Thus, even if there was a third inscription, which has been emphasised in the booklet, it was a fake one and hence no conclusion can be drawn on the basis of this inscription.
In this book it has been conclusively proved that the inscriptions were fake. They were first placed in the mosque around 1813 A.D. when Buchanan visited the mosque and wrote the report. He himself was not sure whether it contained one or two inscriptions or there was none. Had there been any inscription, fixed on the mosque, it must have been seen by Sub-Judge Hari Kishan on 24th December, 1885 and District Judge Col. F.E.A. Chamier on 18th March, 1886, when they formally inspected the shrine to decide the case. When the two Judges wrote that ‘Allah’ was superscribed at the entrance, they would have certainly mentioned the inscriptions and their contents, had they really existed. They were judicial officers and not travellers or surveyors. They carried out enquiries in the presence of both the parties, Hindus and Muslims. Hence, their reports are authentic and reliable ones. Even the plaintiff, Asghar Ali, made no claim in his various petitions that there existed any inscription inside the mosque which could have proved his case. This fact also strengthens the argument that there existed no inscription in the mosque.
1.5 Aligarh Historians take shelter in the Gazetteers of Bennet and Neville
In para 1.5 in support of the existence of two inscriptions, the Aligarh Historians derive strength from the following excerpt of the Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh edited by W.C. Bennet in 1877 A.D.:
“In two places in the Babri Mosque, the year in which it was built, 935 H. corresponding with 1528 A.D. is carved in stone along with inscriptions dedicated to the glory of this Emperor.” (vol. 1, pp. 6-7)
But Bennett, whose authority has been approvingly quoted as an official publication, has further written on the Ayodhyā shrine in the same Gazetteer:
“The Janamasthan and other temples—It is locally affirmed that at the Muhammadan conquest there were three important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees attached, at Ajodhya, which was then little other than a wilderness. These were the ‘Janamasthan’, the ‘Swargaddwar mandir’ also known as ‘Ram Darbar’, ‘Treta-ke-Thakur’.
On the first of these the Emperor Babar built the mosque, which still bears his name, A. D. 1528. On the second, Aurangzeb did the same, A.D. 1658 to 1707; and on the third, that sovereign or his predecessors built a mosque, according to the well known Muhammadan principle of enforcing their religion on all those whom they conquered.
The Janamasthan marks the place where Ram Chandar was born. The Swargaddwar is the gate through which he passed into paradise, possibly the spot where his body was burned. The Treta-ke-Thakur was famous as the place where Rama performed a great sacrifice, and which he commemorated by setting up there images of himself and Sita. (vol. 1, p. 6)”
Will the Aligarh Historians, who are taking the shelter of Bennett to prove the existence of two inscriptions in the mosque, accept his another testimony that Babur demolished the temple situated at the birthplace of Rāma and erected a mosque thereon? If not, then the authority which is discarded for one decision cannot be accepted for another conclusion. But here it is necessary to make it clear that in Bennett’s report, there is no specific mention of any inscription at the central entrance of the mosque.
So far, the established historians have been blaming the British authors of the gazetteers for creating a divide between the Hindus and Muslims for perpetuating their rule in the country. But suddenly they have become their heroes. The Aligarh Historians have written further in para 1.5:
“Bennett’s statement is confirmed in H.R. Neville’s Fyzabad District Gazetteer, with preface dated 1905 (volume reprinted, 1920). On page 179 we are told: ‘The Mosque has two inscriptions, one on the outside and the other on the pulpit and bear the date 935 Hijri. Of authenticity of the inscriptions there can be no doubt.”
It may be quite disquieting for the established historians if they are confronted with the following information contained in H.R. Neville’s Fyzabad Distict Gazetteer:
“It is locally affirmed that at the time of the Musalman conquest there were three important Hindu shrines at Ajodhya and little else. These were the Janamasthan temple, the Swargaddwar and the Treta-ka-Thakur, and each was successively made the object of attention of different Musalman rulers. The Janamasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ajodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar’s mosque. The materials of the old structure were largely employed, and many of the columns are in good preservation; they are of close-grained black stone, called by the natives kasauti, and carved with various devices.”
