The fact of the matter is that inscriptions were fixed 285 years after the supposed construction in 1528 A.D. and Mir Baqi of the inscriptions was a fictitious person who was never the Governor of Ayodhyā. In Index I, Personal A.S. Beveridge indicates the pages, where the name Baqi, and not Mir Baqi, figures in the following sequence:
“Baqi Beg Tãshkindi, shaghãwal and (later) ming-bãshì (= hazãrì)—sent to Balkh with promise of head-money (932) 463, 546; on service (934) 590, 601, 2; reports from Aùd (Oudh) (935) 679; on service with the Aùd (Oudh) army 684, 5; leave given him for home 685.” (p. 742)
Nowhere it is written that Baqi was ever Governor of Oudh at Ayodhyā. What Babur did not do to Baqi, our great historians have done by appointing him Governor at Ayodhyā.
(12) The word ‘Mir’ as a prefix to a proper name
Some historians claim that in Babur-nama Babur has not prefixed Mir to Baqi, because it was an epithet of a subordinate and not a part of his name. But it is not a correct assertion because Babur has added Mir epithet to a number of subordinates in his Memoirs. Some of them are cited below from Index I. Personal from Beveridge’s book:
1. Mír Ahmad Beg Itaraji Mughûl
2. Mír (Shaikh) ‘Alí Beg Turk
3. Mír ‘Alí mir-akhwuri
4. Mír ‘Azû
5. Mír Khurd bakawal
6. Mír Muhammadi-i-Mahdí khwaja
7. Mír Muhammad jala-ban
8. Mír Muhammad-i-yûsuf
9. Mír MûrtazaAll these persons were his subordinates. However, since Babur was a man of etiquette, he invariably prefixed the honorific title Mir to their names. Had Baqi of the inscriptions been a real person having the ‘Mir’ title, Babur would have definitely prefixed Mir to Baqi’s name and mentioned him at least once as Mir Baqi in his Memoirs.
(13) Mir Baqi’s grave at Shanwah
On 17th November, 2011 I went to the village Shanwah, claimed to be the village where the dead body of Baqi is buried, and met Syed Nabi Hasan, the present ‘Mutwalli’ of now non-existent Baburi mosque. I had a long conversation with him. He gave me the geneology of his family from Baqi to the present day and showed me the grave of Mir Baqi, the General of Babur and his ‘Governor’ at Ayodhyā. He took me to the Mir Baqi’s grave which was at a distance of hardly 100 steps from the place in open where we were talking to each other in the presence of villagers. I was shocked to see the non-descript grave, which was about 6 ft. long and lying in totally tattered condition. I was told by Nabi Hasan that there were two graves – one of Mir Baqi and another of his daughter. It was clear from the appearance that it could not be the grave of even a Mughal commander, what to talk of a Governor. I got it photographed and one photo is shown below:
Mir Baqi’s so-called grave at Shanwah.
From a mere look at the surroundings one can see that the entire area of Baqi’s ‘grave’ is in dilapidated condition. The entrance wall has collapsed almost completely and the rear wall, which was built not long ago as it is evident from its bricks, is on the verge of collapse on account of non-maintenance and lack of care. In the village many persons were joking the claim of Nabi Hasan by nick-naming him Mir Baqi. They were young Sunni boys who informed me in Nabi Hasan’s presence that the entire Mir Baqi’s legacy was concocted after the eruption of the Court dispute and Mir Baqi’s socalled grave was claimed on a vacant space lying between two buildings.
It is ridiculous to connect this grave to Mir Baqi who has been called, in an inscription, a magnificent noble, councillor and administrator of Babur’s kingdom, and compared with Asaf, who was the legendary Vizir of the great emperor Solomon. After visiting the grave of fictitious Mir Baqi I was reminded of the famous sher of the last Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Jaffer:
कितना है बदनसीब ‘जफर’ दफन के लिए,
दो गज़ ज़मीन भी न मिली कू-ए-यार में।।
Babur has given a chart of the revenues of Hindustan in his Memoirs. According to him the revenue of Aud (Oude) along with Bahraj (Baraich) was 1 crore 17 lakh, 1 thousand 3 hundred and 69. Babur had himself given a gift of 1 crore, 48 lakh and 50,000 tanka to Shaikh Bāyazīd Farmuli. Had Mir Baqi been really a Governor, could he have been assigned a paltry sum of Rupees 308, annes 3 and paise 6 as honorarium for the maintenance in view of his claimed august status? As stated above, an allowance of 30 lakhs was assigned to Musa, son of Maruf Farmuli, along with a special head-to-foot cloak (saropa) and a saddled horse, while he was granted leave. But Baqi was not paid even a pittance.
