the first inscription.

  Translation of the inscription by Husain/Desai:

  “1. By the order of King Babur whose justice is an edifice, meeting the place of the sky (i.e. as high as the sky),

  2. This descending place of the angels was built by the fortunate noble Mir Baqi.

  3. It will remain an everlasting bounty, and (hence) the date of its erection became manifest from words: “It will remain an everlasting bounty.””

  Desai further adds:

  “The numerical value of the letters of the chronogrammatic phrase contained in the second hemistich of the last line adds up to give the year A.H. 935(1529-29 A.D). There is also a play of the word Baqi in the above phrase: Baqi means everlasting and it is also the name of the nobleman builder; both the meanings are equally applicable here. The phrase can be translated as: It is the bounty of Baqi.”

  The translation of this inscription by Husain/Desai is not different from that which was made available to Beveridge, although the author of this article says that the readings of Beveridge like those of Fuhrer were incomplete and inaccurate. But this inscription was not found by Fuhrer. Where had it disappeared then? In the footnote 4 of this article on page 59 it has been explained by Dr. Desai in the following words:

  “It may be argued that since this epigraph is not quoted in Anton Fuhrer’s SAJ, the slab had already disappeared before he wrote. But this is not the case, since the tablet was found there in 1906-07 A.D. by Maulavi M. Shuaib of the office of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra (Annual Progress Report of the office of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra, for 1906-07 Appendix D).”

  But neither Dr. Desai nor any other historical epigraphist has quoted M. Shuaib’s report in the context of Ayodhyā dispute. In fact, this Annual Progress Report of ASI had gone into oblivion. It could be obtained by the present writer with some effort through the instrument of the RTI Act. Maulavi M. Shuaib’s report disproves the above claim of Husain/Desai. Salient features of this Report are enumerated below:

  (i) In Appendix ‘D’ of the Report Maulavi M. Shuaib has given the list of inscriptions which include the three inscriptions seen by him in the disputed mosque. From an analysis of the content of these inscriptions of Maulvi Shuaib, it is clear that the inscription dated A.H. 930, i.e. A.D. 1523 seen by A. Fuhrer was intact in the ASI reprt of 1906-07.

  (ii) But when Fuhrer had seen the edict dated 1523 A.D., in the year 1889 A.D. it was ‘above the entrance door of the masjid’. However, when Maulavi M. Shuaib saw it in 1906 it was ‘below the pulpit of the mosque’.

  (iii) Similarly, the stone slab, which recorded the erection of mosque in 1528 A.D., was seen ‘on the outside of the central arch’ of the mosque by Maulavi M. Shuaib in 1906 A.D. whereas Buchanan did not mention its location and Beveridge mentioned ‘the inscription outside of the mosque’ in 1921 A.D. and Ashraf/Desai found it ‘over the central entrance to the prayer chamber above the chhajja’.

  (iv) The stone-slab containing the Kalma was an integral upper part of the second inscription, the copy of which was handed over to Buchanan. But this stone-slab translated by a Maulvi at the behest of Buchanan, mysteriously lost its form and half of the content. Fuhrer had seen the Kalma over the central mihrab of the Masjid, whereas in the Report of Maulvi Shuaib, it is on a stone-slab placed on the inside of the central arches of the Emperor Babur’s mosque.

  Thus, none of the stone-slabs was permanently fixed at any particular place. Their contents and locations changed frequently at the sweet will of the managers of the mosque. Since none of the inscriptions was in situ and none was in the mosque for long, no reliance can be made on these edicts. Managers of the mosque had fabricated some stone-slabs which used to be fixed at times at central places and removed after some time when there was no need. Again, when any necessity was felt, some stone-slabs were fixed at different places and this was the reason for the complete chaos in content and variation of locations. The forged nature of the fabricated epigraph is confirmed beyond all shades of doubt.

  About the second inscription Desai writes:

  “The second inscription on the mosque, also in Persian verse, consisted of three couplets arranged in six lines. The epigraphic tablet, which was built up into the right hand side wall of the pulpit, does not exist now, and therefore, the text of the inscription is quoted here from Anton Fuhrer’s work; for the same reason, its illustration could not be given. Anton Fuhrer’s reading does not appear to be free from mistakes.”

  The following is the translation of the text by Dr. Z.A. Desai published in “Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement.”

  1. In accordance with the wishes of the ruler of the world, Babur,

  2. A lofty building like the palace of the spheres,

  3. (that is to say) this lasting house (of God), was founded

  4. By the fortunate noble Mir (and) Khan (Baqi).

  5. May ever remain such a founder of its edifice,

  6. (and) such a king of the world and age!

  Here the question arises that when the second edict was lost and there was no other text available and the reading in the article was relied upon Anton Fuhrer’s text, then on what ground, it was decreed that ‘Fuhrer’s reading does not appear to be free from mistakes’. And why were the arbitrary changes made by the writer and editor? Mir Khan of the edict has been made Mir (and) Khan (Baqi). Wherefrom has Baqi landed in this edict? It is an arbitrary addition to correct a historically wrong statement that Mir Khan built the mosque.

  Besides, there is another addition. In Anton Fuhrer’s translation it was ‘firment-like lofty strong building’. It was not necessarily a mosque. But here it is a lofty building like the place of the spheres’ and in the third line, ‘(of God)’ was added after ‘lasting house’. Here ‘of God’ has been added to prove it a mosque. If there could have been any other qualifying remark for a mosque, the addition of ‘of God’ could have been justified. But in its absence, this addition, too, is unjustified because it symbolized any building which was founded by Mir Khan (not Mir Baqi).

  After reading these two inscriptions presented by Dr. Desai one can well understand why Dr. Desai had to obtain an estamp
age edict. Fuhrer’s inscription mentioned Mir Khan and not Mir Baqi as the builder of the mosque. This was corrected by Dr. Desai. He had to rectify a bigger blunder. The text restored by the Muslim community after 1934 communal riot contained the date 923 Hijri as the year of the construction of the structure. It was produced before the civil court, Faizabad in the litigation mentioned above. Maulana Ashraf Husain and Dr. Z.A. Desai, with profound knowledge of history, could not digest this historical blunder. So they invented the device of the inked estampage of the lost edict. But this could have been simply explained that 923 A.H. was not historically correct, so it should be 935 A.H. But the tragedy is that there has been foul play with the mosque inscriptions since 1813 A.D. when Buchanan was first informed about the inscriptions.

  According to Husain/Desai the third record of Babur in the Ayodhyā mosque, comprising a fragment of eight Persian verses of mediocre quality and a colophon, was over the central entrance to the prayer chamber above the chhajja. The four-line text is said to have been executed in fairly good Naskh characters in relief amidst floral borders on a slab measuring about 2 m. by 55 cm. The text is claimed to have been fairly well-preserved.

  The following is the text of the third inscription read by Husain Desai.

  Dr. Desai’s reading of the second inscription.

  It is a drastically changed version from that of Anton Fuhrer. Husain/Desai informs that it comprises “a fragment of eight Persian verses of mediocre quality and a colophon appears over the central entrance to the prayer chamber above the chhajja.”

  Translation of the third inscription by Husain/Desai:

  1. In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. And in Him is trust.

  2. In the name of One who is Wise, Great (and) Creator of all the universe (and) is spaceless.

  After His praise, blessings be upon the Chosen one (i.e. the Prophet), who is the head of prophets and best in the world.

  The qalandar-like (i.e. truthful) Babur has become celebrated (lit. a story) in the world, since (in his time) the world has achieved prosperity.