The writer Abdul Karim committed a historical blunder by associating Babur with Sikandar Lodi. It appears that he based his story on Tarikh-i-Daudi written by Abdullah during the reign of Jahangir. Karim has introduced Musa Ashiqan in the story which is far from real history.
The installation of the fake inscription inside the mosque in 1813 circa not only influenced the survey of Francis Buchanan but also had the impact on the report submitted by the Court Superintendent Hafizullah to the Faizabad Court in 1822 A.D. In this report Hafizullah wrote to the Court that the mosque was built by Babur on the birthplace of Rāma, the son of Daśaratha. After Mirza Jan’s book ‘Hadiqah-i Shuhada’ was published in 1856 A.D. all the subsequent Muslim writers followed him by writing that Babur built the mosque after demolishing the temple in 1516 A.D. (923 H.)
(10) Buchanan’s survey report
It is a historical fact that when Francis Buchanan made a survey of Ayodhyā in 1813-14, he found that the destruction of the temple at Ayodhyā was generally attributed by the Hindus to Aurangzeb. It is confirmed by the following excerpt from Buchanan’s survey report:
“Unfortunately, if these temples ever existed, not the smallest trace of them remains to enable us to judge of the period when they were built; and the destruction is very generally attributed by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurungzeb, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Benares and Mathura.”
However, Buchanan was beguiled by a fabricated inscription which was handed over to him. He got it translated by his un-named Muslim friend and then on the basis of the translation he pronounced the following judgment:
“What may have been the case in the two latter, I shall not now take upon myself to say, but with respect to Ayodhya the tradition seems very ill founded. The bigot, by whom the temples were destroyed, is said to have erected mosques on the situations of the most remarkable temples; the mosque at Ayodhya, which is by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of being the most modern, is ascertained by an inscription on its walls (of which a copy is given) (drawings N1) to have been built by Babur, 5 generations before Aurungzeb.”
Buchanan’s observation is based on an inscription which has been proved to be fabricated in chapter five. Buchanan’s many observations are bizarre.
Although his survey on many subjects is well recorded, his comments on Indian history reflect his poor knowledge of the subject which may be gathered from his following comments:
“—and the doubt will be increased, if we suppose, that the latter Vikrama, the son in law of the Emperor Bhoj was the person, who constructed the temple at Ayodhya. This I am inclined to think was probably worshipped before the time of the elder Vikrama, yet his worship, as that peculiarly distinguishing a sect of bigots, seems to have been first established by Ramanuja about the time of the latter Vikrama, who may from thence be supposed peculiarly eager to discover the traces of the deity of his own sect. ” (Buchanan’s Manuscript, EUR 91, p. 116)
Buchanan’s statement is historically wrong because no Vikramaditya was son-in-law of King Bhoja and Rāma’s worship as a sect was established by Rāmānanda and not by Rāmānuja.
Buchanan’s report was published by R. Montgomery Martin in his book “The History, Antiquities, Topography and Statistics of Eastern India” in 1838. Martin was unfair to Buchanan as he did not give any explicit credit to the latter and arbitrarily made random cuts in his survey reports. After the Martin’s book it became the basis of all subsequent writings by British authors who made it a fashion to attribute the demolition of the temple and the construction of the mosque to Babur without going into in-depth study of the subject.
(11) Other British authors
Apart from Buchanan and Martin other British authors of nineteenth century, too, considerably contributed to erroneously creating conclusions that the mosque was built by Babur who visited Ayodhyā. In April 1826 William Erskine completed John Leyden’s translation of the Babur-nama into English and captioned it as “Memoirs of Zehir-ed-din Muhammad Babur, Emperor of Hindustan.” In this book he wrote that Babur had camped near Ayodhyā on 28th March, 1528.
In chapter seven of the present book it has been shown that Babur had camped at a distance of 115 k.m. from Ayodhyā on the confluence of Sirda and Sarayū. Therefore, his observation that Babur had camped near Ayodhyā on 28th March, 1528 A.D. is incorrect.
In the f.n. 2 of the same page of Leyden’s the following comment is made on Ayodhyā:
“After spending several days pleasantly in that place where there are gardens, running-waters, well-designed buildings, trees, particularly mango-trees, and various birds of coloured plumage, I ordered the march to be towards Ghazipur.”
When Erskine wrote the book ‘A History of India in the Time of Babur and Humayun’, published from London in 1854, he reiterated that Babur had visited Ayodhyā and stayed there. Then in 1855 Mirza Jan wrote the book ‘Hadiqah- i-Shuhada’ and claimed that Babur had visited Ayodhyā before becoming the emperor of Hindustan and on the prompting of Musa Ashiquan he had directed Mir Baqi to demolish Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple and construct a mosque thereon.
