The matter had been enquired into by the District Magistrate of Faizabad who in his letter no. अ.शा.पत्र सं.324/ एस. टी./राजभू/ 94 dated 24th November, 1992 had attached a detailed report, a part of which is quoted below:
''अयोध्या में मौजा कोट रामचद्र के प्रथम बन्दोबस्त १८६१ के खाते में भूखण्ड संख्या-१६३ की प्रविष्टियों की छान-बीन की गई। उक्त के स्तम्भ संख्या-२ में उर्दू में घजमा मस्जिद आबादी जन्म स्थानच लिखा हुआ है।
घजमा मस्जिदच शब्द स्तम्भ-२ में आबादी शब्द के ऊपर आधे स्तम्भ में लिखा गया है। यदि लिखने का आशय घआबादी जमा मस्जिद जन्म स्थानच होता, तब आबादी शब्द जमा मस्जिद के पहले होना चाहिए था। इस बात से यह जिज्ञासा होती है कि क्या शब्द घजमा मस्जिदच तथा शब्द घजमा मस्जिदच तथा शब्द घआबादी जन्म स्थानच दोनों एक ही क्रम (सिक्वेन्स) में लिखा गया है अथवा भिन्न सिक्वेन्स में लिखा गया है। इस जाँच के क्रम में जिल्द बन्दोबस्त १८६१ में यह देखा गया कि किन गाटों के सम्मुख घजमाच तथा घमस्जिदच कहाँ-कहाँ लिखा गया है। सामान्यतः नामान्तरण की प्रविष्टियों को छोड़कर पूरे जिल्द बन्दोबस्त की मूल प्रविष्टियाँ एक ही व्यक्ति के द्वारा लिखी होनी चाहिए। उपरोक्त जिल्द बन्दोबस्त में खाता खतौनी संख्या १, २, ६ के खाना कैफियत में शब्द घजमाच तथा खाता आबादी संख्या १३ व ४७ के सम्मुख अंकित शब्द घमस्जिदच के लेखों की ओर विशेषज्ञ का ध्यान आकृष्ट कराते हुए उनसे यह राय देने की अपेक्षा की गई कि उपरोक्त खाता खतौनी संख्या १, २, ६ में अंकित शब्द घजमाच तथा खतरा आबादी संख्या १३ व ४७ में अंकित शब्द घमस्जिदच तथा खतरे की भूमि गाटा संख्या- १६३ के स्तम्भ-२ में अंकित शब्द घजमा मस्जिदच में समानता है अथवा भिन्नता। इस बिन्दु पर विशेषज्ञ की राय से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि जिस व्यक्ति/व्यक्तियों ने खाता खतौनी संख्या १, २, ६ एवं खतरा आबादी संख्या १३ व ४७ में शब्द घजमाच मस्जिद लिखा है, उस व्यक्ति/व्यक्तियों ने गाटा संख्या १६३ के स्तम्भ-२ में उर्दू शब्द घजमाच एवं घमस्जिदच को नहीं लिखा है। इस प्रकार जिल्द बन्दोबस्त १८६१ में एक ही शब्द भिन्न-भिन्न स्थानों पर भिन्न-भिन्न व्यक्तियों द्वारा लिखा गया है।''
The District Magistrate had obtained the expert opinion from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The relevant portion of this report is quoted below:
''उक्त जिल्द बन्दोबस्त में खाता खतौनी संख्या १,२,६ एवं खसरा आबादी संख्या- १३ व ४७ में विद्यमान शब्द घजमाच व घमस्जिदच नमूना लेख बतौर है।
२-उपरोक्त सभी को परीक्षा इस प्रयोगशाला में वैज्ञानिक रीति से किया गया, परिणाम निम्न प्रकार है
जिस व्यक्ति/व्यक्तियों ने खाता खतौनी संख्या- १,६ व ६ के कैफियत के खाने में विद्यमान उर्दू शब्द घजमाच को लिखा है उसने गाटा संख्या-१६३ के स्तम्भ २ में उर्दू शब्द घजमाच नहीं लिखा है।
उपरोक्त तीनों लेखों की लिखावट एक दूसरे से भिन्न है।''
उस नानकार को जबतक कि मस्जिद जिसके वास्ते ये नानकार दी गयी थी बरकरार है। हसबे शरायत, दर्ज जैल कायम फरमाते हैं।''
Thus, it is clear that the addition Jama Masjid was an interpolation in the revenue records. Like fake inscriptions these records, too, are forged and fabricated documents.
