Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  “The same day, about afternoon prayers, I gave Baqi Sheghawel and his party leave to go home.”

  Thus, on 20th June, 1529 Baqi was given leave for going home at Tashkend. In the year 935 A.H. when he is credited with the construction of the mosque at Ayodhyā, he is seen chasing Bāyazīd and Biban all along and when he failed in his mission, he was sent home at Tashkend. In “The Babur-nama”; Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor.” Wheeler M. Thackston has thus translated this sentence:

  “That afternoon Baqi Shigavul and the Oudh army were dismissed.”

  Even if it is supposed that Baqi was not dismissed from service, it is significant to note that Baqi was never heard of again or mentioned in either the Babur-nama or Humayu-nama of Gulbadan Begum or any other text.

  There is no evidence to show that Baqi had ever visited Ayodhyā and, in fact he, like Babur, had no occasion or reason to visit Ayodhyā because the enemies Bāyazīd and Biban had already left Ayodhyā and were camping at distant places from Ayodhyā. Baqi had come to meet Babur with the Awadh army which had fought and suffered reverses at Lucknow. The Awadh army, which came along with him, was the army of Awadh province engaged in the expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban. So Babur, wrote that Baqi came with Awadh army. He did not mean that it was the army stationed at Ayodhyā which was never visited by Baqi at all.

  1.11 Babur’s assessment by Justice Agarwal is mis-represented by Aligarh Historians

  In para 1.11. Aligarh Historians have distorted the content of Justice Agarwal’s Judgment and imputed unjustified implicit communal bias against him in their following comments:

  “It is thus clear from the above that Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s line of reasoning is based on untenable assumptions. If according to him, Babur was not concerned with the construction of Babri Masjid, one wonders why the learned judge should hold forth at such length on his weaknesses of character as a believing Muslim. We are told by the Justice that Babur was “a completely Islamic person and (so?) lacked tolerance to the idol worshippers” (Para 1563);

  Now let us read para 1563 of Justice Agarwal’s Judgment:

  “1563. But if we consider what has been written in Babarnama by Babar in straight words without twisting or mincing them we find that like any other brave, courageous, tactful but brutal warrior, Babar also possess all these qualities. It is true that he was truly religious but it means that he was a complete Islamic person and lacked tolerance at least to the idol worshippers. He had no hitch in destroying idols worshipped by the inhabitants of India at that time and this we find very visibly from the words which are translated by Mrs. Beveridge from Babar’s manuscript of “Tuzuk-i-babri” as is evident from page 554-555 as under.”

  Justice Agarwal has written that like any other brave, courageous, tactful but brutal warrior Babur possessed all these qualities. It is a historical fact and no slur on Babur. His expression that Babur was truly religious but lacked tolerance at least to the idol worshippers is not a totally incorrect statement. Though I do not hold Babur to be a religious bigot, yet he was not an eclectic person like Akbar or Dara Shukoh. But Aligarh Historians’ addition of (so?) in the sentence clearly and sarcastically imputes communal bias to Justice Agarwal. From the Judgment of Justice Agarwal no such bias is discernible.

  Aligarh Historians have raised another objection against the following observation of Justice Agarwal:

  “However, the attempt by some of the authors to glorify or justify brutal massacre or action of some of the invaders or rulers even if they might have conquered the subcontinent, by providing justification, explanation etc. is not understandable for the reason that the things which are evident and straight cannot be clothed with a velvet cover and would not provide a shell to give it a different colour. It shall only mislead the public at large and in particular the students of history. In our view, the historical events must be placed straight without any distortion, without any addition of words and without providing any explanation or justification in the words of the author as the same would be nothing but a sheer conjecture and surmise. If we claim that Babar felt happy having seen the mound of human heads and still we tell somebody that he was a kind hearted religious man, had no love for violence it would be a blatant lie. This kind of attitude on the part of some of authors whose work has been placed before us for our consideration shows that these authors can go to the extent of glorification of any kind of misdeed which in the present day’s civilized society can never appreciate or swallow.” (para 1570)

  This observation is totally correct. The way some established historians have tried to justify unabashedly iconoclastic acts of Mahmud of Ghazni and Aurangzeb is a big blot on writing correct and unbiased history and all right-thinking persons must congratulate Justice Agarwal for making a factual and bold statement.