Besides, in the monumental work ‘History of India as Told by its own Historians’ of H.M. Elliot and John Dowson published in 1873 A.D. the destruction of the temple has been attributed to Babur. P. Carnegy and all writers of British official Gazetteers invariably held Babur responsible for the demolition of the temple.
Since the idols were surreptitiously installed in the disputed shrine in December, 1949 everyone has been calling it Baburi Mosque. Protagonists of the temple agitation have been deriding Babur for the demolition of Rāma’s temple and construction of a mosque. Babur was never associated with it but the entire course of History was changed by the survey report of Buchanan who fell into a
well-knit trap.
(12) Persons associated with Babur’s authorship to the mosque are fictitious persons
(i) Musa Ashiqan
As stated earlier Musa Ashiqan is a fictional character. Feristha, whose full name was Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, wrote a history book called ‘Gulshan-i Ibrahim’ or more popularly known as ‘Tarikh-i-Firishta’. He was born in 1560 A.D. and died in 1620 A.D. In 1593 he started writing a book on Indian history. The 12th chapter of this book is ‘An Account of Saints of India’. But he does not mention Musa Ashiqan in this book. Had he really blessed and motivated Babur to conquer Hindustan and had his stature been really so high, as presented in the 19th century texts and stories, he would have definitely found place in this book.
Ferishta gives a very interesting story which establishes that Musa Ashiqan was known neither to Babur nor to Ferishta. He informs that after return from Gwalior Babur was seized with an intermitting fever which continued on him for 8 months. It gets indirect support from Babur-nama which informs that Babur fell ill no less than six times and each time his illness lasted for not less than two weeks. According to Ferishta when Babur fell ill this time, “some superstitious people advised him, during his sickness, to write a poem in praise of Chaja Ahrar, one of the saints, to induce him to intercede with God for his health. Baber, though it is highly probable he did not give much credit to the power of the saint actually wrote the poem, in the measure of Mowlavi Jami. The king recovered from his disorder about the eighth of the
first Ribbi.”
Had Musa Ashiqan really been a saint by whose blessing Babur had become the emperor, he would have sought his blessings in this hour of crisis.
In the last chapter of the Ain-i-Akbari Abul Fazl has given brief biographies of large number of saints under the heading ‘Awliya-i-Hind’ meaning ‘Saints of India’. In this chapter he has narrated the lives of important saints of the Delhi Sultanate period and the Mughal period. It includes some saints of Babur’s time like Shaykh Maudud Al- Lari and Shykh Haji Abdul Wahhab-al- Bukhari. But in this long list also, Musa Ashiqan’s name does not figure anywhere. Had Musa Ashiqan been instrumental in establishing the
Mughal Empire by his blessings, his name would not have escaped the notice of Abul Fazl and a host of scholars assisting him in the composition of the book.
Similarly, Abul Fazl writes that when Babur was concerned with the precarious condition of his son Humayun, Mir Abu Baqa was sitting there. He was one of the prominent fazils of his time and Babur held him in high esteem. Baqa suggested that the only course left for the survival of Humayun was to offer the most valuable thing the emperor possessed and leave Humayun to God. Thereafter, the story is well known that Babur offered himself in lieu of his son’s life. But here also Musa Ashiqan does not figure at all in this gravest situation that Babur faced in his life. Had Musa Ashiqan really bestowed the Kingdom of Hindustan on Babur by his blessings, the latter would have approached Ashiqan in this dire situation. But here Mir Abu Baqa is the saint whose advice Babur followed. Thus, Musa Ashiqan appears to be a figment of imagination of subsequent generations. Similarly, Mir Baqi has been produced to be a fictitious personality, different from Baqi of Babur-nama.
It is indicated earlier that the temples at Ayodhyā were demolished and mosques were built there during the Subedari of Fedai Khan. It is confirmed by the writings of Mirza Jan in 1855-56 and subsequent Muslim writers who categorically wrote that the Ram Darbar, i.e. Svargadvāra mosque was built by Fedai Khan after demolishing the temple there. However, they invented a Shia Governor Mir Baqi who was declared to be a native of Isphahan in Persia. After making the following pedigree, the Shia clergy took possession of the mosque.
(ii) Mir Baqi of the inscriptions is another fictitious personality. Masir-ul-Umara is an encyclopaedia of nobles of the Mughal period. In this nobles’ encyclopaedia also there is no mention of Mir Baqi during the reign of Babur. Had Mir Baqi been the Governor of Ayodhyā and builder of the Baburi mosque, his name should have figured in this book written by Nawab Shams-ud-daula Shah Nawaz Khan and his son Abdul Hai Khan because even personalities far lower than a Governor’s rank have found places in the book.
Pedigree of Mir Baqi: It is proved conclusively in chapter VI that Mir Baqi of the inscription is different from Baqi of Babur-nama. Epigraphic Mir Baqi is a fictitious person. The following pedigree will indicate it.