In fact, when Baqi was granted leave to go home, i.e. Tashkind, he is not reported to have come back. Therefore, there could be no tomb of Mir Baqi in the vicinity of Faizabad. Similarly, when Baqi could not be associated with the construction of the mosque, there could be no grant in his favour for the maintenance of the so-called Baburi mosque. It was just a ploy to establish the right of the Shias over the mosque.
After Baqi’s dispatch on leave for home in June, 1529 A.D. Tukhta-bugha Sultan, who belonged to the group of commanders that had taken expedition against Bāyazīd, was at Ayodhyā in some official capacity and after his death Mughal Beg was commander at Ayodhyā wherefrom he had gone to fight in favour of Humayun against Shershah who vanquished the Mughal army. Baqi Tashkindi was never close to Babur, whereas Tukhta-bugha Sultan was one of his favourite nobles. In his Memoirs Babur writes,
“For example there are now in my service Chin-tinur, Aisan Sultan, Tukhta-bugha Sultan, and Baba Sultan; on one and all of those I have looked with more favour than on blood relations of my own.” (p. 318)
(14) Fabricated geneology of Mir Baqi
In Regular Suit no. 29 of 1945 between Shia Central Board of Waqf, U.P. versus Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P. Mir Baqi has been frequently called Abdul Baqi or Mir Abdul Baqi. In this judgment it is mentioned on page 5:
“The witnesses who have deposed about the pedigree have also stated that they heard from ancestors that Mir Abdul Baqi (or Baqi) was a Shia and had come from Isphahan in Persia. There are verses engraved on a tablet in the central arch of the mosque which will be referred to later on, on which Mir Baqi has been described as an ‘Isphahani’, i.e. a resident of Isphahan.”
Later on, the learned Judge writes on page 12:
“The second inscription is more elaborate and contains in the usual high-flown language an (sic) eugulogy of Babur and describes Mr. Baqi of Isphahan as his advisor and the builder of the mosque.”
Thus, it is clear from the above-mentioned observation that the inscription above the chhajja of the central arch has a reading different from what Mr. Ashraf Husain and Z.A. Desai have read and published because Mir Baqi has not been shown as the native of Isphahan in their reading of the edict. The following is the genealogy shown in the aforementioned Regular Suit between the Shia and Sunni Waqf Boards.
The first (top) person in the pedigree Syyad Abdul Baqi is reported to have existed in 1528 A.D. and the last one M. Zaki at the time of the litigation was in 1945 and in between there are only five generations in a span of more than 417 years. It is totally improbable because the gap between two generations is almost 70 years. Therefore, this genealogy cannot be correct. Here the name of Baqi is changed from Mir Baqi to Syyad Abdul Baqi.
When I met the present ‘Mutwalli’ Nabi Hasan Abbas at Shanwah, he informed me that Baqi gave this village to his (Nabi’s) ancestor Rajab Ali in kanyādāna of Sukunat Bibi, who was the granddaughter of Baqi. During the conversation, he furnished the following pedigree of his family:
After comparing the genealogy given by Nabi Hasan with that produced in the civil court Faizabad, it appears that Rajab Ali was not the son-in-law of Mir Baqi’s son but was the son-in-law of Baqi’s grandson. During conversation he informed me that the real name of Mir Baqi was Hujjabar Ali and Mir Baqi was his ‘Shahi-khitab’, i.e. royal title. It was confirmed by his cousin Ghulam Asghar, son of Muhammad Zaki. They reiterat
ed that in the Khandani sajra Hujjabar Ali is recited in place of Mir Baqi. Then I asked him if Sukoonat Bibi was the daughter of the grandson of Mir Baqi, how could Mir Baqi give the village in the Kanyā-dāna. He gave me a very vague reply by saying that it was what he had heard from his forefathers.
Other names in both lists are similar more or less. Nevertheless, it is important to note that Mir Razab Ali was the Khatib of Baburi mosque in 1860, as he had filed an application to the Deputy Commissoner, Faizabad on 05-11-1860; whereas his son Muhammad Asghar, the Khatib of Baburi Masjid had made a representation to British Government on 30.11.1858. Another son of Razab Ali was Muhammad Afzal, who as Mutawalli of Baburi mosque, filed another pettition on 25-09-1866. It is slightly intriguing that father Razab Ali was Khatib of the mosque in 1860 and the son Muhammad Asghar was Khatib of the same Baburi mosque in 1858. If we follow the geneology produced in the Court from M. Asghar to Kalbe Husain who was Mutwalli of Baburi mosque in 1943, there is only one succession in between. If we view the entire geneology, we find that between Mir Baqi and the present Mutwali the generation gap is seven in a span of almost 500 years and this cannot be, therefore, genuine.