  The following observation in para 1611 of Justice Agarwal’s judgment is also a subject of scathing criticism by Aligarh Historians:

  “Another surprising aspect was that the Indian subcontinent was under the attack/invasion by outsiders for almost a thousand or more years in the past and had been continuously looted by them. Massive wealth continuously was driven off from the country.” (Para 1611)

  Aligarh Historians have reacted to this observation in the following words:

  “This sentence suggests a rather one-sided view of the history of medieval India. Was India before the British ever governed from outside of it, from a place to which wealth could be continuously transferred? Whoever looted, whether Sultans or Rajas, lived within India.” (Para 1.11)

  It is not correct to decree that whoever looted, whether Sultans or Rajas, lived within India. Mahmud of Ghazni, Nadir Shah of Persia and Ahmad Shah Abdali did not live within India. Every student of Indian history, (except the established historians!) is aware of the plunder of Indian wealth, particularly temple properties by Mahmud of Ghazni. It is well nigh impossible to calculate the colossal loss of Indian wealth caused by Mahmud. But the Indian properties looted by Nadir Shah at Delhi within a period of two months has been calculated by various authorities. Jadunath Sarkar, who edited ‘The Later Mughals’ written by William Irvine and added one chapter ‘The History of Nadir Shah’s Invasion’ has thus presented the total loss:

  “The total indemnity secured by Nadir Shah at Dihli was estimated by his Secretary at nearly 15 krores of Rupees in cash, beside a vast treasure in jewels, etc. According to Frazer the author of the book ‘Nadir Shah’ the grand total from these sources amounted to 70 krores. The break-up is as follows:

  In addition, Nadir Shah took away 300 elephants, 10,000 horses and 10,000 camels. Anandram, who was attached to the Indian Wazier, estimates cash on a lower side but jewels at 50 crores of rupees. The Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah had to surrender all his crown-jewels, including the famous diamond Kohinur and the Peacock Throne which had cost 2 crores of rupees, but in the inner vaults, which had been shut during many reigns a much larger amount was discovered.” (‘The Later Mughals’ , vol. II, p. 371).

  Jadunath Sarkar further informs that while the Emperor and nobles were being squeezed of their wealth, the general public, too, was subjected to cruel treatment. Contribution of half of their property was fixed for all the well-to-do citizens who had escaped the massacre and sack. Ānandarama in his biography ‘Tazkira’ informs that he was assessed five lakhs and an amount of rupees two crores was extorted from the residents of Delhi by this method. Hanway in his book ‘Travels’ states that the amount was to the tune of four crores. He further adds that no barbarities were left unpractised to exact the imposed amount.

  Nevertheless, in order to give no communal tinge to the episode, it is made clear that Nadir Shah looted both the Hindus and the Muslims with equal intensity of cruelty. He was not satisfied with the general massacre and plunder only. On 26th March, 1739 he got his younger son Mirza Nasrullah married to a Mughal Princess who was daughter of Dawar Bakhsh who was the grandson of Murad and great grandson of Shah Jahan. Dawar Bakhsh
’s mother was a daughter of Aurangzeb.

  It appears that these historians have not heard of Mahmud of Ghazni and Nadir Shah. Their plunder of Indian wealth was to the tune of millions and billions of rupees by bleeding the Indian people dry. For these historians they lived within India! Who is distorting history? These historians or Justice Agarwal? The irony is that Justice Agarwal has made no allegation on communal line. He has just written the background that despite the long economic drain, the East India Company had remarkable earnings in the Indian sub-continent. Let us read his judgment in para 1611:

  “1611. The East India Company after its initial few steps towards India, brought such a huge revenue to England that the people thereat were simply stunned and shocked to find out as to how this part of the Country could muster such a huge wealth. Another surprising aspect was that the Indian sub-continent was under the attack/invasion by outsiders for almost a thousand and more years in the past and had continuously been looted by them. Massive wealth continuously was driven off from the Country, yet when the merchant companies of Britishers in the form of East India Company visited India, in the first one and half decade, i.e. upto 1613, it showed remarkable earning to their shareholders and public at large in England.”

