On 26th morning he crossed water and on 27th May, 1529 he rode out to visit Sikenderpur and Kharid. On the same day he received Abdullah Kitabdar and Baqi’s letters informing him the capture of Lucknow by the enemy. Next day, i.e. on 28th May Babur dispatched Sultan Junaid Barlas and other commanders to join Baqi as reinforcement.
Thereafter Kuki was sent ahead, with a troop, to join Baqi. Then on 29th May, permission to join Baqi was given to Sb. Junaid Barlas and others. It appears that Baqi had been made the leader of the expedition against Afghan rebels this time.
On 30th May, 1529 Babur marched from Chapara-chaturmuk passage along with the Sarayū and after crossing 10 kos dismounted on the Sarayū in a village called Kilirah near Fathpur. But Beveridge writes in Babur-nama that ‘there seems to be no Fathpur within Babur’s limit of distance’ and therefore she suggests Nathpur which suits the context and is mentioned as a pargana in Ayin-i-akbari and is now in the Azamgarh district.
(12) Confirmation of the news of the capture of Lucknow Fort under Baqi by Bāyazīd
On 31st May, Babur marched at dawn and got into a boat named Asaish. On the way he got the confirmation of the capture of the Lucknow fort by Biban and Bāyazīd. Babur wrote thus on the subject:
“On the way up, Khalifa brought Shah Muhammad diwana’s; son who had come from Baqi bringing this reliable news about Luknur: They (i.e. Bìban and Bãyazìd) hurled their assault on Saturday the 13th of the month Ramzan (May 21st) but could do nothing by fighting; while the fighting was going on, a collection of wood-chips, hay and thorns in the fort took fire,so that inside the walls it became as hot as an oven (tanurdik afsan); the garrison could not move round the rampart; the Fort was lost. When the enemy heard, two or three days later,)of our return (westwards), he fled towards Dalmau.” (p. 681).
The capture of the Lucknow Fort which was under Baqi’s command by Bāyazīd and Biban was a big jolt to Babur who never forgot this defeat, nor did he forgive Baqi for this humiliation.
On the same day, Babur after crossing 10 kos dismounted at a place beside Jalisir on the Sarayū bank in the Sagri pargana. Beveridge identifies it with Chaksar, which was in Akbar’s sarkar of Manikpur and is now in the Rai Bareilly district. Dr. Trinath Mishra, an ex-IPS officer of the U.P. Cadre, has suggested that Sagri pargana is in Azamgarh district and Manikpur is situated on the bank of the Ganga and not on the Sarayū.
After staying there for one day Babur left the place and after marching 11 kos he crossed the Sarayū river and camped on its bank.
On 2nd June, 1529 A.D. he summoned several Begs and directed many of them to go in rapid pursuit of Biban and Bayzid. The march against them continued.
At night he enjoyed the catching of fish in the Sarayū river. On 3rd June Babur dismounted on the bank of a very slender stream which was the head-water of a branch of Parsaru.
Thereafter, on the 4th June he crossed the Tus river, a stream of the Sarayū river and stayed there for two days.
After celebrating the Id festival on 7th June there in the morning he rode on and after marching 10 kos he dismounted at a place on the bank of the Gomati river. It was at a distance of one kos from Maing located in Sultanpur district.
After marching 11 kos Babur crossed the Gomati river and dismounted on its bank on 9th June.
(13) Babur’s anger against his commanders
On 9th June, 1529 Babur was angry with his Sultans and Begs because though they had reached Dalmau, yet they had not crossed the river Ganga. Angered with the delay he sent a very emphatic order to cross the water at once and follow the track of the rebels and get to grips with the adversary. He portrayed it thus:
“Angered by this (delay), I sent orders, “Cross the water at once; follow the track of the rebels; cross Jun (Jumna) also; join ‘Alam Khan to yourselves; be energetic and get to grips with the adversary.” (P. 684)
Babur continued the march and wrote in his Memoirs:
“(June 10th) After leaving this water (Gumti, Friday 4th) we made two night-halts and reached Dalmud (Dalmau), where most of the army-folk crossed Gang, there and then, by a ford. While the camp was being got over, majun was eaten on an island (aral) below the ford.”
On 10th June Babur left the Gomati bank and after two night halts he reached Dalmau, where most of the army-folk crossed the Ganga by a ford.
(14) Baqi Tashkindi calls on Babur
On 13th June Babur wrote:
“After crossing, we waited one day (Monday 7th) for all the army-folk to get across. Today Baqi Tashkindi came in with the army of Aud (Ajodhya) and waited on me:”
In this narration many historians find the proof that Mir Baqi was the Governor of Ayodhyā or at least the Commander of Mughal Army there. But it only signifies that he had come with the army which had been engaged in Oudh to annihilate Bāyazīd and Biban.
