Ayodhya Revisited
Page 29
3. (He is) such (an emperor) as has embraced (i.e. conquered) all the seven climes of the world in the manner of the sky.
In his court, there was a magnificent noble, named Mir Baqi the second Asaf,
Councillor of his government and administrator of his kingdom, who is the founder of this mosque and fort-wall.
4. O God, may he live for ever in this world, with fortune and life and crown and throne! The time of the building is this auspicious date, of which the indication is nine hundred (and) thirty five (A.H. 935=1528-29 A.D.).
Completed was this praise of God, of Prophet and King. May Allah illumine his proof! Written by the weak writer and humble creature, Fathu’llah Muhammad Ghori.”
Dr. Desai has written that Anton Fuhrer must have been misinformed to affirm that “few corrections of the second and the whole third line completely defaced.”
Even if it is supposed that some words in the 2nd line and the whole third line are defaced, there is not much discrepancy in the meaning of the text of the inscription. But here we do find that Dr. Desai has extensively changed the text and meaning of the translated passage. It is quite different from what Anton Fuhrer had translated. Fuhrer had written that it is in ten lines, above the entrance door of the masjid. He has made its translation in ten separate lines. Dr. Desai has considerably changed the meaning of the text without pinpointing how Anton Fuhrer’s translation was wrong. Since the beginning and the end of the text are the same and the inscription is said to be the same and there is no major variance in Fuhrer’s English translation from the Persian text, Dr. Desai’s text and translation appears to be arbitrary. He has changed the date of the inscription 930 A.H. (1523 A.D.) to 935 A.H. (1528 A.D.) without assigning any reason. In Dr. Desai’s translation the name of Mir Baqi, the second Asaf, appears whereas in Fuhrer’s text Mir Baqi’s name does not appear at all. Asaf was the Prime Minister of King Solomon. How a mere junior army officer (a Beg) can be compared with the Prime Minister of a highly venerated king? Then Babur is called a Qalandar in this inscription which is not found in the Anton Fuhrer’s translation. Similarly, a fort-wall, too, is suddenly included in Dr. Desai’s text. After 4th line Dr. Desai does not follow Anton Fuhrer’s translation and at the end he mentions Fathu’llah Muhammad Ghori as the humble writer of this inscription. His name figures in the Anton Fuhrer’s translation too. But here in Dr. Desai’s text one sentence which means ‘May Allah illumine his proof!’ is added. Dr. Desai makes this comment in the footnote of page 61:
“The subject or purpose of this invocatory phrase is not known.”
Its purpose is very simple, i.e. to strengthen the proof in favour of the mosque.
Dr. Desai goes on explaining how Babur was called Qalandar but he does not explain how the changes, not found in the text read by Anton Fuhrer have taken place in the inscription.
Ashraf Husain/Z.A. Desai has made these changes only to evade certain unpalatable information contained in the inscription placed by Anton Fuhrer. The sixth line of this third inscription is very clear and it reads noh sad sī, i.e. 930 but Dr. Desai has added ‘panja’ five in this reading to make it 935 A.H. The plate of the edict shown in the Desai’s reading appears to be very clumsily and hastely written. Prof. Sushil Srivastava in his book ‘The Disputed Mosque’ has given the following opinion on the authenticity and date of the inscription:
“The style of calligraphy in the inscriptions of the Babri Masjid also raises serious doubts about whether Babur constructed the mosque. The style in the inscription on the outside, just above the entrance of the mosque, is thick set. This does not conform to the style of calligraphy prevalent in the sixteenth century but is more representative of the nineteenth-century style of calligraphy. The inscription in the inside of the mosque, just above the pulpit, though finer and sharper, is close-set. This style of calligraphy is again representative of the nineteenth century. There is a strong possibility that the stone inscriptions were put up at a later stage to strengthen the claim that Babur had actually constructed the mosque.” (P. 89; “Did Babur Build the Masjid?”)
In the footnotes of this chapter Sushil Srivastava writes that in his discussion with S.R. Faruqui in July 1987 the latter was inclined to feel that the style of calligraphy was representative of the nineteenth century. Thus, Desai took liberty in altering the third fake edict to keep it in conformity with historical facts and to strengthen claim in favour of the Sunni Waqf Board after it filed a case in the court in December, 1961.
(13) Factitious Inscription of Kanak Bhawan
Here I would like to make it clear that writing and fixing fake inscriptions in Ayodhyā shrines was not the prerogative of the Muslims alone. It was the handiwork of the Hindus as well. In the famous Kanak Bhawan temple of Ayodhya the following inscriptions were fixed in the 19th century with fictitious stories.