Here the name of Mir Baqi is changed to Abdul Baqi and we find that in the latter half of the 19th century Rajab Ali, M. Afzal and M. Asghar were fighting all litigations on behalf of the mosque and all of them were Shias.
From this pedigree it is clear this Rajab Ali who was the great grandson-in-law of Syyad Abdul Baqi was alive in 1860 A.D. Abdul Baqi was alive in the year 1528 and his great grandson-in-law Rajab Ali was fighting litigation in 1860 A.D. after a gap of 332 years. In between lived only two generations S. Hisab Ali alias Ata Hussain and Hussain Ali. It is never humanly possible. Therefore, Baqi could not be a contemporary of Babur. Nevertheless, we find that by associating Babur’s name with the mosque and inventing Mir Baqi’s role in the construction of the mosque, the Shia clergy, who were at loggershead with the Sunni Ulemas in the first half of the 19th century, succeeded in capturing a mosque which was, out and out, a Sunni mosque built along with the Svargadvāri and Treta Ka Thakur mosques during the reign of Aurangzeb.
(13) Dates associated with the temple’s demolition by Babur are incorrect
Apart from the inscription seen by Fuhrer which contained the date 930 A.H. and another one read by the Maulvi who records the date 923 A.H. in the Court proceeding of Faizabad Regular Suit No. 29 of 1945; several Urdu writers of 19th century have mentioned 923 A.H. (i.e. 1516 A.D.) as the year of the construction of the mosque. Such instances have been quoted by Prof. Harsh Narain in his article ‘The Ayodhyā Temple-Mosque Dispute.’
(1) Mirza Jan wrote Hadiqah-i Shuhada in 1855. The work was so inflammatory that it was banned immediately after its publication. It mentions that Babur Shah got constructed a mosque under the patronage of Musa Ashiqan in 923 A.H. i.e 1516 A.D. which is derived from Khair-i Baqi.
(2) Fasanah-i-Ibrat was written by Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur (1787-1867) in 1860 circa. It was published in 1884 A.D. It says that the mosque was built in 923 A.H. under the patronage of Ashiqan.
(3) Diya-i Akhtar was written by Haji Muhammad Hasan. It was published in Lucknow in 1878 A.D. It says that Sayyid Musa Ashiqan built a mosque after demolishing Rājā Rāmachandra’s palace and Sita’s kitchen by the order of Zihurddin Babur, king of Delhi in 923 A.H. and king Aurangzeb Alamgir built another mosque at the same site.
(4) Muraqqa-i Khusrawi was written by Shaykh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorwi Nami (1811-1893). It is known as Tawarikh-i Awadh also. The work was completed in 1869 A.D. It mentions the patronage of Musa Ashiqan in the demolition of the temple which occured in 923 A.D.
(5) Tarikh-i Awadh in five volumes was written by Muhammad Najmu ‘I-Ghani Khan Rampuri.’ It was published in Lucknow in 1919. It says that the mosque was built under the patronage of Musa Ashiqan and its date is Khayr i Baqi (923).
(6) Jannah al-Mashriq wa Matl’an-Nur al-Mashriq was written in Arabic by Maulana Hakim Sayyid Abdul Hayy. It was translated into Urdu by Maulana Shams Tabrez Khan in the name of Hindustan Islami ‘Ahd. It says that Babur constructed the mosque in 923 A.H.
Contents in these texts are in complete contrast to the constant propaganda of established historians that the demolition theory was propounded and propagated by the British authorities to sow the seed of separation between the two communities, so that they can rule the country without any protest or hindrance.
All these authors were unaware of Babur’s Memoirs and correct course of history. Therefore they carried on the incorrect date. Thus, these testimonies, too, testify to the fact that dates ascribed to the construction of the so-called Baburi mosque were at variance in different texts and inscriptions and they varied from 923 A.H. to 935 A.H. Factitious inscriptions were fixed in the mosque belatedly and replaced repeatedly.
(14) Lad Khan Temple of Lord Śiva
An amusing instance of an interchange of names is that of Lad Khan Temple situated at Aihole in the State of Karnataka. This temple, which is dedicated to Lord Śiva, was built by the Chalukyan Kings either in the 5th or 7th century A.D. It is one of the oldest Śiva temples in that region. Subsequently, it was associated with a short stay of a person named Lad Khan who is stated to be either a petty ruler or a little known Muslin saint. Despite the fact that it is a living temple thronged by thousands of devotees every year, the name Lad Khan Temple is still clung to this Śiva Temple for centuries. A picture of the Lad Khan Temple at Aihole is placed below:
Lad Khan Temple of Lord Śiva.