On 14th June Babur left Dalmau and after marching 22 kos and making one night halt on the way he dismounted beside Kurarah (Hura Khas) on the Arind water on 15th June. Next day, i.e. 16th June Babur marched early from that ground and dismounted opposite Adampur pargana. Beveridge locates Adampur on the right (west) bank of the Yamunā. Since the encamping place was full of dust Babur settled on an island and stayed there for several days.
On the same day 16th June, Babur sent Baqi Shaghaval with a few braves of the interior to get information of the enemy.(Bāyazīd and Biban). Next day i.e. on 17th June, 1529 one of Baqi Beg’s retainers came in and informed that Baqi had beaten scouts of Bāyazīd and after having killed one of their good men, Mubarak Khan Jalwani, and some others, sent in several heads, and one man alive.
On 18th June 1529 A.D. Babur’s location was on the bank of the Jamuna river. On the night of 18-19th June there was a sudden flood in the Yamunā and by the dawn the whole of the island, where Babur was settled, was under water. Therefore, he moved to another down-stream place, which was at an arrow’s flight distance and settled there.
(15) Babur dismisses Baqi who is never heard of again
On 20th June Babur learnt that Bāyazīd and Biban had fled to Mahuba pargana, now in the Hamirpur district, after learning Babur’s expedition. On 20th June Babur ordered the Sultans and Begs of the expedition to remain where they were till they received fresh supplies from Agra. But he summarily and unceremoniously dismissed Baqi and the army of Awadh under him engaged in expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban for his utter failure.
The following is the account of the day’s events in Babur’s diary:
“Jalal Taskandi came from the begs and sultans of the advance. Shaikh Bãyazìd and Bìban, on hearing of their expedition, had fled to the pargana of Mahuba.
As the rains had set in and as after 5 to 6 months of active service, of horses and cattle in army were worn out, the sultans and begs of the expedition were ordered to remain where they were till they received fresh supplies from Agra and those parts. At the Other Prayer of the same day, leave was given to Baqi and the army of Aud (Ajodhya). Also an allowance of 30 laks from Amroha was assigned to Musa (son) of Maruf Farmuli, who had waited on me at the time the returning army was crossing the Saru-water, a special head-to-foot and saddled horse were bestowed on him, and he was given his leave.”
Thereafter, Babur set out for Agra.
Here it is important to note that Beveridge herself in the ‘Index Personal’ writes at the end ‘leave given him for home 685’. (p. 742), whereas in the main text she translates:
‘...leave was given to Baqi and the army of Aud (Ajodhya).’
Thus, in the main text she has omitted ‘for home’. Erskine has, however, translated this sentence as “I gave Baqi Shaghawal and his party leave to go home.” Erskine’s translation is apt and is supported by the addition of ‘home’ in the Index of the Beveridge’s translation. Wheeler M. Thackston has translated it as “Baqi Taskandi came with the Oudh army that day (i.e. 13th June, 1529 A.D.) to pay homage.” and “That afternoon (i.e. 20th June, 1529 A.D.) Baqi Shiqavul and the Oudh army wer
e dismissed.” Here the translation is very clear and suggests that Baqi came with Oudh army and he along with the Oudh army was dismissed. It was not the army of Ayodhyā as added by Beveridge and Prof. Irfan Habib. It is not clear whether Baqi was dismissed from the expedition or from service but he was never heard of again.
This fact has been overlooked by historians with the result that Baqi, who was sent to Taskind for ever, continued to govern at Ayodhyā and build a mosque. After his leave, Baqi is never seen in the Babur-nama also. However, a fact in contrast is that while granting leave to two officers Musa and Baqi simultaneously, Babur assigned an allowance of 30 Lakhs and gave a saropa and a saddled horse to Musa, son of Maruf Farmuli, whereas Baqi was left high and dry. It also indicates that Baqi had fallen from grace and had been summarily dismissed on account of his initial failure at Lucknow.
Had Babur given any direction earlier to build any mosque at Ayodhyā with or without demolishing a temple, Baqi would have gladly informed Babur in his visit on 13th June, 1529 A.D. and Babur must have mentioned it in his diary. Had Babur directed Baqi to build a mosque on 20th June, 1529 at the time of Baqi’s departure, this could have found mention in his diary. Since there is no mention of any direction given for construction of any mosque in his diary, Babur had no role to play either in the demolition of a temple or the construction of any mosque at Ayodhyā.
