खुदाबन्दे परवाना हजूर वास्ते तलवी नहंग सिख फक़ीर जो कि मस्जिद जन्म अस्थान में मुवक्ताद्धम है तारीख ३० नवम्बर १८५८ ई० को सादिर हुआ चुनांचे (अपठनीय) परवाना (अपठनीय) यह ताबेदार मय मोहर्रिर थाना नजदीक फवक्ताद्धर मजकूर के गया और मजमून परवाना से बखुशी इत्तिला किया व जबानी भी हर चन्द हर फहमाईश कर के कहा लेकिन फक़ीर मजकूर सिर्फ यह बात कहा हर जगह निरंकार की है व साहब बहादुर मालिक मुल्क इन्साफ करना चाहे और अपने जाने के बारे में कुछ नहीं कहा व ना जाता है। आइन्दा जो हुकुम होवे मुताबिक उसके तामील करूँ मैं (अपठनीय) वाजिब जान कर गुजारिश किया मारुज्+ा यकुम दिसम्बर १८५८ ई०।
अलअबद
सीतल दूबे थाने दार अवध
द० सीतल दूबे बखत हिन्दी
This report is exhibit no. 21 in the case and the Hindi copy is duly certified by Advocate Z. Jilani
Exhibit no. 21.
The English translation of this report is as follows:
“Copy of the report of Sheetal Dubey, Thanedar Oudh dated December 1, 1858 in the case no. 884, application of Thanedar Oudh regarding erecting a flag within masjid Janam Sthan. Sant Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa resident of Mohalla Ram Kot (Kot Ramchandra) Pargana Haweli Oudh, Tahsil and District Faizabad, decided on December 15, 1858.
Khudawand-e-Parwaz Huzoor for summoning Nihang Singh Faqir who is residing within the Masjid. Order passed on November 30, 1858. So the parwana was taken to the said Faqir by this obedient servant who is posted there and the subject/content thereof was explained to him. He was explained its text orally also. He was admonished (for his act) but the said Faqir continued to insist that every place belonged to Nirankar and justice should be done to him. Neither he said a word about leaving the place he was illegally occupying nor did he leave.
Therefore, I am here to carry out any further orders given in the matter. Deemed necessary, so requested.
Dated Dec. 1, 1858
Sd/- Sheetal Dubey Thanedar Oudh”
(iii) Another report of the S.H.O. Dube is the exhibit no. 22 in suit no. 1 and confirms the possession of the mosque by Nihang Sikh on 6th December, 1858 A.D. A portion of this brief report is quoted here: घखुदावन्दा परवाना वकारुल तलब निहंग सिंह फकीर साकिन मस्जिद जन्म अस्थान के वारिज हुआ चुनाँचे हस्बुल हुक्म हजूरे वाला के वजरिये रिपोर्ट हजा फकीर व खिदमत वन्दगान वाला है हाजिर होता है। वाजिब जानकार गुजारिश किया फकत मोरखा ६ दिसम्बर, सन् १८५८ ईस्वीच
The arrival of a Nihang Sikh from Punjab along with 25 fellow Sikhs and forcible occupation of the mosque and performance of the rituals inside the mosque with writing of ‘Rāma Rāma’ on every corner of the walls of the mosque testify to the undisputable fact that a very large section of the society regarded it as a sacred site of Lord Rāma and there existed a temple thereon; otherwise there was no occasion for a Nihang Sikh to travel from Punjab to Ayodhyā and occupy the mosque forcibly. It appears from the reports of the Thanedar dated 10th December, 1858 that the Nihang Sikh residing in the mosque was ousted and the flag was uprooted by a Court Order. But he did not stop his activities.
From an application from Mir Rajab Ali dated 15.11.1860 it appears that the Nihang Sikh made chabutara adjacent to the mosque and was expanding it day by day. He again pitched a flag in front of the mosque which was removed by the commissioner. Thus, the protest against British Government’s one-sided decision of depriving the Hindus of worshipping inside the structure continued.