(i) (जरासन्धवधं कृत्वा भगवाँस्तीर्थपावनः।
आगात्सप्तपुरीमुख्यामयोध्याम्विचरन्पथि ।।
विश्रामं शिखरे प्राप्य परमामोदसंयुतः।
दिव्याङगनां तपस्यन्तीं नाम्ना पद्मासनां शुभाम्।।
शृङगाग्रे कनकागारे परया कृपया हरिः।
श्रीसीताराममूर्त्तिम्वै प्रदाय द्वारकामगात्।।
(ii) (चन्द्राग्नीवेदपक्षैपरिमित शरदि श्रीमतो धर्म्ममूर्त्तेः
पौषे कृष्णद्वितीयामहिसुतदिवसो् जीर्णामुद्धृत्य भूयः।
श्रीमद्गन्धर्व्वसेनात्मजनृपतिलको विक्रमादित्य नामा।
श्रीसीताराममूर्तिं कनकभवनसंस्थापयामास नूनम्।।
(iii) (इतिश्रीविक्रमशिलालेखांशः
श्रीमन्नृपतिविक्रमादित्य द्वारा युधिष्ठिर सं. २४३१ म्ह्याँ प्रतिष्ठित।
They may be thus translated:
(i) After having killed Jarāsandha, Bhagawān Kr+ishna, in course of journey, came to Ayodhyā, the most important among the seven sacred pilgrim centres. After taking rest at the mound the Lord, in a pleasant mood, handed over the idols of Sitā and Rāma blissfully to a penancing woman, who was having divine limbs, in the house made of gold. Then he went to Dwarka.
(ii) Vikramāditya, the son of Gandharvasena, renovated it in YuddhishThira era of 2431 in the month of Paush on the second day of the dark fortnight which was Tuesday. Thereafter, he installed the idols of Rāma and Sitā in the temple.
In this verse the date is given in a way where Sanskrit words denote certain numbers.
Chandra 1
Agni 3
Veda 4
Paksha 2
The rule in Sanskrit is अंकस्य वामा गतिः Thus, चन्द्राग्नीवेदपक्षै becomes 2431. The Yuddhisthira era is supposed to have started in 3143 B.C. Thus, the temple is claimed to have been renovated in 3143-2431=712 B.C. by Vikramāditya. No Vikramāditya is known to have flourished in the 8th century B.C. At the end, it is again claimed that it was installed by the king Vikramāditya in 2431 Yuddhisthira era.
This historically false claim does not end there. In the official document also it has been claimed:
THE ANCIENT & MODERN EPIGRAPHY
OF
KANAKBHAWAN
“THIS KANAK-BHAWAN (TEMPLE OF GOLD) THE CELESTIAL PALACE OF SHRI
SITA-RAMJI IN TRETA RESTORED TO ITS FORMER POSITION BY MAHARAJA KUSHA IN THE BEGINNING OF DWAPAR, RECONSTRUCTED BY MAHARAJA RISHABHA IN THE MIDDLE OF DWAPAR VISITED AND LOVED BY BHAGWAN SHRI KRISHNA IN KALI-AGE 614 REBUILT BY MAHARAJA VIKRAMADITYA IN YUDHISHTHIRA ERA 2431. ADORED AND REPAIRED BY MAHARAJA SAMUDRAGUPTA IN V.S. 444 HAS BEEN AGAIN BUILT AND ENDOWED OVER THE RUINS PERPETRATED BY S. SALAR JUNG IN V.S. 1084 BY MAHARANI VRISHABHANU KUNWARI (SRI RAMPRIYA SANCHARI) THE ROYAL CONSORT OF H.H. MAHARAJA SAMI MATHEDRA SIR PRATAP SINGH JUDEO G.C.S.I., G.C.L.E. OF ORCHA THE HEAD OF THE CHIEFS OF BUNDELKHAND IN V.S. 1948 VAISHAKH SUDI 6th GURU-PUSHYA.”
Neither any Vikramāditya existed in 2431 Y.E. nor Samudragupta ruled in 444 Vikrama Samvat. It is not historically proved that S. Salar Jung ever came to Ayodhyā. Nevertheless, there was none to check the false claim of any inscription or document of the 19th century. Therefore, we should not be surprised that the disputed shrine had false and fabricated inscriptions.
