Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  1640. Then comes the next available version of Nicolo Minouchi who travelled India during the reign of Aurangzeb. On the one hand it cannot be disputed that he has mentioned about demolition of a temple at Ayodhya during the aforesaid period but further particulars have not been given. It gives an occasion to the learned counsels for the plaintiff (Suit-4) to contend that the travellers account of Minouchi does not throw any light that the alleged destruction of temple mention in his travellers account relates to the alleged Janambhùmi temple and none else. This argument is unexceptionable since Minouchi’s travellers account does not pin point any building or the area but then there are some further materials.

  1641. Father Joseph Tieffenthaler, an Austrian traveller visited India and remain here for more than two decades. In fact he stayed in India till his death. His credentials which have been made available to us through an internet printout of Wikipedia site shows that he was a linguist and well conversant with the languages like Persian and Sanskrit. It is this account which for the first time mentions about the alleged temple at the birthplace as well as its demolition by a muslim Ruler, in particular Mughal Ruler and construction of a mosque thereat. Tieffenthaler, however, say when he visited, the people in locality said that the demolition caused by Emperor Aurangzeb though some people said that it was Babar. Had the inscriptions alleged to be fixed on the building in dispute at the time of its construction would have existed thereat when Tieffenthaler visited the site, it is difficult to conceive that he could have written in his work whether it was Aurangzeb or Babar since he himself could have noticed the correct facts by reading the inscriptions for which he did not require any external help. Tieffenthaler’s work which though written like a traveller’s guide between 1740-1760 and onwards but could not be seen by subsequent historians or those who prepared historical data perhaps for the reason that it remain unpublished in English. It might have been published in the Latin itself, the language in which Tieffenthaler wrote his diary but the publically known work is the “French translation” which is said to have been published in 1786. To us it appears that the building in dispute by the time Tieffenthaler came to Ayodhya had already been constructed but the inscriptions were not there. Besides, even at that time, inside the building in dispute, the Hindu religious structure in the form of a ‘Vedi’ existed which was being worshipped by Hindus. Here also it is remarkable that Tieffenthaler though has noticed worship by Hindus but is conspicuously silent about worship by muslims in the disputed building.

  1642. We tried to enquire from learned counsel for the plaintiffs (Suit-4) as to how it could happen that a mosque was constructed but inside the premises a Hindu religious structure was allowed to remain as to be worshipped by Hindu public. In the absence of any source material on this aspect no reply obviously was forthcoming but to us it appears that though the building in dispute was constructed but immediately thereafter or after sometime it stood deserted by muslims. Hindus made their entry and raised a religious structure in order to continue with the sanctity of their belief that the place in dispute was the birthplace of Lord Rama and that is how their worship continued. It is inconceivable that at the time when the disputed building was constructed the people who did so would have allowed a Hindu religious structure inside the premises particularly when the building which they constructed was an Islamic religious place, i.e., mosque. We also find that Islamic religious scriptures clearly prohibit same place fit for worship by the persons of different faith and religion. We make it clear our use of the word mosque herein these issues be not treated as our finding since it being a separate issue shall be dealt with later.

  1643. Though it amounts to delving into some kind of conjectures but since here is a case which necessarily goes in history and particularly when for sufficiently long time the things are in dark, in the absence of anything contrary, we do not find it impermissible to think in this manner. It would come within the domain of preponderance of probability.

  1644. The position appears to be that when the building in dispute was constructed, obviously the Islamic people, were in power who constructed the building in dispute. They did not allow or could not have allowed any Hindu religious structure to exist within the premises of the disputed building. If it was done after demolition of a Hindu religious structure, it is inconceivable while demolishing such structure, some part thereof would have been allowed to remain so as to be worshipped continuously by Hindu people after entering the premises of the mosque. Thus, initially when it was constructed no such structure could have existed but as soon as the local Hindu people got opportunity, they created or made a symbolic structure to continue with the worship according to their belief with regard to the birthplace of Lord Rama and that is how structure in the form of Vedi was there and noticed by Tieffenthaler in his work which relates to the period of 1740-1760 AD.

  1645. The building in dispute, therefore, not constructed in 1528 AD or during the reign of Babar, the preponderance of probability lie in favour of the period when Aurangzeb was the Emperor since it is again nobody’s case that such an action could have been taken during the reign of Humaun, Akbar or Shah Jahan. Without entering into the wild goose chase on this aspect suffice it to say that the building in dispute must have come into existence before 1707 AD when the reign of Aurangzeb ended on his death. Tieffenthaler’s visit to Ayodhya is 35-55 years thereafter and this gave sufficient time in which the things as we have indicated above could have happened. The inscription on the disputed building either inside or outside was not there otherwise there was no occasion that the same could not have been noticed and seen by Tieffenthaler who himself was quite conversant with the language in which these inscriptions were written and found subsequently.