(15) Another Baqi
Indian History is aware of many Baqis. We come to know the name of one Mir Baqi Hisari who was the supervisor of the construction of mosques and is known through an inscription dated 31st August 1634 during the reign of Shah Jahan. The inscription is produced below with English translation:
An inscription of c. 1634 A.D.
Translation
(1) Allah is Great.
(2) On the 17th of the month of Rabiul-AwwaI, year (A.H.) 1044 (?) (31st August 1634) in the reign of His Excellency
(3) the refuge of the Caliphate, the shadow of God, Abu’l-Muzaffar Sihabud-din Muhammad Sahib Qiran-i-Thani.
(4) Shah Jahan Badshah Ghazi during (the time of) the governorship of the humblest servant of this court.
(5) Sharif Khan and under the supervision of the asylum of chiefship (i.e. Sayyid) Mir Baqi Hisari, this edifice (mosque ?) was completed.
(Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement, In continuation of the Series Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica, 1969, Edited by Dr. Z.A. Desai, p. 19)
It is likely that this Mir Baqi Hisari might have lived up to 1660 A.D. when Fedai Khan razed the temples to ground at Ayodhyā and on their sites mosques were erected under his supervision or this Mir Baqi Hisari might have been such a familiar name in people’s perception at the time of the fabrication of the inscriptions in the 19th century that his name was associated with the construction of the mosque.
Nevertheless, this much is certain that the genealogy of Mir Baqi, placed on record in the civil suit in the court and claimed elsewhere, is not genuine. Baqi is said to have lived in Babur’s time in 1528 A.D. and Rajab Ali’s one known date is 1860 A.D. Between these two persons (Baqi and Rajab Ali), there is a vast gap of 332 years and only two generations emerged during this long period. Therefore, Baqi of the forged inscriptions is a fictitious person different from Baqi of the Babur-nama. One can conclude it with the following words of Sir Walter Scott in Marmion:
“O, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!” (p. 133)
Chapter Seven
Babur never visited Ayodhyā, nor did he ever issue
any sanad in favour of the disputed shrine
[(1) Shaikh Bãyazìd was appointed Governor of Ayodhya (2) Bãyazid’s rebellion (3) Babur’s march (4) On March 28, 1528 Babur was far away from Ayodhyã (5) Babur’s good hunting ground was not in the vicinity of Ayodhy (6) Beveridge’s clarification on Babur’s stay in Oudh (7) Babur’s journey to Oudh shown on maps (8) Missing pages of Babur’s diary (9) Babur’s movements during the period of missing pages restructured on the basis of subsequent entries (10) Ferishta’s History of Hindostan (11) Babur’s second expedition against Bãyazìd in 1529 A.D. (12) Confirmation of the news of the capture of Lucknow Fort under Baqi by Bãyazìd (13) Babur’s anger against his commanders (14) Baqi Tashkindi calls on Babur (15) Babur dismisses Baqi who is never heard of again (16) Babur never issued any sanad for the disputed mosque (17) Four Farmans issued by Babur (18) Farmans confirmed by him (19) Several interpolations in revenue records (20) The land grant had nothing to do with the maintenance of the Baburi mosque (21) Conclusion]
There is a popular misconception that Bābur visited Ayodhyā and gave direction to his general Mir Baqi to demolish the Janma-sthāna Mandir and build a mosque at the site which is held holiest by the Hindus. But the fact of the matter is that Babur never visited Ayodhyā. It is proved by the minute scrutiny of Babur-nama and other literary sources of the sixteenth century.