(14) Fake inscription in Masjid Khurd at Rohtak
There is another instance of a fake inscription installed in the Masjid-i-Khurd at Rohtak. This mosque consists of two inscriptions; one is fixed over the central archway outside. It consists of three lines inscribed on a tablet measuring 53 cm. by 23 cm. It indicates faintly that this mosque was constructed in the reign of Babur by one Qadi Hammad. But there is another Tughlaq inscription occurring on the outer archway which was erected in A.H. 724 i.e. 1324 A.D. by Abul Muzaffar Tughlaq Shah. This appears to be in situ and therefore the inscription ascribing the construction of this mosque to Babur is fake. Thus, not only the inscriptions in Baburi mosque at Ayodhyâ were fakes but there were many other factitious inscriptions and documents which were spread over Northern India.
Here it will not to be out of context to mention that the British Resident to the King of Oudh in his communication dated August 14, 1855 wrote thus:
“His Majesty must be well aware that it is very easy for interested parties to obtain seals and signatures to any representations they may choose to make in the heat of religious excitement and …(illegible) the opposite party would easily obtain similar testimony in support of their assertions.”
Such cases of forgery and fabrication were not few and far between during the first half of the 19th century in the Kingdom of Oudh. Paul Horn in his article‘ Muhammadan Inscriptions from the Subah of Dihli’ published in Epigraphia India Vol. II (pp 130-48) has cited three more instances of this type.
(14) Conclusion
The following facts emerge from the detailed discussion made above:
(i) There was no inscription on the stucture before Tiffenthaler’s visit in 1767 A.D.
(ii) Buchanan was the first person to receive an inscription which may or may not have been fixed on the mosque at that time.
(iii) When the two Judges inspected the shrine in 1885-86 A.D. there was no inscription except super-scription of the word ‘Allah’ on the entrance gateway. Similar had been the case in 1877 A.D. when Asghar had filed a petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Fyzabad.
(iv) In 1889 the archaeologist Anton Fuhrer had found two inscriptions (excluding one with Kalma) on the walls of the sturcture. According to these inscriptions Mir Khan was the builder of the structure and 930 A.H., i.e. 1523 A.D. was the year of the construction of the building.
(v) Maulvi Shuaib’s Annual Report submitted for the year 1906-07 contained an inscription dated 1523 A.D. In his report the inscriptions were found at places different from earlier and later positions.
(vi) Texts in the copies given to Beveridge were at variance with those obtained by Fuhrer, particularly with the longer edict.
(vii) The format of supposed inscriptions given to Buchanan substantially disappeared in the subsequent inscriptions seen by Fuhrer, Beveridge and Desai.
(viii) Two inscriptions near the pulpit of the mosque were taken away by the Hindu rioters during 1934 riots.
(ix) One inscription restored by the Muslim community mentioned the date 923 A.H., i.e. 1516-17 A.D. clearly in figures.
(x) In one inscription recorded in the court proceedings of Regular Suit no. 29 of 1945 Mir Baqi was named Abdul Baqi and shown as the native of Isphahan in Persia against the conclusive evidence of Babur-nama that he was a Tashkindi.
(xi) Dr. Z.A. Desai arbitrarily changed the text and translation in the name of Maulana Ashraf Husain in order to rectify the historical blunders committed earlier in the fake inscriptions which were the outcome of ill-designed forgeries to strengthen the Muslim claim on the disputed mosque.
Thus, it is clear that there was no inscription associated with the mosque until the beginning of the 19th century. And even when some fake inscriptions were fixed in the mosque, particularly after the Muslims got the complete control of the inner portion of the mosque, they were replaced repeatedly and there were variations in their contents as well as in their sizes and locations. Therefore, they cannot be relied upon and must be discarded. No conclusion can be arrived at on their basis. Here it will not be out of place to mention that the Baburi mosque was not the isolated place where such fake inscriptions were fixed. During the Mediaeval period there were many mosques which were having factitious and fictitious inscriptions.
Besides, it is important to remember that Baqi’s name is not correctly written in the inscription which is claimed to have been fixed at the time of the construction of the mosque. Had it been a genuine inscription his correct name Baqi Shaghawal/Tashkindi/Beg/Ming-bashi, and not Mir Baqi, would have been written. It has been discussed at length in the next chapter.