  Even such an innocuous statement has been a subject of unwarranted criticism and that too by distorting historical facts! It appears from the comments of these historians that the learned Judge, mandated to decide the case pending for 60 years, should have consulted them before writing each paragraph of the Judgment. Justice Agarwal stands ‘guilty’ for not toeing their line and writing a judgment based on incontrovertible facts! The sardonic approach of established historians is not going to help in writing correct Indian history.

  1.12 Baburi mosque built in Sharqi style by later masons.

  In para 1.12 Aligarh Historians have suggested that ‘the Babri Masjid is recognizably built in the Sharqi style of architecture (seen noticeably at Jaunpur) with the characteristic form given to the propylon.’ They have further added that ‘the domes though large are very heavy and this style became obsolete soon after; and well before Aurangzeb’s time.’ It is true that Baburi Masjid has been built in the Sharqi style of architecture, as the artisans came from the nearby town Jaunpur. However, it was not made during the Sharqi rule but during the reign of Aurangzeb. In Chapter VIII it has been illustrated how the so-called Baburi mosque resembles the Gyan Vapi mosque at Varanasi and Krishna-janma-sthan mosque at Mathura built at the behest of Aurangzeb after demolishing prominent temples. Therefore, Aligarh Historians’ argument carries little weight.

  1.13 to 1.17 Archaeological evidence supports the existence of a building beneath the mosque

  Paras 1.13 to 1.17 relate to the archaeological evidences which have been analysed in the second volume of this book. However, in para 1.16 Aligarh Historians, who have doubted the authenticity of A.S.I. report, have taken its help to rebut the argument that the mosque was built during Aurangzeb’s reign. They have quoted the following conclusion of the A.S.I.:

  “The C-14 date from the contemporary deposit of the foundation of the disputed structure [Babri Masjid] is 450 ± 110 BP (1500 ± 110 A.D.) which is quite consistent, as determined from the charcoal sample from trance 6 G.”

  Thus, from this A.S.I. report the lower limit comes to 1610 A.D. and according to our research this was done in 1660 A.D. There is a gap of 50 years only which can be said to be within reasonable limits of such calculation. A.S.I. had been entrusted with the primary job to find whether any structure stood beneath and in the vicinity of the disputed structure. The author of this book himself saw a large brick structure beneath the mound in the vicinity of the disputed structure which had not been covered for a considerable period and it is a conclusive proof that the mosque was not constructed on a virgin land, as was claimed earlier by the protagonists of the mosquetheory.

  1.18 That the inscriptions are fake is not the claim of the ‘Hindu’ parties but is an outcome of the intensive research of the author

  In para 1.18 Aligarh Historians have made the following comment which is far from truth:

  “The attack of the ‘Hindu’ parties on the genuineness of the Babri Masjid inscriptions never doubted until the present litigation, nor by any historian or epigraphists till the current day.”

  Here it is important to point out that ‘Hindu’ parties were handingloves with the votaries of the Sunni Waqf Board case (communalizing history is not my nature, so I am avoiding the word ‘Muslim’). Both the parties have been taking the words of fake inscriptions as gospel truth. According to historians of both sides it was Mir Baqi who built the mosque at the command of Babur. The thin difference between them is that one side claims that it was done after demolishing an existing temple, whereas the other party claims that the mosque was built on a vacant land. The demolition of the falsity in the context of the forged inscriptions is not the work of the ‘Hindu’ parties but the result of a thorough research and scrutiny made by a person who has the genuine love for writing correct history. It could have been placed before the Hon’ble High Court long before, had the Hindu parties accepted this line. Therefore, it had to wait until a party opposed to Hindu fundamentalists agreed to do so and an outstanding lawyer P.N. Mishra succinctly presented it before the Court.

  Once it has been accepted by the Court these Aligarh Historians are feeling the heat but have no facts to controvert the findings. They are now attacking Justice Agarwal’s judgment and I am sure they will unleash all weapons in their armoury against the present author after the publication of this book. Any rebuttal with relevant documents on these incontrovertible facts will be highly welcome and the author promises to examine them and make appropriate comments in the second volume of this book.

