Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  1652. Then next comes the Civil Judge, Faizabad who has mentioned the text of the two inscriptions in his judgment dated 30.03.1946 in R.S. No. 29 of 1945. He has also discussed the same as under:

  “Lastly there are the two Inscriptions in the mosque which have been reproduced in my inspection notes. These are also referred to in the Gazettes and according to the date in the inscription on the pulpit it was built in 923 Hijri, while according to other it was in 935 A.H. corresponding with 1528 A.D. These inscriptions were the sheet-anchor of the plff’s case but I am of the opinion that they are inconclusive.”

  The 1st inscription contains three couplets in Persian and when translated runs as follows:

  “By the order of Shah Babar, whose justice went up to the skies (i.e. was well known), Amir (Noble) Mir Baqi, of lofty grandeour, built this resting place of angels in 923 Hijri.”

  The 2nd inscription is more elaborate and contains usual high flown language on eulogy of Babar & describe Mir Baqi of Isphahan as his adviser and the builder of the mosque. This inscription, no doubt, is the plff.’s case, because it does not say that it was by the order of Babar shah & it only refers to the reign of Babar but the 1st couplet in the 1st inscription near the pulpit, clearly supports the theory that Babar had ordered the building of the mosque as stated in the Gazettes and the settlement report.”1653. By this time, damage of inscription in 1934 and its restoration is admitted to the parties. Whether the restoration was accurate and if so on what basis is not known.

  1654. Then next come Dr. Z.A. Desai’s edited work in “Epigraphic Indica Arabic & Persian Supplement 1964-65” which gives another story with much difference. Paras 17, 18 and 19 of written argument:

  17. Dr. Z.A. Desai informs that Fuhrer’s reading does not appear to be free from mistakes. But he does not specify the mistakes committed by Fuhrer in his reading of the texts and translations thereof. From the scrutiny of Dr Desai’s translation it appears that Dr. Desai in 4th line has added “and” between ‘Mir’ and ‘Khan’ and ‘Baqi’ after ‘Khan’. So he has converted ‘Mir Khan’ into ‘Mir Khan Baqi’. And in the 3rd line he has added “of God” after ‘this lasting house’ to make it a mosque. He has neither given any rational explanation for his said conversion of ‘Mir Khan’ into ‘Mir Baqi’ nor he has exhibited as to how the Fuhrer’s translation is different from the original text.

  18. Dr. Z.A. Desai in his detailed discussion on all inscriptions of Babur’s regime writes an introduction that a rough draft of an article of his predecessor Maulivi M.Asuraf Husain who retired in 1953 was found amongst sundry papers in his office with a note that it might be published after revision by his successor. Consequently, he claims, that he has published these inscriptions with translation after extensive revision and editing,but nowhere has he mentioned that which portions of the reading of these inscriptions are his own revision and editing and on what ground these revisions have been made. About inscriptions at Ayodhya he writes that there are three inscriptions in the Babari Mosque out of which the two were completely destroyed by the Hindu rioters in 1934 A.D. However, he managed to secure an inkstampage of one of them from Sayyid Badru’l - Hasan of Fyzabad. He writes that the present inscription restored by the Muslims Community “is also slightly different from the original owing perhaps to the incompetence of restorers in deciphering it properly.” When Dr. Desai himself admits that the restored inscription is slightly different from the original, then his claim that the restored inscription fixed on Baburi mosque in or after 1934 is the dextrously rebuilt of the original one alleged to be fixed on since the days of Babur becomes meaningless and untrustworthy. In fact, none of the Inscriptions was fixed on the Disputed Structure which has all along been sacred place of the Hindus known as Sri Ramajanmasthan Temple.