It appears that Mir Rajab Ali and his sons Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Asghar were residents and petty zamindars of the village Shanwah. In the 1861 settlement report of village Shanwah vide Had Bast no. 571 the village has been shown as Khalasa (government) and his sons have been shown as pattidar and under the prevailing revenue system inherited from the Mughal and Nawab governments they were, as pattidars, entitled to nankar in the shape of nankar/muafi land in the same village. It appears that Mir Rajab Ali had assisted the Britishers in the 1857-58 revolt; so they bestowed many favours on his family. Even though they could not furnish any documentary evidence to the British Government, they succeeded in claiming that during the period of Awadh Nawabs they were getting an annual grant of Rs. 308 annas 3 and paise 6 as nankar and muafi from the village Shanwah. The British Government made the cash payment till 1863-64 but thereafter they commuted it into a conditional muafi land grant. By 1870 A.D. the revenue-free land grant with superior proprietary rights was bestowed on M. Afzal Ali and M. Asghar in the villages of Sholapur and Bhuharnpur.
(20) The land grant had nothing to do with the maintenance of the Baburi mosque
This conditional grant was in lieu of certain services to be rendered by the family of Mir Rajab Ali. It had nothing to do with the maintenance of the Baburi mosque. The Urdu content quoted by the Waqf commissioner is his interpolation. Had it really been related to the maintenance of the mosque; this revenue-free right should have been in relation to the land of the Ram Kot where the mosque was situated or in its close vicinity.
However, the Waqf commissioner Faizabad in his report has written:
“It appears that in 935 A.H. Emperor Babar built this mosque and appointed Syed Abdul Baqi as the mutwalli and khatib of the Mosque (vide clause 2 statement filed by Syed Mohammad Zaqi to whom a notice was issued under the wakf Act.) An annual grant of Rs. 60/- was allowed by the Emperor for maintenance of the mosque and the family of the first mutwalli Abdul Baqi. This grant was continued till the fall of the Moghal Kingdom at Delhi and the ascendancy of the Nawabs of Oudh.
According to Cl. 3 of the written statement of Mohammad Zaki Nawab Sa’adat Ali Khan, King of Oudh increase
d the annual grant to Rs. 302/3/6. No original papers about this grant by the king of Oudh are available.”
From this report it appears that Syed Abdul Baqi built the Baburi mosque and he was made the mutwalli and khatib of the Mosque and was given an annual grant of Rs. 60 for the maintenance of the mosque and the family of the first mutwalli Abdul Baqi. Babur had given 1 krur 48 laks and 50 thousand tankas to Bāyazīd on the latter’s calling on the Emperor. On 20th June, 1528 when Baqi Tashkindi was sent home on leave or dismissed Babur had given an allowance of 30 laks to Musa, son of Maruf Fazmuli. But Abdul Baqi, who is identified with Mir Baqi, the Governor of Ayodhyā, was given a paltry amount of Rs. 60 for the whole year to maintain both the mosque and the family of the Governor. Mir Baqi was never the Governor of Ayodhyā and even if it is supposed that he was a Governor, could a liberal Babur give him Rs. 60 per annum to maintain the mosque and his family? It is ridiculous. Then the Waqf Commissioner, on the testimony of Syed Mohammad Zaqi wrote that the first Awadh Nawab Sa’adat Ali Khan increased this annual grant to 302 rupees, 3 annas and 6 paise. However, even the Waqf Commissioner admits that ‘no original papers about this grant by the King of Oudh are available.’ But he has not recorded the fact that since the reign of Babur no sanad ever existed. The Waqf Commissioner further added in his report.