(20) Complaint of Mir Rajjab Ali
On 5.11.1860 Mir Rajjab Ali, the then Khatib of Baburi Masjid, made a complaint requesting the Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad for the removal of the recently constructed chabutara by the Nihang Sikh. He wrote,
“Garib Parwar Salamat,
The bullying behaviour of the Nihang respondent is reported to the Court here. About 30 days ago he forcibly made a small chabutara adjacent to the Baburi mosque in the graveyard. He is extending it day by day. Although he is told not to do so, yet he does not refrain from it. Rather he becomes violent at times.” Mir Rajjab Ali further complained that whenever the Moazzin called Azaan, the Respondent Nihang blew conch. Therefore, he prayed for the removal of the chabutara and for taking a bond from the Respondent for good behaviour.
The Nihang, who had earlier occupied the inner shrine, now built the chabutara outside it but within the outer boundary wall after he was ousted from the main shrine by the S.H.O. Sheetal Dubey. Earlier both Hindus and Muslims were performing puja and namaz inside the mosque. Nevertheless, when the Hindus were asked to do it outside the shrine, they started creating trouble like blowing the conch at the same time when there was Azaan.
(21) Petitions of Mohmmad Asghar
A petition by Mohammad Asghar, s/o Syyed Rajab Ali, Khatib and Mutawalli, Baburi Mosque, Janma Asthan, Awadh before the Commissioner, Faizabad on 13th December, 1877 against the Mahants of Janma Asthan and Nirmohi Akhara, Awadh was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Faizabad for the redressal of several grievances which included the non-execution of the order dated 7th November, 1873 for the removal of the idol in the form of the charana-pādukā. In this petition he wrote:
घइन्साफ का मुकाम है कि दीवार दरवाजा मुतालिक मस्जिद पर मूर्तियों का बनना किस कदर अमूर खिलाफ मजहब अहले इस्लाम बल्कि जुल्म बुत परस्तान ऊपर अहले मुसलमान के हैं।च i.e. Justice demanded that since the placement of idols on the wall and door was against the tenets of Islam, they were liable for removal.
However, he admitted in his petition that the sole evidence in support of his claim was one word ‘Allah’ super-imposed on the entrance of the mosque. The following is his admission in the fourth paragraph of his petition:
घयह कि सुबूत तहरीरी जो हाकिम मातेहत ने मुनदरिज हुकुम फरमाया है कैफियत उस की यह है कि एक उम्दा सुबूत यह है कि दीवार अहाता बेरूने मस्जिद के दरवाजे पर नाम अल्लाह का कुन्दा व तहरीर है। चूँकि यह सुबूत तहरीरी बेहिस वहरकत है लायक मुलाहेजा मौका के है पस क्योंकि अदालत मातहेत में पेश हो सकता था अन्दरीन सूरत अपीलांट उम्मीदवार है कि बनजर इन्साफ मुलाहेजा मौका फरमाया जाये ताकि सुबूत बवजेह (अपठनीय) बहक अपीलांट जाहिर हो जाये।च
[It is Exhibit 30 in Suit-1]
In another petition which was the counter affi
davit in the case Raghubar Das vs. Sarkar Bahadur, Kaisar-i- Hind and Mohammad Asghar the second defendant (Mohammad Asghar) informed the Court that when Babur shah built the mosque he got ‘Allah’ engraved on the mosque. The following is the relevant portion from his counter-affidavit:
घअव्वल यह कि जब बाबरशाह मालिके मुल्क व बादशाहे वक्त ने यह मस्जिद तामीर किया व अहाता मस्जिद के दरवाजे के उपर संगी पर लफ्ज अल्लाह कुन्दा कराके नसब किया।च (para 1)
From his two admissions it is clear that there was no inscription attributing the construction of the mosque to Babur till 1885. Therefore, the inscriptions ascribing the construction of the disputed shrine to Babur were false and factitious. Since inscriptions were the main basis of the claim that Babur built the disputed shrine and they are now proved spurious, their claim is naturally disproved.
(22) Muraqqa-i-Khusarawi of Shaikh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorabi Nami
Shaikh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorabi wrote Muraqqa-i-Khusarawi in 1869 A.D. In this book he admitted:
घफिर मस्जिद बाबरी में जहाँ सीता की रसोई थी शिर्कत की ऐलानिया पूजा होनेलगी।च
Again, in the Baburi mosque, where there was Sita Rasoi, started the worship openly.