1.6 Aligarh Historians compromised with their earlier stand that Ayodhyā dispute was the creation of British officials to divide and rule the country
Aligarh Historians are so elated with the two British Gazetteers that in para 1.6 they write:
“Thus two official reports clearly say that the inscriptions on the entrance and the pulpit gave the date 935 Hijri (=1528A.D.) and that they belonged to the reign of Babur. One of them goes on to attest their undoubted authenticity.”
It is amazing that Aligarh Historians under the leadership of an erudite scholar Prof. Irfan Habib have compromised with their earlier stand that the dispute was the creation of the British Officials to follow the policy of ‘divide and rule’. Now they require the certificate from the British officials who proclaimed in the same Gazetteers that Babur demolished Rāma’s temple and constructed the mosque on his birthsite. If they accept the authenticity of British Officials’ testimony on the genuineness of the inscription, they will have to accept their verdict that the mosque was built on the birthsite of Rāma after razing a temple to the ground. The option is given to the Aligarh Historians to choose between the two options.
1.7 There were two inscriptions near the pulpit
In para 1.7 Aligarh Historians have vehemently argued that there was only one inscription near the pulpit inside the mosque. But they had never made any such argument before the Allahabad High Court. Justice Agarwal’s judgment is based on our well-documented pleadings. Ashraf Husain/Desai had clearly written:
“On the southern face of the pulpit was previously fixed a stone slab bearing a Persian inscription in verse. There was also another inscription in Persian verse built up into the right hand side wall of the pulpit.”
Thus, Ashraf Husain/Desai had no doubt about the existence of two inscriptions. By the right hand side of the pulpit, they meant northern side because they have already talked about an inscription in the southern side. Aligarh Historians have now tried to find many faults with the reading of Fuhrer; when the inscription does not exist. But when Asraf Husain/Desai read it, they found only one fault in the reading of Fuhrer, which they wrote in the 2nd footnote:
“It is very likely that the correct reading here is meaning, the edifice that is.”
Although they found no fault with the reading ‘Mir Khan’, they arbitrarily translated Mir Khan as Mir (and) Khan (Baqi). When Husain/Desai found no fault with Fuhrer’s reading, it is a futile exercise on the part of Aligarh Historians to find fault with Fuhrer’s text after 120 years of its publication and 45 years of the publication of Husain/Desai’s article. When the judgment has gone against them, these historians are engaged in the reading of a text which does not exist now.
1.8 If Sayyid Badrul Hasan was not a fictitious person, Aligarh Historians should have disclosed his identity
In para 1.8 Aligarh Historians’ ire against Justice Agarwal further soars without any justification. In para 1.8 they have written:
“1.8. Justice Agarwal resorts to the most fantastic reasoning for justifying his censures. Ashraf Husain says that though the pulpit inscription was destroyed in the riot of 1934, he was able to obtain an ‘inked rubbing’ or estampage from Mr Sayyid Badrul Hasan of Fyzabad. Mr Justice Agarwal declares his agreement with t
he opposing (‘Hindu’) party that no such person existed! No proof of such a claim is offered.”