“After the Mutiny, the British Government also continued the above grant in cash upto 1864, and in the latter year in lieu of the cash grant, the British Government ordered the grant of some revenue free land in villages Bhuraipur and Sholeypur. A copy of this order of the British Government has been filed by the objector Syed Mohammad Zaki (vide Flag A). This order says that ‘the Chief Commissioner under the authority of the Governor General in Council is pleased to maintain the Grant for so long as the object for which the grant has been made is kept up on the following conditions’. These conditions require Rajab Ali and Mohammad Asghar to whom the sanad was given, to perform duties of land holder in the matter of Police Military or political service etc.
The object mentioned above is elucidated in the Urdu translation as follows:
Thus, the original object of the state grant of Emperor Babar and Nawab Sa’adat Ali Khan is continued in this Sunnad by the British Government also, i.e. maintenance of the mosque. The Nankar is to be enjoyed by the grantees for so long as the object of the grant, i.e. the mosque is in existence.”
The following is the full text of the alleged ‘Sunnud’ issued in favour of Rajub Ally and his son Asghar:
“Chief Commissioner
It having been established after due enquiry that Rajub Ally and Mohamed Usgar received a Cash Nankar of Rs.302/3/6 Rupees three hundred and two, and annas three and six pies from Mouzah Shanwah Zila Fyzabad in rent free tenure under the former Government. The Chief Commissioner under the authority of the Governor General in Council is pleased to maintain the tenure Grant for so long as the object for which the grant has been made is kept up on the following conditions. That they shall have surrendered all sunnuds title deeds, and other documents relative to the grant.
That they and their successor shall strictly perform all the duties of land-holders in matters of Police and any Military or Political service that they may be required of them by the Authorities and that they shall never fall under the just suspicion of favouring in any way the designs of enemies of the British Government. If any one of these conditions is broken by Rajub Ally or Mohamed Usgar or their successors the grant will be immediately resumed.”
Here it is important to note that in old English the verb “to resume” means “to take back.”
A copy of the original sanad is placed at the end of this chapter.
From an analytical study of the above Sanad the following points emerge:
(i) It was not issued for the maintenance of the Baburi mosque at Ayodhyā.
(ii) It was issued in continuation of the former government’s issuance of Nankar in favour of an individual belonging to Mouzah Shanwah Zila Faizabad.
(iii) It was issued for the performance of duties in matter of police, and an intelligence (?) (torn) or political service which was required of the grantee by the Authorities. In addition, he was not supposed to favour designs of enemies of the British government in any way.
(iv) If any of the conditions were broken by the grantee, the grant was to be revoked.
(v) It was to last as long as the object of its grant was kept with imposed conditions.
(21) Conclusion
Thus, it is clear that this grant had nothing to do with the maintenance of the mosque. However, the Waqf Commissioner in his report dated 8th February, 1944 arbitrarily changed its object by fraudulently inserting the following Urdu text:
"उस नानकर को जबतक कि मस्जिद जिसके वास्ते से नानकार दी गयी थी बरकरार है। हसबे शरायत, दर्ज जैल कायम फारमाते है"
It is not found in the original ‘sunnad’. In P. N. Mishra’s opinion this “service grant was given for helping the Britishers to defeat and rout the freedom fighters.” After 1857 revolt the Britishers were in need of the collaborators who could provide intelligence against those freedom fighters who were making plans to free the motherland from the yoke of servitude. Here it is important to remember that Mangal Pandey, the famous freedom fighter, who ignited the 1857 revolt, was born at Surhurpur near Faizabad, although many claim that he was a native of Nagwa village in Balia District. Encyclopaedia Britannica corroborates the view that he was born near Fyzabad.