It appears that this worship in the Baburi mosque started in 1720 A.D. when Girdhar Bahadur was the all-powerful Governor of Oudh at Ayodhyā. Thus, the worship of the Hindus in the disputed shrine started 13 years after the death of Aurangzeb and sixty years after the demolition of the temple and the construction of the mosque and both the puja and Namaz continued until the proclamation of the British rule in August 1858. The take-over of the shrine by the Sikhs from the Punjab in November 1858 was the expression of the prevailing Hindu resentment.
(23) Apriori Evidence
Another type of evidence, which Prof. Harsh Narayan calls, is an apriori evidence. He explains thus:
“It is usual for temples to be built on mounds and mounts overlooking a town. On the other hand, it is a rule with mosques to be erected within easy reach for the members of the locality, for the simple reason that they are supposed to visit it at least five times a day for offering prayer. Even Jami mosques are sited near markets and other such places for facility of congregational prayer. And the Babarí mosque occupies the Ramkot mound and that, too, despite the fact that its neighbourhood is said to have all along been devoid of Muslims by and large. Indeed, in his judgment in Civil Appeal no. 27 of 1885, Mahant Raghuvir Das versus Secretary of state for India, Col. F.E. Chambier, District Judge mentions that there are no dwelling houses in the vicinity of the mosque.”
Harsh Narayan’s observations are correct to a great extent. But it appears to be a case of aposterior evidence because, from the existence of a mosque at mound, it is inferred that a temple was demolished. It is clear from the following photograph of the Baburi mosque shown in Carnegy’s book:
‘Babar’s mosque and Rāma’s birthplace’ in P. Carnegy’s book.
The postulation of established historians that a sizeable Muslim population had come up in the Ram Kot area and there was a need for construction of the mosque is not correct because the Muslims had not established their dwelling houses in the vicinity of the Rāma-Janma-bhūmi till 1885 A.D. It is evident from the observation of the District Judge F.E.A. Chamier that they had established their colonies such as Shah Madar and Svargadwari on the bank of Sarayū river. The testimony of William Finch who saw only Brahmins residing in the Ram Kot area further testifies to this fact. According to Butter’s ‘Topography of Oudh’ the population of Ayodhyā in 1854 A.D. was 8000 which included 500 Muslims only. (p. 116) Daniell’s painting shown in the next chapter also testifies to the fact that climbing such an enormous height for offering namaz in the mosque would not have been an easy task. Thus, the location of Baburi Mosque, too, confirms that the disputed mosque was built on the site of a demolished temple.
(24) 1902 Markers
Prince of Wales was to visit Faizabad in 1902 A.D. Sizeable money was collected for the reception of the Prince. After the cancellation of the Prince’s visit to Faizabad, the District Magistrate decided to utilize this amount for marking important religious places of Ayodhyā. For this purpose a local committee headed by Mahant Ramamanohar Prasad of the Badā Sthāna was constituted. The committee after scrutinising the details given in Ayodhyāmāhātymya of Skanda-Purāna and other texts made recommendations. Accordingly, the district administration placed markers for all important religious places at Ayodhyā. The first stone-marker was placed in front of the eastern entrance of the disputed Baburi mosque and it was christened “No. 1, Rāma Janma-bhūmi.” It was claimed that according to the Ayodhyā-māhātmya, it was the birthplace of Rāma. At some distance another marker was placed as “No. 5, Janma-sthana”, although the Ayodhyā-māhātmya did not know any distinction between the Janma-bhūmi and Janma-sthāna.
Thus, the place of Lord Rāma’s birth (Rāma-janma-bhūmi) was officially settled and markers were placed accordingly.