  Aligarh Historians have shown their biased interpretation of mediaeval Indian history by citing the example of the Qubbatul’s Islam mosque at Qutb-Delhi where a well known inscription proclaims the demolition of a temple with pride. Then they ask the question—“Why, then, should the builders of the Babri Masjid have been so silent and withdrawing about their act of temple demolition.” In this country a large number of temples were converted into mosques by iconoclast invaders and rulers. In addition, there are infinitesimal instances of proclaiming their demolitions as acts of glory. The whole world knows that a portion of Kāśī Viśvanātha temple was converted into a mosque, although a sizeable section of the original temple structure stands intact until the present day. However, there is not a single word to glorify the act in the form of any inscription inside the mosque.

  Note 1.1. Arguments of Aligarh Historians in Note 1.1. of their booklet are after-thoughts.

  According to these historians there was only one inscription near the pulpit and the two great epigraphists Ashraf Husain and Z.A. Desai were confused in declaring that there were two inscriptions near the pulpit. It has been shown above while commenting on Aligarh historians’ views in para 1.7 that there were two inscriptions near the pulpit; one was to the south and another to the north of the pulpit. There is no need for repeating them here.

  According to them another point is that Fuhrer’s copyist mixed the letters of the inscription together and therefore Fuhrer incorrectly read ‘Mir Khan’ instead of ‘Mir Baqi’. But now the question arises as to why did the two great epigraphists – Ashraf Husain and Z.A. Desai – who read this inscription, not explain as to how ‘Mir Khan’ was incorrectly read. They rather arbitrarily added (and) and (Baqi). Thus, the inscription before Ashraf/Desai had the reading Mir Khan which was changed to Mir Baqi without any basis. Similarly, why did these established historians not interpret it in such a way in the past as they have done it now in Note 1.1. when it has been conclusively proved that the inscriptions were fake and factitious. Where was their knowledge and wisdom lying all these years? Moreover, for two decades when there was an intense debate on Ayodhyā dispute and dozens of books and hundreds of articles were written, why did these historians keep
mum on this point? Some well versed Persian scholars like Shireen Moosvi, whom Aligarh Historians have called ‘an expert witness’ (p. 8), deposed in favour of the mosque before the Lucknow Bench, but she did not make this claim or give such interpretation before the Court. After it was proved conclusively that the inscriptions were fake in nature and the case of the mosque is lost because it was the solitary evidence to prove that the mosque was built by Baqi at the command of Babur, these historians are now exhibiting their knowledge of Persian language. It cannot be accepted by any standard of the principle of the appreciation of evidence.

  In para 1.1.2 they write: “It is curious that the E1 (A.P.) 1965’s editor missed the fact that both inscriptions, supposed to be distinct ones, occupied the same position in the mosque: the one read by Fuhrer, is said to be “on the mimbar, right-hand side of the masjid,” while Inscription No. 1 of the E9 (A.P.) 1965 is said to have been “built into the southern side of the pulpit of the mosque.” In other words, we have here the same mimbar or pulpit-inscription.”

  The fact of the matter is that Husain/Desai had the correct idea about the placement of two inscriptions in the north and south directions from the pulpit. Inscription no.1 translated by Desai was certainly on the southern side of the pulpit in the mosque but the inscription translated by Fuhrer was on the northern side from the pulpit. Fuhrer and other archaeologists indicated the direction from their own positions and therefore the right direction was the northern side. If Aligarh Historians have any doubt they may read the A.S.I. report ‘The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur” edited by its Director General Jas. Burgess. On page 34 it is clearly mentioned in the context of the Atala Masjid, Jaunpur:

  “As is universally the case, the mimbar or pulpit stands to the right or north side of the principal mihrab.”

  Thus, the universal practice of indicating the direction in relation to the pulpit is that the right side means north and not south as understood erroneously by Aligarh Historians. Thus, there were two inscriptions, one to the south and another to the north of the pulpit. In addition, the third one was above the main entrance. But all these three inscriptions were fixed belatedly and replaced frequently.