According to this report the above cash grant of Rs. 308 and slightly more continued upto 1864 and then the British Government changed it into revenue-free land in villages Bhuraipur and Sholeypur with certain conditions. In 1864 the British Sanad was issued in favour of Rajab Ali and his son. Abdul Baqi was made Mutwalli in the year 1528 A.D. and Rajab Ali, alive in 1864 A.D., was the son in law of Husain Ali, who was the grandson of Abdul Baqi. Thus, between Abdul Baqi and Rajab Ali, only three generations had passed in a span of 336 years. This incredulous genealogy should have been properly scrutinized and discarded by our historians and legal luminaries for the sake of objectivity and fairness. Blind acceptance of incredible family tree for such a long period shows lack of proper appreciation of historical evidences.
Besides, many established historians have given a picture that since most of the Hindus supported the Britishers during 1857 revolt, the British Government made many favours to the Hindus. It is far from truth. The intensity of the revolt in the entire Oudh province was immense and both the Hindus and Muslims participated in this first war of independence with equal zeal and dedication. However, many rulers supported the British Army. But the fact of the matter is that before the British take-over of Oudh, both Hindus and Muslims used to offer puja and namaz in the disputed shrine and when the Britishers were at the helm of governance, the Hindus were deprived of this tradition and they were directed to perform puja outside at a chabutara. It was gross injustice to the Hindus based on iniquitous decision.
Similiarly, Babur, who never visited Ayodhyā, nor did he ever order the demolition of any temple or construction of any mosque in the holy city, has been facing the accusation for last two hundreds years without any historical reality. The present author has tried his best to place all historical facts on record. It is for readers to decide. The following sane saying of Francis Bacon in his book ‘Advancement of Learning’, which is quoted below, has been the author’s inspiring guideline :
“It is the true office of history to represent the events themselves, together with the counsels, and to leave the observations and conclusions thereupon to liberty and faculty of every man’s judgement.”
Chapter Eight
Aurangzeb’s ascendancy to the throne led to the demolition of temples at Ayodhyā
[(1) Dara Shukoh’s introduction to Tarjumã-i-Joga-Vãsishta (2) “
Storia do Mogor” of Niccolo Manucci (3) Jesuit Father Joseph Tieffenthaler’s account (4) Accounts of the French scholar C. Mentelle published in 1801 A.D. (5) People’s perception at the time of Buchanan’s visit (6) A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical and Historical Vol. 2, 1842 (7) Proceeding of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1875 (8) Accounts of William Finch (9) Joannes De Laet’s book (10) Accounts of Thomas Herbert (11) Sahifa-i Chahal Nasaih Bahadurshahi (12) Mention of Saif Khan in the interpolated portion of Buchanan’s inscription (13) Genealogy in the Buchanan’s inscription (14) Hadiqa-i-shuda of Mirza Jan (15) Muraqqa-i-khusarawi of Shaikh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorabi Nami (16) Tarikh-i-Awadh (Hissa Doyam) of Allama Muhammad Nazamul Gani Khan Rampuri (17) Avadha-vilãsa of Lãladãsa (18) Dvyāśraya Kãvya of Hemachandra Sùri (19) Inscription of Bhãva-Brihaspati in the Bhadrakãlì Mandir near Somanãth temple (20) Sridhara’s Veraval inscription in the vicinity of Somanãtha (21) Description of Somanath by Abul Fazl. (22) Mosques built during Aurangzeb’s period (23) Fedai Khan, the iconoclast (24) Conclusion]
It is an irony that despite the fact that Joseph Tieffenthaler, the first person to mention the existence of the disputed shrine at Ayodhyā, wrote that Aurangzeb (according to some, Babur) demolished the Ram Kot and built a mosque thereon, it is called Baburi mosque. Even during Buchanan’s visit to Ayodhyā in 1813-14 the people’s perception was that Aurangzeb destroyed the Rāma Mandir at Ayodhyā, though he was beguiled by a factitious inscription to believe and decree that it was built by Babur. Now it is examined here how Aurangzeb and not Babur was responsible for the demolition of the temple and construction of the mosque.
Ayodhya Revisited Page 34