  19. Dr. Desai informs that he has based his translation on the inscription of Fuhrer, although he says that Fuhrer must have been misinformed to affirm that; “few corrections of the second and the whole third line completely defaced”. Even if it is supposed that some words in the 2nd line and the whole third line are defaced, there is not much impact in the meaning of the text of the inscription. But here we do find that Dr. Desai has extensively changed the meaning of the translated passage. It is quite different from what Fuhrer had translated. Fuhrer had written that it is in ten lines, above the entrance door of the Masjid. He has made its translation in ten separate lines. Dr. Desai has considerably changed the meaning of the text without pinpointing how Fuhrer’s translation was wrong. Since beginning and the end of the text are the same and the inscription is said to be the same and there is no major variance in Fuhrer’s English translation from the Persian text, Dr. Desai’s translation appears to be arbitrary. He has changed the date of the inscription 930 A.H. (1523 A.D.) to 935A.H. Without assigning any reason. In Dr. Desai’s translation the name of Mir Baqi the second Asfaq appears where as in the original Persian text Mir Baqi’s name does not appear at all. Then Babar is called a Qalandar in this inscription which is not found in Fuhrer’s translation. After 4th line Dr. Desai does not follow the line system and at the end he mentions Fathu’llah Muhammad Ghori as the humble writer of this inscription. His name figures in the Fuhrer’s translation too. He goes on expanding how Babar was called Qalandar but he does not explain how the changes have taken place in the inscription which was not in the text read by Fuhrer.

  1655. Sri P.N. Mishra has also requested this Court to take judicial notice of the fact that almost in all the inscriptions, which have been recovered by ASI said to be of the period of Babar mentions his name with much honour and deference. This he has demonstrated from various inscriptions referred to in “Epigraphia Indica Arabic & Persian Supplement 1964-65” (Supra). He has summarized this part of argument in para 20 of written argument as under:

  “In the above mentioned Inscriptions the Emperor’s name Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi which has been recorded almost in all other available Inscriptions of his period, is missing from which it appears that the forgers of later days were not familiar with the correct name of the said Emperor.

  In the Inscription, dated A.H. 933 i.e. 1526-27 A.D. found on the wall of a well from Fatehpur Sikri being Plate No. XV(a) in its 1st line his name has been recorded as follows:

  “Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi”

  (Epigraphia Indica Arabic & Persian Supplement 1964 and 1965 at page-51)

  In the Inscription of A.H. 934 i.e. 1527-28 A.D. found on a mosque from Panipat being Plate No. XVI(b) in its 1st line his name has been recorded as follows:

  “Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi” (Ibid. p. 55)

  In the Inscription dated A.H. 934 i.e. 1527-28 A.D. found on a mosque from Rohatak being Plate No. XVI(a) in its 2nd line his name has been recorded as follows:

  “Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi” (Ibid. p. 567)

  In the Inscription dated A.H. 934 i.e. 1528 A.D. found on a mosque from Rohtak being Plate No. XVII(a) in its 1st line his name has been recorded as follows:

  “His Majesty Babur Badshah Ghazi” (Ibid.p. 57)

  In the Inscription of A.H. 935 i.e. 1528-29 A.D. found on a mosque from Palam(Delhi) being Plate No. XVIII(a) in its 1st and 2nd lines his name has been recorded as follows:

  “Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi” (Ibid. p. 62)

  In the Inscription of A.H. 935 i.e. 1528-29 A.D. found on a mosque from Pilakhna being Plate No. XVIII(c) in its 3rd line his name has been recorded as follows:

  “Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur Ghazi” (Ibid. p. 64)

  In the Inscription dated A.H. 936 i.e. 1529 A.D. found on a mosque from Maham being Plate No. XIX(a) in its 1st and 2nd lines his name has been recorded as follows:

  “Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Badshah Ghazi” (Ibid. p. 65)

  1656. Regarding transportation of inscription from one place to another and affixing the same to raise the claim with respect to building on the basis of certain facts, which actuall
y did not exist, he pointed out that this kind of practice has been noticed on various occasions. He sought to fortify it by referring to certain incidents mentioned in para 21 and 22 of his written argument:

  21. It is not uncommon for ruffians to fix old Inscriptions on newly built and/or converted mosques. ‘Epigraphia Indica Arabic & Persian Supplement 1964 and 1965’ at its pages 55 and 56 records that two Inscriptions dated 1934 fixed on two mosques at Rohtak did not belong to those mosques but have been fixed thereon. relevant extracts from said book read as follows:

  “Among the historical buildings, two mosques, viz., Masjid-i-Khurd in the Fort 2 and Rajputon-ki-Masjid, a new mosque in the city area, bear inscriptions of the time of Babar. The one on the Masjid-i-Khurd consists of three lines inscribed on a tablet measuring 53 by 23cm. Which is fixed over the central archway outside 3. The slab is badly damaged and considerable portion of the text has peeled off. It is, therefore, not possible to decipher it completely, but this much is certain that it refers to the construction of a mosque in the reign of ahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur by one Qadi Hammad. If the Tughluq inscription occurring on the outer archway is in situ, this epigraph may not belong to this mosque.” (Ibid. p. 56)

  “The other epigraph of Babur in Rohtak is from the Rajputon-ki-Masjid. Fixed over its central arch, the tablet, measuring 1.1 m. By 21 cm., does not belong to the mosque, but it was rather intended as the tombstone of Masnad-i-‘Ali Firuz Khan. It is inscribed with two lines of Persian which are slightly affected by the weathering of the stone. The text records A.H. 934 (1528 A.D.) as the date of the construction of the tomb of Masnad-i-Ali Firuz Khan, son of Masnad-i-Ali Ahmed Khan and grandson of Masnad- i-Ali Jamal Khan and refers itself to the reign of Babur. The style of writing is ordinary Naskh. I have read it as follows:

  TEXT

  Plate XVII(a)

  ...............................

  TRANSLATION

  (1) Completed was in the reign of His Majesty Babur Badshah Ghazi, may Allah perpetuate his kingdom and sovereignity, this noble edifice, (viz.) the tomb of His Excellency Masnad-i-Ali Firuz Khan, son of Masnadi-Ali Ahmad Khan, son of Masnad-i-Ali Jamal Khan, the deceased, all of them, on the 10th of the month of Rabiu’l-Akhar, year (A.H.) four and thirty and nine hundred (10th Rabi’II A.H. 934 = 3rd January 1528 A.D.). (Ibid. P. 57)

  22. In ‘Epigraphia Indica Arabic & Persian Supplement 1964 and 1965’ at its pages 19 and 20 S.A. Rahim reports that at Fathabad near Chanderi in Guna district of Madhya Pradesh, stands the partially ruined palace known as Kushk-Mahal and Inscription fixed thereon are not dated back to its construction but have been affixed thereon from time to time either by the visitors or by the Governors thereof. Relevant extracts from his said report read as follows:

  “It would not be, however, wholly correct to say that the Kushk-Mahal does not bear any inscription. There are about a score of places on the walls enclosing the staircases, referred to above, which bear short inscriptions. The rubbings of some of these were found in the bundles of old estampages which were transferred to our office, from the Office of the Government Epigraphist for India, Ootacamund, South India, who in his turn seems to have received them quite some time back from the Archaeological Department of the erstwhile Gwalior state. I prepared fresh rubbings of these records when I toured some places in Madhya Pradesh, including Chanderi, in November 1962. Of these, some are mere repetitions of the same text and as such have been excluded from this purview. The remaining four inscriptions are edited here for the first time.

  These inscriptions raise an important question, as to whether they are contemporary with the building or not. They do not appear to be so, because they are not inscribed on tablets set up on the walls, nor are they found incised on prominent places on the monument. A building of such magnificence would have had, if at all it was so planned, an inscription of proportionate prominence. This does not rule out the possibility, however, of the existence of an epigraph on the monument, for it is possible that it had one and may have disappeared since. Moreover, the texts of the inscriptions under study are also vague on this point, for they do not make any explicit reference to the palacebuilding or its construction. In view of these facts, it appears more likely that these records are either visitors’ etchings or some sort of mementos which the governors, the palace-guards or some other officials might have desired to leave on the stone.

  Fortunately, one of these four records is dated, and since the same penmanship is employed in the other three records, they can also be safely taken as having been inscribed at about the same time or at short intervals. Their language is Persian and style of writing cursive Naskh. The wear and tear of time has affected the stone, resulting into partial obliteration of some of the letters, particularly in the first inscription.