If the name of a Muslim remains stuck to a Hindu temple both in common parlance and architects’ texts for centuries, we should not be surprised, if Babur’s name has remained attached with a mosque built by Fedai Khan at the instance of Aurangzeb for the last two centuries.
(15) Tomb of Noah
In Ain-i-Akbari Abul Fazl has written that there were two tombs of Seth and Job at Ayodhyā. They were six and seven yards respectively in length. But by the time Carnegy’s book was published in 1870 A.D. and the Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh came in 1877-78; one more tomb of Nuh appeared and a claim was made that it was built by Alexander, the great in the 4th century B.C. Just to give glory to their claim this tomb was brought into existence in a deceitful manner and a story was concocted. The fact is that the tomb of Prophet Noah or Nuh is situated in the town of Najaf in Iraq. Ibn Battuta had visited the graves of Noah and Ali and Adam at Najaf. He has given a detailed account of these graves in his book ‘Travels in Asia and Africa (1325 1354)’.
The relevant extract from Ibn Battuta’s travels is as follow:
“We went on from there and alighted in the town of Mashahad ‘Alf at Najaf. It is a fine town, situated in a wide rocky plain-one of the finest, most populous, and most substantially built cities in ‘Iraq’. It has beautiful clean bazaars. We entered by the [outer] Bab al-Hadra, and found ourselves first in the market of the greengrocers, co
oks and butchers, then in the fruit market, then the tailors’ bazaar and the Qaysaruya, then the perfumers’ bazaar, after which we came to the [inner] Bab al-Hadra, where there is the tomb, which they say is the tomb of Alf. One goes through the Bab al-Hadra into a vast hospice, by which one gains access to the gateway of the shrine, where there are chamberlains, keepers of registers and eunuchs. As a visitor to the tomb approaches, one or all of them rise to meet him according to his rank, and they halt with him at the threshold. They then ask permission for him to enter saying “By your leave, O Commander of the Faithful, this feeble creature asks permission to enter the sublime resting-place,” and command him to kiss the threshold, which is of silver, as also are the lintels. After this he enters the shrine, the floor of which is covered with carpets of silk and other materials. Inside it are candelabra of gold and silver, large and small. In the centre is a square platform about a man’s height, covered with wood completely hidden under artistically carved plaques of gold fastened with silver nails. On this are three tombs, which they declare are the graves of Adam, Noah, and Alf. Between the tombs are dishes of silver and gold, containing rose-water, musk, and other perfumes; the visitor dips his hand in these and anoints his face with the perfume for a bleassing.”
(Ibn Battuta: “Travels in Asia and Africa 1325-1354” translated by H.A.R. Gibb reprint 2007 p. 81-82)
Tombs of Seth, Job and Nuh are mentioned in Carnegy’s book and the Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh (1877-78). The account from the Gazetteer is given below:
“The Tombs of the Patriarchs—Adjoining the Maniparbat are two tombs, of which General Cunningham writes that “they are attributed to Sis paighambar and Ayub paighambar, or the Prophets Seth and Job. The first is seventeen feet long and the other twelve feet. These tombs are mentioned by Abul Fazl, who says: “Near this are two sepulchral monuments, one seven and the other six cubits in length. The vulgar pretend that they are the tombs of Seth and Job, and they relate wonderful stories of them.” This account shows that since the time of Akbar the tomb of Seth must have increased in length, from seven cubits, or ten and a half feet, to seventeen feet, through the frequent repairs of pious Musalmans.” These tombs are also mentioned at a later date, in the Araish-i-Mahfil. To these tombs, Colonel Wilford adds that of Noah, which is still pointed out near the police station. The Colonel’s account is as follows: “Close to Ajodhya or Oudh, on the banks of the Gogra, they show the tomb of Noah, and those of Ayub, and Shis or Shish, (Job and Seth). According to the account of the venerable Darvesh who watches over the tomb of Nuh, it was built by Alexander the Great, or Sikandar Rumi. I sent lately (A.D. 1799) a learned Hindu to make enquiries about this holy place: from the Musalmans he could get no further light; but the Brahmans informed him that where Nuh’s tomb stands now, there was formerly a place of worship dedicated to Ganesha, and close to it are the remains of a baoli, or walled well, which is called in the Puranas Ganapat Kund. The tombs of Job and Seth are near to each other, and about one bow-shot and a half from Noah’s tomb; between them are two small hillocks, called Soma-giri, or the mountains of the moon : according to them these tombs are not above four hundred years old; and owe their origin to three men, called N”uh, Ayub, and Shis, who fell there fighting against the Hindus. These were, of course, considered as shahids, or martyrs; but the priests who officiate there, in order to increase the veneration of the superstitious and unthinking crowd, gave out that these tombs were really those of Noah, Job, and Seth, of old. The tomb of Nuh is not mentioned in the Ain-i-akbari, only those of Job and Seth.”
Ayodhya Revisited Page 41