The factual narration of the course of Babur’s expedition cited above ends many misconceptions among students of history. It is proved beyond doubt that neither Babur nor Baqi ever visited Ayodhyā. In fact, they had no reason or occasion to visit it.
There is a general impression that since Babur’s diary is not available between 3rd April, 1528 and 17th September, 1528, there is no mention of the construction of the mosque in his diary. Here one should remember that as per the fake inscription, Baburi mosque was built in 935 A.H. Hijri which started on 15th September, 1528. So, there is a gap of only three days in the year 935 A.H. in his diary. The period from 2nd April, 1528 to 14th September 1528 was a part of the Hijari year 934 and not 935.On 18th September, 1528 when his diary begins again he was in his court at Agra. On 20th September, he left for Gwalior. Thus, he was not in the vicinity of Ayodhyā during this period. Therefore, the contention that the demolition of a temple and construction of the mosque is not mentioned in Babur’s diary because of the missing pages is not correct, as only three days of the diary are having missing accounts for the Hijri year 935 during which the mosque could not be claimed to have been constructed by Mir Baqi.
Despite Babur’s resolution to annihilate Biban and Bâyazîd, they continued to evade during Babur’s reign. Only during the Humanyu’s reign Biban and Bâyazîd were killed at the battle of Daurah near Lucknow in September, 1537. Bâyazîd’s survival against the insurmountable might of Babur is really amazing. It was largely due to huge wealth placed at his disposal by his bhabhi, after her husband’s death, who was the daughter of the avaricious Awadh Governor Muhammad Farmuli. In Tārika-i-Sher Sāhi the author Abbas Khan Sarwani provides the following information about Bāyazid:
“When Miãn Mustafa died, he left behind a young daughter who was known as Mihr Sultan. Bîbî Fath Malka was a very able woman. She had given education to Bãyazid who was the younger brother of Miãn Mustafa. She told him to employ soldiers and that she would give money for it. Miãn Bãyazîd collected a huge number of followers with this money and accomplished many notable deeds. On several occasions he had fought with the forces of Firdaus Makãnî (Bãbar Bãdœãh) and Jannat úyãni (Humãyûn Bãdœãh) and had come out victorious11b. The names of Miãn Biban and Bãyazîd had thus become well-known”. (p. 252)
11b. E. & D. (IV, p. 354) have translated here: “and greatly distinguished himself, gaining several victories over the troops of the emperor Bãbar.”
Bāyazid had stood behind Mahmud Lodi solidly but in the battle at Daurah during the reign of Humayun he fought in a very inebriated condition and consequently he was killed. Nevertheless, Bāyzid had defeated Babur’s troops earlier, particularly at Kannauj and Lucknow where Mir Baqi had led the expedition.
In conclusion, it may be said with certainty that Babur had no occasion or reason to visit Ayodhyā. Then how could he demolish a temple and build a mosque at Ayodhyā? It was absolutely impossible.
(16) Babur never issued any sanad for the disputed mosque
Babur had not issued any Farman or Sanad in favour of the socalled Baburi mosque. The claim that the Emperor Babur had issued sanad of land grant for the maintenance of the Baburi mosque is bogus, as it is not testified to by the scrutiny of the firmans issued by Babur. Prof. S.A.I. Tirmizi, who was Director of National Archives of India, has written a book ‘Mughal Documents’ published from Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi in 1989. The first volume relates to the period from 1526-1627. It is a very well-documented book.
(17) Four Farmans issued by Babur
In the first volume, on pages 44 and 45, he has published the documents during the period of Babur (1526-1530). For the sake of authenticity the entire content is quoted below:
(i) 13 Zilqada, 933 A.H./11 August 1527 A.D.
1. Farman of Babur addressed to the revenue officials, confirms the grant of mauza Sahrgul Pindori (sic) pargana Vatala, yielding revenue of 5,000 tanka-i-siyah per annum in favour of Jalal, Qazi of the said pargana as Suyurghal. Instructs officials not to harass the grantees on account of mutawajjihat, malujihat and asks them not to demand fresh Farman or parwancha every year.
On the top of the document are (a) sarnama Huwal Ghani (b) Unwan Farman-i Zahirud Din Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi and (c) round dynastic seal. On the reverse are endorsements of the officials and the round seal of Zainud Din Khwafi, the great dastur and sadr. (IHRC, XXXXVI, Pt. II. 1951, pp.51-52).
(ii) 8 Rabi I, 934 A.H./2 December 1527 A.D.