  1646. Then comes the person who for the first time noticed the above inscription, i.e., Dr. F. C. Buchanan. He was a medicine man and, as his autobiography says, worked as personal physician of Lord Wellesley at the end of 18th century. He was entrusted with the work of survey of the territory within the hold of East India Company in North-West provinces at the commencement of 19th century. Obviously this was not his field of expertise and, therefore, it can well be conceived that he actually functioned as an overall Observer or Supervisor but in effect must have been assisted/attended by a team of the persons knowing the work of survey and also quite conversant with the local tradition, languages etc. The survey continued for about 7 years, i.e., 1807-1814. The survey report said to have been submitted in more than one set. It appears that the record of the said survey sent to Calcutta office of East India Company as also to its main office in London. At the time he conducted survey, the area of Oudh as such was not within the reining territory of East India Company but was part of the reining territory of Nawab Vazir of Lucknow with whom East India company had a kind of agreement entered in 1801. The area towards Gorakhpur, Varanasi etc. was in the territory of East India Company and the demarcating land appears to be the bank of river Saryu near Ayodhya as is evident from the observations of Buchanan where he said that he did not undertook the exercise of measurement etc. at Ayodhya as it would have offended Nawab Wazir of Lucknow who was the reigning authority of that area. It is Buchanan who for the first time referred to an inscription wherefrom he could notice that the disputed building was erected in 1528 AD at the command of Babar though local people still at that time believed and said that the same was constructed at the time of Emperor Aurangzeb after demolishing a Hindu temple. When Buchanan visited Ayodhya, i.e. between 18071814, the period of Aurangzeb was about 100 years back while the period of Babar was about 275 years and more. It is difficult to conceive that the local people were not conversant as to who was responsible for construction or during whose reign the construction was made particularly when the matter was comparably recent. The people’s memory is not so short and fade away with such a pace that they cannot recollect the events of just 50-60 years back. During the period of Buchanan it was a matter of just 100 years or more. Comparatively period of Au
rangzeb was quite recent. Therefore, Buchanan’s approach to ignore local belief that the building in dispute was constructed during the reign of Aurangzeb, in the absence of any concrete material, and not to make any further probe cannot be appreciated. However, some margin has to be given to him since he was not an expert historian. It may happen that on plain reading of text, the period mentioned therein found 923 AH or 930 AH but he, knowing the period of Babar took upon himself to correct it.

  1647. Moreover, Buchanan also cannot be said at fault since he had a reason to contradict this local belief based on an inscribed document which he found fixed on the building in dispute. To us it appears that this inscription must have been fixed in the building in dispute sometimes between the visit of Tieffenthaler and survey of Dr. Buchanan. In order to give importance and antiquity to the building so as to avoid local hatred and conflict the inscript writer or the person responsible for it tried to co-relate it with the reign of Babar but due to lack of information or mistake, the period got written wrongly, i.e., 923 A.H. or 930 A.H. and he also mentions a name i.e. Mir Baki or Mir Khan which did not find mention in Babar’s “Tuzuk-i-Babri”.

  1648. Whether Buchanan actually noticed 923 A.H. or 935 A.H., we find difficult to record any concrete finding in the absence of any authenticated text of such inscription as was available to Buchanan. To us it appears when he noticed the name of Babar mentioned in the inscription even if the period in the inscription would have written as 923 A.H. he might have got it corrected in the light of the known period of visit of Babar at Ayodhya. This part of our observation as to what Buchanan might have done at that time is obviously in the realm of conjecture and we are conscious about it, but for us it is suffice to mention that in the absence of an authenticated text of the inscription as noticed by Buchanan, the only thing relevant for us is that the inscription was noticed for the first time by Buchanan and at that time he tried to contact the local people with respect to the period and person who constructed the disputed building. He was told about Aurangzeb but he discarded it on the basis of inscription and said that it is Babar and not Aurangzeb as locally believed. It is again nobody’s case that the inscription of the period of Buchanan was replaced or changed at any later point of time at least when it was so noticed and read by A. Fuhrer.

  1649. In the meantime, we find that this text has been referred to in certain books written by muslim writers after 1855 AD. Without entering into the question whether those writers were well known Historians or merely story writers or whatever the case may be, for us suffice it to mention that in all these books they have mentioned the period of construction contained in the inscription as 923 A.H. Obviously it cannot be said that those writers who have written their books in Persian and Arabic were not capable of correctly reading the inscription and they committed a mistake in reading.

  1650. In brief, we summarize the things and the position boils down as under:

  i. Dr. Fransis C. Buchanan said to be first person who read and collect the transcription but this text duly proved in accordance with law is not available to us. However, this found the basis of contradicting the local belief as it prevail till then i.e. around 1810 AD that the building in dispute was constructed during the reign of Aurangzebe after demolition of a temple was wrong and it was actually Babar, as borne out from the inscription.

  ii. Next is A. Fuhrer. He was the first archaeologist who read and translated in 1889/1891 and got published three inscriptions alleged to be fixed on Babari Masjid which was alleged to be built under command of Emperor Babur at the site of Sri Rãma-Janmasthãna.