  The contents of these four epigraphs classify them into two groups: one, of the first inscription, and the other of the remaining three. The first refers itself to the governorship (amal) of Khan-i-A’zam Sharaf Khan Sultani and the superintendence (shahnagi) of one person whose name is not very legible; it seems to be Raja, (son of) Shams, (son of) Fath. The name of the writer which is also not clear appears to be Shiv Sing(?) Gulhar. This inscription is dated 1489-90. The three records of the other group refer, between themselves, to the governorship of Malik Mallu Sultani and superintendence of Sarkhail Shariqi Mulki and quote Gulhar Jit(?) Dev, as the scribe. They are undated and hence, it is difficult to state positively if they are earlier than the above dated inscription or not.” (Ibid. P. 19-20).

  1657. We may place on record that on this aspect of the matter the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Muslim parties in their rejoinder arguments could not give any substantial reply. They said that the matter involves historical facts. The inscriptions, their text, have been noticed in various history books. They have no other material to support the plea that the building in dispute was constructed by Babar in 1528 AD or at his command by his commander or his agent Mir Baki. They also submit that since this historical event has not been doubted for the last more than one and a half century, this Court may not be justified in recording a finding disturbing the historically admitted and believed fact as the Court is not expert in the matter of history and therefore, there should not be any venture on the part of the Court on this aspect.

  1658. The later part of the argument that for the last more than one and a half century, the documents, which are available to us, does not show that the Historians doubted about the building in dispute was constructed during the reign of Babar. But simultaneously this is also proved that all have proceeded mechanically and without properly scrutinizing the texts of the inscriptions, as reported from time to time. The things have been taken as granted. It is also true that the incident of destruction of the temple and construction of a mosque at the disputed place was first noticed by Tieffenthaler in the second half of 18th Century. By that time Aurungzebe’s rule was much nearer than Babar’s reign. The local belief in respect to recent event normally is more reliable then much older one. This belief was so strong that it continued thereafter for the last 50 years and around 1810 AD, when Dr. Buchanan visited Ayodhya he also found the same. It is he, who for the fist time sought to controvert the local belief by bringing into picture Babar as the person responsible for the demolition of the temple and construction of mosque at that site. Subsequent writers were mostly petty employees of East India Company i.e. Robert Montgommery Martin or the British Government i.e. H.H. Wilson etc.

  1659. During the reign of British Government, names of Aurangzebe and Babar, both were taken for Ayodhya, but tried to be a justified in respect to different buildings. The Indian Historians basically have followed what was written as per the observations of Buchanan. Nobody made any detailed investigation whatsoever. At least none tried to find out the actual events which took place and the correct historical facts.

  1660. Normally, this Court would be justified in following the opinion of Expert Historians particula
rly when it covers a sufficiently long time, but when directly a historical issue is raised before it and this Court, as a matter of necessity, has no option but to find out the correct historical events to the extent of accuracy as much as possible, we cannot proceed blindly to follow what has been written by earlier Historians ignoring all other aspects, some of which we have already discussed. In fact, it is for this reason that the biographical details of some of the alleged history writers, we have mentioned in the early part of this judgment. Had there been two views possible we would not have hesitated in following the view which has prevailed for such a long time but where we find, considering all the relevant material, that the view, which has prevailed for such a long time apparently unbelievable and unsubstantiable, followed by the concerned authors and Historians without a minute scientific investigation, we cannot shut our eyes to such glaring errors and record a finding for which we ourselves are not satisfied at all.

  1661. In fact the doubts created otherwise are so strong and duly fortified with relevant material that we have no hesitation in observing that they surpass the required test to become cogent evidence to prove a fact otherwise.

  Thus, Justice Agarwal has graciously accepted our interpretation of Ayodhyā history based on incontrovertible facts.

  (3) Unsubstantiated claim of 76 battles

  The propaganda of some Hindu organisations that there were 76 battles for the recovery of the Rāma-janma-bhūmi and 3,50,000 devotees sacrificed their lives in such battles is far from truth. They give the following details of 76 battlesÑ

  The fact of the matter is that most of these imagined battles are unsubstantiated events and there is no reference to many of these personalities in relation to any attempt to retrieve the Rāma-janma-bhūmi. Some of them are fictitious persons. The list shown above is rather misleading. Details of all important events of Ayodhyā, having religious connotations in the last thousand years, have been given in the beginning of this book.