Justice Agarwal, as a Judge, had to decide a number of issues in the case and he decided many issues in favour of the Muslims and many in favour of the Hindus, and therefore the redicule and derision heaped on him by the Aligarh Historians is unfair and untenable. If Mr. Sayyid Badrul Hasan was not a fictitious person, they should have given his introduction, a short biography and address. In fact, it should have been first done by Ashraf Husain/Desai. If Justice Agarwal’s decision is to be rebutted, Aligarh Historians should have come forward and produced details of Badrul Hasan. Their failure to do so lends credence to the fact that Badarul Hasan was a fictitious person. Here it is important to write that they will be benefitted by the following statement of Mark Twain, quoted in Rudyard Kipling’s “From Sea to Sea”:
“Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.” (p. 180)
1.9 The change of Isafahani to Asaf-i Sani by Husain/Desai turns Baqi into a miracle-performing Prime Minister
In para 1.9 Aligarh Historians have further shown their engrained bias by making the following comment:
“1.9. It is difficult to understand why Justice Agarwal is willing only to consider as preferable the reports about two inscriptions in the Mosque (one of these must be the faulty one substituted in the pulpit for the original destroyed in 1934, reported by Ashraf Husain), which were obtained by a court in 1946. One of these inscriptions was quoted as saying that “by the order of Shah Babar, Amir Mir Baki built the resting place of angles (sic) in 923 AH, i.e. 1516-17”— i.e. ten years before Babur’s victory at Panipat! The other inscription (presumably the entrance one) was so read as to tell us that “Mir Baki of Isphahan in 935 AH, i.e. 1528-29 AD” (sentence left incomplete in the judgment) (para 1481). Justice Agarwal insists on the reading “Isfahani” for the correct reading “Asaf-i sani”, as deciphered in the Epigraphia Indica, A.&P. Supp., 1965, and then by so doing he cannot find ‘Mir Baqi Isfahani’ or ‘Mir Baqi’, exactly with that name in Babur’s Memoirs (Paras 1477 and 1583). And this helps him to consider Mir Baqi as non-existent or unidentifiable (Para 1477) and the inscriptions as forgeries. It may be mentioned in clarification that ‘Mir’ here is a mere abbreviation of amir (noble) and that ‘Isfahani’ is a misreading of Asaf-i Sani, the Second Asaf (Grand Vizier of Soloman).” (pp. 10-11)
The grand Vizier of Solomon was such an accomplished miracle-man that he brought the throne of Queen Bilqis before his King Solomon in a twinkle of an eye.
It is no fault of Justice Agarwal that in a litigation between the Central Shia Waqf Board and Central Sunni Waqf Board (Regular Suit No. 29 of 1945) a learned Judge A. Ahsan after getting the two inscriptions physically inspected wrote:
“By the order of Shah Babur whose justice went up to the skies (i.e. was well-known). Amir (Noble) Mir Baqi, of lofty grandeur, built this resting place for angels in 923 Hijri.”
“The second inscription is more elaborate and contains in the usual high-flown language on the eulogy of Babur and describes Mr. Baqi of Isphahan as his advisor and the builder of the mosque.”
At the end, the learned Judge made the following comment:
“The inscription was read by Sheikh Karamuttolah (D.W.5) who climbed up the arch by a ladder & verses are written in Arabic character”.
Hijri 923 corresponds to 1516-17 A.D. If this date 923 A.H. was found to have been written in the existing inscription during the physical inspection of a competent witness, then neither any court nor Justice Agarwal can help the Aligarh Historians. Similarly, if ‘Isphahani’ in place of ‘Asaf-i Sani’ was read by a Persian scholar deputed by a competent court, then his testimony will carry greater weight than that of Husain/Desai who might have tampered the text to suit their sectarian approach. Our argument right from the beginning has been that since these inscriptions were fake in nature, they were bound to carry inaccuracies. Reading Isphahani is more appropriate than Asaf-i Sani. Mir Baqi, a petty commander, cannot be compared with Asaf, the grand vizier of King Soloman.
1.10 Mir Baqi of inscriptions is different from Baqi of Babur-nama
In para 1.10 another allegation against Justice Sudhir Agarwal is made in the following words:
“1.10. It is strange that Justice Agarwal did not accord due consideration to the following two entries in the Baburnama, which alone are sufficient to show that Baqi was a historical personage and actually Babur’s commandant of Awadh (Ayodhya). Being Babur’s subordinate, Babur naturally does not call him amir or mir, since it was not a part of his name, as in some other cases where the word Mir occurs in personal names referred to by Babur. (page-7)”
But again there is a chink in the armour of the Aligarh Historians.