(1) Shaikh Bāyazīd was appointed Governor of Ayodhyā
Babur’s association with Ayodhyā began with the bestowal of favours on Shaikh Bāyazīd, the younger brother of Mustafa Farmuli, who was a close confidant of Ibrahim Lodi and Governor of Ayodhyā. Mustafa Farmuli was the son-in-law of Muhammad Farmuli who had the nick-name Kala Pahar. Muhammad Farmuli, the son of Bahlol Lodi’s sister, had helped Sikander Lodi in his struggle for throne. Therefore, he was held in high esteem in the royal court. But he was so greedy for gold that he had collected 300 mans (मन) of gold. About Mustafa Farmuli and Bāyazīd Babur writes in his Memoirs:
“Sultan Ibrahim had appointed several amirs under Mustafa Farmuli and Firug Khan Sarangkhani, to act against the rebel amirs of the East (Purab). Mustafa had fought them and thoroughly drubbed them, giving them more than one good beating. He dying before Ibrahim’s defeat, his younger brother Shaikh Bãyazìd—Ibrahim being occupied with a momentous matter—led and watched over his elder brother’s men.” (p. 527)
Bāyazīd was the younger brother of Mustafā and both were sons of Muhammad Farmuli’s brother. Loyal to the Lodi dynasty he had fought in favour of Ibrahim but after Babur’s victory at Panipat Shaikh Bāyazīd and some other Afghan leaders went to Babur to show solidarity with him. Babur gave to Shaikh Bāyazīd 1 krur, 48 laks and 50,000 tankas from Aud. In early July, 1526 Babur wrote:
“I showed them greater kindness and favour than was their claim.” (p. 527)
On page 530 he wrote that Shaikh Bāyazīd and others were highly favoured commanders who had been given Eastern Paraganas. From page 544 it is clear that in accordance with the arrangement made by Babur, Humayun settled the matter by placing Bāyazīd in Oudh in early January (either on 4th or 5th), 1527 A.D. But after sometime, Bāyazīd’s activities started creating suspicion. On 28th August 1527 Babur wrote:
“As in these days people were telling wild news about Shaikh Bãyazìd, Sl. Quli Turk was sent to him to give him tryst in 20 days”.
On the close of the year 1527 A.D. Babur wrote in his diary:
“Though there had been no clear proof of Shaikh Bãyazid’s hostility, yet his misconduct and action made it certain that he had hostile intentions. On account of this Muhammad ‘Ali Jang-jang was detached from the army and sent to bring together from Qanuj Muhammad Sl. Mirza and the sultans and amirs of that neighborhood, such as Qasim-i-husain Sultan, Bi-khub (or, Ni-khub) Sultan, Malik Qasirn, Kuki, Abu’l Muhammad the lancer, and Minuchihr Khan with his elder and younger brethren and Darya-khanis, so that they might move against the hostile Afghans. They were to invite Shaikh Bãyazìd to go with them, if he came frankly, they were to take him along; if not, were to drive him off. Muhammad ‘Ali asking for a few elephants, ten were given him. After he had leave to set off, Baba Chuhra (the Brave) was sent to and ordered to join him.” (p. 589)
(2) Bāyazīd’s rebellion
On the eve of Chanderi expedition Babur received a disturbing news on 28th January, 1528 that “the troops appointed for the East (i.e. against Bāyazīd) had fought without consideration, been beaten, abandoned Laknau, and gone to Qanuj.” But Babur left it to the destiny and concentrated on Chanderi expedition. After the Chanderi expedition was successful, Babur again got news on 22nd Febru
ary, 1528 that his troops had abandoned Qanuj (Kannauj) and gone to Rapri, whereas the enemy’s army under Biban, Bāyazīd and Maruf had taken over Shamsabad. One should remember that Bāyazīd had fought at Panipat on the side of Ibrahim Lodi, Malik Biban had deserted him on the eve of the battle, and Maruf Farmuli had been in rebellion against Ibrahim Lodi for more than three years before the battle of Panipat. All the three nobles combined to fight against Babur. Bāyazīd and Biban always stood together. Maruf’s two sons Muhammad Farmuli and Musa Farmuli joined Babur’s band-wagon. Babur himself moved towards Kannauj. On hearing his march, Bāyazīd, Biban and Maruf crossed Ganga and seated themselves in its eastern bank opposite Kannauj for preventing Babur’s passage. Babur, after having built bridge over the river Ganga, crossed the river along with army on 15th March, 1528. But since the crossing of the river had been delayed by one day due to some superstition, the enemy had fled. Babur ordered to chase them. However, the pursuit was not so vigorous and successful. On 16th March Babur dismounted at Bangarmau and on March 21, 1528 he visited Laknau.
While taking bath in Gomati (Gui), water got into his ear. Due to this factor or the effect of the climate his right ear was clogged and there was much pain in his ear, so he took rest for few days. Then he continued the campaign and while he was one or two marches from Aud he was told that the enemy was on the far side of the Sarda (Sirda) river.
(3) Babur’s march
Babur’s march is produced here in his own words:
“One or two marches from Aud (Oudh) someone came from Chin-timur Sl. to say, “The enemy is seated on the far side of the river Sird[a ?], let His Majesty send help.” We detached a reinforcement of 1000 braves under Qaracha.
Here it is important to note that Bāyazīd and Biban were on the far side of the river Sirda and not near Ayodhyā
Ayodhya Revisited Page 31