Since the inscriptions in the Baburi mosque were not genuine, there has been a wrong impression about the history of its construction so far. There was a concerted attempt to produce fake inscriptions to buttress the claim on the mosque and in the process a hapless Babur, before whom mighty monarchs used to bow heads in battlefields, has been the victim of unexpected circumstances for the last 200 years. Here one is reminded of the following famous lines of T.S. Eliot from his poem ‘Gerontion’:
“History has many cunning passages, contrived corridors
And issues, deceives with whispering ambitions”
Chapter Six
Mir Baqi of inscriptions is a fictitious person
different from Bāqī of Bābur-nama
[(1) In 932 A.H. Dibalpur was bestowed on Baqi Shaghawal (2) In 933 A.H. Baqi Shaghawal is again mentioned in his Memoirs (3) In the year 934 A.H. Baqi ming-bashi figures in his Diary (4) In 934 A.H. he is mentioned as Baqi of Tashkind (5) One more mention of Baqi Shaghawal is found in 934 A.H. (6) In 935 A.H. Baqi is mentioned without any epithet at many places (7) On 13th June, 1529 Baqi Tashkindi calls on Babur (8) On 16th June, 1529 he figures as Baqi Shaghawal again (9) On 20th June, 1529 Baqi Shaghawal was given marching order (Rukhsat) (10) Discrepency in Beveridge’s translation (11) Career of Baqi Shaghawal (12) The word ‘Mir’ as a prefix to a proper name (13) Mir Baqi’s so-called tomb at Shahnawa (14) Fabricated geneology of Mir Baqi (15) Another Baqi]
There prevails a general impression that Mir Baqi was the Governor of Babur at Ayodhyā and he built the disputed mosque at the command of the Mughal Emperor, Babur. However, the fact of the matter is that no person by the name of Mir Baqi is mentioned in the Babur-nama and the Baqi referred to in the Babur’s Memoirs was never Governor of Ayodhyā. The name Baqi has figured in Indian context at the following places in Beveridge’s translation of Babur nama.
(1) In 932 A.H. Dibalpur was bestowed on Baqi Shaghawal
Babur writes in his memoirs that he bestowed Dibalpur and sent him to Balkh with gifts:
“At the end of our first stage, I bestowed Dibalpur on Baqi Shaghawal and sent him to help Balkh; sent also gifts, taken in the success of Milwat, for (my) younger children and various train in Kabul.” (p. 463)
Though Babur has not dated this event, it falls into his two dated entries. Therefore, it could have occurred in either January or February 1526.<
br />
Thus, the substantive posting of Baqi Shaghawal in India was at Dibalpur near Lahore and not at Ayodhyā.
(2) In 933 A.H. Baqi Shaghawal is again mentioned in his Memoirs
“When Baqi Shaghawal went [to Balkh] I promised him a ser of gold for the head of each of the ill-conditioned old couple; one ser of gold was now given to Mir Hamah for Baba Shaikh’s head, over and above the favours referred to above.” (p. 546)
Though this, too, is not dated, it appears to have taken place in February, 1527.
(3) In the year 934 A.H. Baqi ming-bashi figures in his Diary
“(Jan. 12th 1528 A.D.) On Sunday the 19th of the month Chin-timur Sl. was put at the head of 6 or 7000 men and sent ahead against Chandiri. With him went the begs Baqi ming-bashi (head of a thousand), Quj Beg’s (brother) Tardi Beg, ‘Ashiq the taster, Mulla Apaq, Muhsin Duldai and, of the Hindustani begs, Shaikh Guran.” (p. 590)
Here Baqi is called ming-bashi, i.e. head of a thousand soldiers. Thus, he was a small army-commander. Chin-timur Sultan was the head of the contingent and Baqi was one of many commanders asked to work under Chin-timur. Therefore, Baqi could not be a Governor of Ayodhyā or the chief army commander stationed at Ayodhyā.
(4) In 934 A.H. he is mentioned as Baqi of Tashkind
(Sunday March 15th, Jumada II. 23rd) On this day the carts were taken over, and at this same dawn the army was ordered to cross. At beat of drum news came from our scouts that the enemy had fled. Chin-timur Sl. was ordered to lead his army in pursuit and the following leaders also were made pursuers who should move with the Sultan and not go beyond this word : Muhammad ‘Ali Jang-jang, Husamu’d-din ‘Ali (son) of Khalifa, Muhibb-i-’Ali (son) of Khalifa, Kuki (son) of Baba) Qashqa, Dost-i-muhammad (son) of Baba Qashqa, Baqi of Tashkind, and Red Wali. I crossed at the Sunnat Prayer, the camels were ordered to be taken over at a passage seen lower down. That Sunday we dismounted on the bank of standing-water within a kuroh of Bangarmawu. Those appointed to pursue the Afghans were not doing it well; they had dismounted in Bangarmawu and were scurrying off at the mid-day Prayer of this same Sunday.) (p. 601)