For more than two decades there has been a misleading propaganda going on that there is not a single evidence to show that it was the birthplace of Lord Rāma. However, the fact is that there are evidences of all sorts- indigenous literary source like Ayodhyā-māhātmya and Avadha-vilāsa and foreign travellers’ account in the shape of Tieffanthaler’s book. In addition, there was Vishnu-hari inscription in the temple and the A.S.I. report supports the existence of Rāma temple on the birthplace. Normally a place, and not exact site, associated with the birthplace of a revered person is decribed as the birthplace; for example, Lord Krishna was born at Mathurā and Lord Buddha at Lumbini. Lord Krishna’s birthplace is known from the temples which stood at the site and Lord Buddha’s site is known from the stūpa Asoka erected there. In the context of Rāma-janma-bhūmi, we have at least two texts Ayodhyā Māhātmya and Avadha-vilāsa which suggest exact location based on measurements from various places. Even then, many established historians are not satisfied. I have been telling jokingly for long that even if Lord Rāma were to come and say that he was born at this site, they will find some lacuna in his statement and reject it outright!
It is said that Jawahar Lal Nehru was born at 77, Mirganj, Allahabad around 120 years ago. Despite this concrete address, his exact birthplace is, today, lost because his father sold the old house where he stayed for more than a decade. Many people even dispute this address. Since Moti Lal Nehru susequently purchased Mehmood Manjil in a better locality, viz. Colonelganj and shifted there, the contact with the old house was lost in the plethora of new high-rise buildings.
(25) Maratha Records
Marathas made many endeavours to gain control over Ayodhyā, Kāśī and Prayag. In 1751, after the victory over the Ruhellas in the Doab with the succour from the Maratha armies led by Malhar Rao Holkar, the second Nawab of the Awadh dynasty Mansur Ali (Safdar Jung) was requested by Holker to handover Ayodhyā, Kāśī and Prayāga to the Peshwa. Again in 1756, when Shuja-ud-daula wanted to take military help from the Marathas against the impending Afghan attack, they demanded the transfer of Ayodhyā and other two pilgrim centres. Negotiations continued for one year on this subject and ultimately in July 1757 Shuja-ud-daula agreed to transfer Ayodhyā and Kāśī to the Maratha Sardar Raghoba. It could not be implemented because of many factors including the pre-occupation of the Maratha’s army in Punjab and the very fact that Ayodhyā was the capital of Awadh. However, the Marathas kept pressure on him and in a letter dated 23rd February, 1759 to the Maratha General in the North, Dattaji Sindhia, the Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao asked the Sindhia to talk to Shuja-ud-daula and take over Ayodhyā, Kāśī and Prayag. The Peshwa wrote to the Sindhia:
“Mansur Ali’s son (i.e. Shuja-ud-daula) had prom
ised to Dada (i.e. Raghoba) to cede Benares and Ayodhya, but the case of Allahabad is still under discussion. If a settlement on the last point can be easily reached, make it.”
(Sarkar’s History of Aurangzeb., Vol. II. p. 161)
Although Shuja-ud-daula was always reluctant to cede Ayodhyā, yet he honoured the Hindu sentiment by shifting his capital from Ayodhyā to Faizabad. Consequently, a large number of Muslims migrated from Ayodhyā to Faizabad.
(26) Jaipur Kapad Dwar records
During the Ayodhyā controversy the Catalogue of Documents in Kapad Dwar, Jaipur surfaced. Its serial no. 179 is a map of Ayodhyā. Sawai Jai Singh had been granted 983 acres of land at Ayodhyā in June 1717 A.D. Prof. R. Nath meticulously examined the records and wrote extensively on the subject. The matter got complicated because of a temple map with three spire-like śikharas. It was hotly discussed between the pro-temple and anti-temple scholars. But to me, the temple map was not that of an existing temple, rather for a temple to be built in future on 983 acres of plot. Therefore, it is not a strong evidence in support of the temple.
(27) Philip Baldaeus’s account
Ayodhyā has remained famous for pilgrimage all over India. It is further corroborated from a very little known source which is “A true and exact Description of the most Celebrated East-India Coast of Malabar and Coromandel, and of the Island of Ceylon, with all the adjacent Countries”. It was written by Philip Baldaeus in Dutch language and published in Dutch in 1671 and the English translation was published in 1704 A.D. Baldaeus returned to the Dutch Republic in 1664 and died in 1671 at a very young age of 39 only. During his stay in Ceylon and South India he actively participated in proselytizing people.
Ayodhya Revisited Page 53