In chapter VI of this book it has been conclusively shown that Mir Baqi of the inscription is a fictitious person, different from Baqi Tashkindi/Shaghawal of Babur-nama. There were more than 20 subordinates of Babur whose names have been shown in the Personal Index prepared by Beveridge and although all of them were junior to him, Babur added honorific titles such as Mir to their names invariably. Some names such as Mir Ahmad Beg, (p. 145), Mir Ali Beg Turk (p. 386), Mir Azu (p. 292), Mir Muhammadiyusuf (p. 284) are cited here to refute the misleading argument of Aligarh Historians. Many more such Mirs are quoted in chapter VI of this book from the Index Personal of Beveridge’s translation of ‘Baburnama’.
Aligarh Historians further claim that since in the Babur-nama it is mentioned that Baqi called on Babur with Awad army on 13th June, 1529 and leave was granted to him along with the Awad army on 20th June, 1529 it is confirmed that Mir Baqi was the governor of Ayodhyā and hence he built the mosque at Ayodhyā and the inscription is genuine. They have written a separate ‘Note 1.2’ and titled it as ‘Two references of Mir Baqi, Builder of the Baburi Masjid in Babur’s Memoirs’. This heading is misleading because nowhere in Babur-nama Baqi has been referred to as builder of Baburi Masjid. And the two references cited do not help them. In the first reference Baqi Tashkindi and not Mir Baqi is shown to have called on Babur along with the army of the Oudh province and in the second reference Baqi Shaghawal is either dismissed or sent home on leave.
They have identified Awad with Ayodhyā and even quoted Tulasidas’ Awadhpuri for Ayodhyā. But here also their arguments suffer from several insurmountable obstacles. Their assertion that Awad of ‘Babur-nama’ is identical with Ayodhyā is not correct because on page 521 Babur has given the details of revenues from various areas of his kingdom. In the 15th line he shows the revenue from “Aud and Bahraj (Baraich) as 1 crore 17 lakh one thousand and 369 Tankas.”
Here Aud certainly means the province of Aud and not the pilgrim town of Ayodhyā. Again on page 544 Babur writes that Humayun in accordance with his arrangements had placed Shaikh Bāyazīd (Farmuli) in Aude. Here also the meaning is that he was made Subedar of the Awadh province and not Ayodhyā only. It is clarified that he has used Aud in the sense of Ayodhyā town too at some places. But here we have to examine what Babur meant by Awad army.
In the army expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban in 1528 A.D. Chin-timur Sultan was the Commander of the army and Baqi was one of many Begs fighting under Chin-timur’s command. But on 27th May, 1529 we find that Babur received a letter from Baqi, which informed him about the loss of Lucknow to the enemy. Next day, i.e. on May 28, 1529 Babur sent Kuki with his troop for the purpose of reinforcing Baqi. Again on Sunday, i.e. 29th May, 1528 Babur dispatched Sultan Junaid Barlas, Khalifa’s son Hassan, Mulla Apak’s men and the brother of Momin Ataka to extend support to Baqi till Babur’s arrival. Thus, Baqi was the commander of the troops detailed for expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban and the troop under his command had suffered a military reverse at Lucknow and, thereafter, Babur had to send reinforcements. On 9th June 1529 when Babur got the news that though the Sultans and Begs had reached Dalmau, yet they had not crossed over the Ganga, he was naturally angered by the delay an
d sent detailed instructions to ‘get to grips with the adversary’. Next morning, he marched 11 kos and crossed over the Gomti. Then after two night halts he reached Dalmau. On 13th June, 1529, while Babur was camping there, Baqi Tashkindi arrived with his Awad troops and waited on him. Babur was so angry with Baqi that on 16th June, 1529 he dispatched Baqi Shaghawal, who is perceived as the Subedar of Awadh at Ayodhyā by many historians, with a few men of the interior to get information about the enemy. Baqi had some success against the enemy who had fled to the Pargana of Mahuba, but it did not satisfy Babur and on 20th June, 1529 he gave Baqi Shaghawal and his men leave to go home.
Because of some lapses on the part of Beveridge, the picture is not very clear to those who read only Beveridge’s translation. Though on page 742 of her book in Index I, she has written “leave given him for home 685,” yet on p. 658 in her translation, she has omitted ‘for home’. It is made clear in Erskine’s translation, which reads:
Ayodhya Revisited Page 84