2. Farman of Babur addressed to the diwans of Muhammad Sultan Bahadur, confirms village Auhadpur, tappa Haveli, qasba Fathpur Sandi with jama of 800 tanka-i-siyah and 250 bighas of land in the vicinity of the said qasba in favour of Qazi Abdud Daim, son of Ilhadad. The grantee is to realize the hasil there of as before and enjoy it as madad-i maash. He is not to be troubled on account of mal, jihat, ikhrajat and dhonka sali, or passi. (TKTB, p.144, IESHR, IV, 1967, p.220).
(iii) Rajab, 936 A.H./25 March 1530 A.D.
3. Sale-deed executed by Maulana Fathullah Abdullah and Piyare, sons of Ahmad, in favour of Miran Sayyid Nizamuddin for selling the right of milk khoti over 20 biswas of land in village Papri khurd, tappa Haveli, khitta Shamsabad at a price of 700 current tanka-i Adl Sikandari and in consideration of annual payment of 300 tankas.
The document bears tughra of Qazi Ismail as also signatures of the witnesses (IESHR, IV, 1967 pp.220-21).
(iv) Muharram 937 A.H./July-August 1530 A.D.
4. Farman of Babur addressed to the amirs, wazirs, shiqdars and mutasaddis of sarkar Tatar Khan, etc., confirming Qazi Abdul Halim, son of Qazi Abdus Samad, and his brothers in possession of the land and wazifa previously granted to them by the sanad of the Sultan Ibrahim and the tauqi of Sultan Sikandar, instructs them not to bother them with taufir, ushr, daroghana and shiqdarana and to exempt them from the payment of mal, jihat, ikhrajat and all the takalif-i diwani and lavazim-i-sultani. Asks them not to harass the grantees by demanding fresh Farman and parwancha and to honour the tauqi when it reaches them. The Farman was issued from the capital of Agra. (OCM, May 1933, p. 119).
(18) Farmans confirmed by him
In addition, Prof. Mehboob-ul Hasan in his book ‘Babur: Founder of the Mughal Empire in India’ has produced two farmans which were confirmations of the earlier grants made by the Lodi Kings. They are produced verbatim from the book.
(i) Another “Farman dated 24 Zul-qaad, 933/12 August, 1527, is in the Aligarh Muslim University Library. It was conferred as madad-i-mash the village of Doodraha, near the town of Mathurā on Qazi Husain, who was to enjoy the income of the village for his s
upport. He was exempt from land tax and other imposts. The officials were ordered not to harass him, nor to demand from him a new Farman or parvancha every year. The Farman bears the seal of Babur. Inside is the name Zahirud-din Muhammad Babur and outside are the names of Babur’s paternal ancestors up to Timur. This Farman was also a confirmation of the grant made by the Lodi Kings.”
(ii) Another “Farman or parvanch was issued to Qazi Abdul Halim, the son of Qazi Abdul Samd, and is also a confirmation of the Farman given to him by Sultan Sikandar. By this Farman the Qazi was given the revenues of a number of villages for his support, and he was exempted from all taxes. Besides, no one was to harass him or ask him for the renewal of the Farman every year. No details of the villages granted to the Qazi are given in the Farman; not does it bear any date, except that it was issued from Agra in the month of Muharram.”
Thus, it is clear that Babur had issued four original Farmans and in addition, confirmed two earlier land grants. He had not made any land grant to the Baburi mosque. Since Babur had no role to play in either demolition of any temple at Ayodhyā or construction of any mosque thereafter, he was not involved in issuing any land grant to the Baburi mosque for its maintenance. It was the outcome of forged documentation, misinterpretation and interpolation. The fact of the matter is that in the post- 1857 revolt period Rajab Ali and Muhmmad Asghar received a cash nankar of three hundred two rupees, three annas and six paise from the British Government for providing the information on the designs of the enemies of the British Government and that was deliberately related to the Sanad issued by Babur, Awadh Nawab and the British Government.
(19) Several interpolations in revenue records
There are interpolations galore in the documents on the dispute of the shrine. In the settlement report of 1861 A.D. there are many tamperings and interpolations. But the most dishonest forgery is the interpolation of व जामा मस्जिद (wa jama masjid) after the original recording of आबादी जन्मस्थान under column no. 2. Since there was no space, it has been inserted below it and has disturbed the entire symmetry of the entries. The variation in the hand-writing and the crude construction of the sentence are the testimony to later insertions of the said words of ‘wa’ ‘jama masjid’. Moreover, in the second settlement of 1301 Fasli i.e. 1891-92 A.D. there is no mention of the Jama Masjid and it confirms the interpolation in the settlement report of 1861 A.D.
Ayodhya Revisited Page 33