  A. Fuhrer’s translations and introductory notes thereto read as follows:

  “Babar’s Masjid at Ayodhya was built in A.H. 930, or A. D. 1523, by Mir Khan, on the very spot where the old temple Janamasthanam of Ramchandra was standing. The following inscriptions are of interest. Inscription No.XL written in Arabic character over the mihrab of the masjid it gives twice the Kalimah:

  “There is no God but’ Allah, Muhammad is His Prophet”

  Inscription no. XLI is written in Persian poetry, the meter being Ramal, in six lines on the mimber, righthand side of the masjid.

  1. By order of Babar, the king of the world,

  2. This firmament-like, lofty,

  3. Strong building was erected.

  4. By the auspicious noble Mir Khan.

  5. May ever remain such a foundation,

  6. And such a king of the world.”

  Inscription No.XLII is written in Persian poetry, the metre being Ramal, in ten lines, above the entrance door of the masjid. A few characters of the second and whole third lines are completely defaced.

  1. In the name of God, the merciful, the clement.

  2. In the name of him who…; may God perpetually keep him in the world.

  3. ........................................................................

  4. Such a sovereign who is famous in the world, and in person of delight for the world.

  5. In his presence one of the grandees who is another king of Turkey and China.

  6. Laid this religious foundation in the auspicious Hijra 930.

  7. O God ! May always remain the crown, throne and life with the king.

  8. May Babar always pour the flowers of happiness; may remain successful.

  9. His counselor and minister who is the founder of this fort masjid.

  10. This poetry, giving the date and eulogy, was written by the lazy writer and poor servant Fath-allah-Ghori, composer.”

  The old temple of Ramachandra at Janamasthan must have been a very fine one, for many of its columns have been used by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar’s masjid. These are of strong, close-grained, dark- coloured or black stone, called by the natives Kasauti, “touch-stone slate,” and carved with different devices. They are from seven to eight feet long, square at the base,centre and capital, and round or octagonal intermediately.

  (The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur by A. Fuhrer Ph.D. p. 6768)

  ii. Third is Annette Susannah Beveridge was the second british scholar who in 1921 published texts of two Inscriptions purported to be of alleged Baburi Mosque which were supplied by the Deputy- Commissioner of Fyzabad alongwith English Translation and Transliteration thereof done by a Muslim. In her said book A.S. Beveridge before giving Text and Translation of the alleged two Inscriptions writes as follows:

  “Thanks to the kind response made by the Deputy-Commissioner of Fyzabad to my husband’s enquiry about two inscriptions mentioned by several

  Gazetteers as still existing on ‘Babur’s Mosque” in Oudh, I am able to quote copies of both.”

  After giving text and transliteration of an Inscription she gives Translation with her exaggerating value thereof as follows:

  “The translation and explanation of the above, manifestly made by a Musalman and as such having special value, are as follows:”

  “The inscription inside the Mosque is as follows:”

  After giving its Text and Transliteration she translates the alleged First Inscription as follows:

  1. By the command of the Emperor Babur whose justice is an edifice reaching up to very height of the heavens,

  2. The good-hearted Mir Baqi built this alighting-placeof angels;

  3.Bavad khair Baqi ! (May this goodness last for ever!) The year of building it was made clear likewise when I said Buvad khair Baqi (=935).”

  “The inscription outside the Mosque is as follows:”

  After giving its Text and Transliteration she translates the alleged Second Inscription as follows:

  “The explanation of the above is as follows:”

  “In the first couplet the poet praises God, in the second Muhammad, in the third Babur - there is a peculiar literary beauty in the use of the word lamakani in the 1st couplet. The author hints that the mosque is meant to be the abode of God, although he has no fixed abiding-place. In the first hemistich of the 3rd couplet the poet give
s Babur the appellation of qalandar, which means a perfect devotee, indifferent to all worldly pleasures.In the second hemistich he gives as the reason for his being so, that Babur became and was known all the world over as a qalandar, because having become Emperor of India and having thus reached the summit of worldly success, he had nothing to wish for on this earth.”

  The inscription is incomplete and the above is the plain interpretation which can be given to the couplets that are to hand. Attempts may be made to read further meaning into them but the language would not warrant it.”

  1651. The text and translation of these above two authorities are evidently distinct and different. Beveridge’s claim that the inscriptions were well existing on Babur’s mosque in terms as to be understood about the existence of inscriptions and not for the text since admittedly she had not seen the inscriptions and its text but has collected the same as a secondary evidence.