AYODHYA - SUMMARY OF FACTS
R. K. Hariprasad, and Sonu
Nadira --------------------------------------------------
There is incontrovertible archaeological evidence which proves
that there did exist at the very spot of the Ram Janma Bhoomi a
magnificent temple from at least the 12 th Century A.D. onwards
which was destroyed to build a mosque like structure over it in
the 16 th Century A.D. There may have existed at this site one or
more temples of still greater antiquity, which were rebuilt or
renovated later thru out history. SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL
EVIDENCE : 1. The Babri structure had 14 pillars made of 'Kasauti'
black stone with Hindu images. Also inside the Babri compound was
a piece of a door jamb with images of 'Mukut-dhari Dwarpal' and 'Devakanyas'.
Iconographical evaluation of these pillars and the door jamb by
Dr. S. P. Gupta (former Director of Allahabad Museum) showed that
these belonged to a Hindu temple of the 11 th Century A.D. period
when the Garhwal Kings of Kanauj ruled Ayodhya. 2. Between 1975
and 1980 Prof. B. B. Lal (the then Director General of
Archaeological Survey of India) conducted an excavation behind the
Babri structure and even touching it. The excavation showed pillar
bases of burnt bricks (of the preexisting temple). The most
beautiful pottery dated around 8 th-9th Century B.C. was also
found. 3. On June 18 th 1992, when the ground near the Ram Janma
Bhoomi was being levelled, at a depth of 12 ft, several
beautifully carved buff sandstone objects were found. These
objects included images of Vaishnav divinities with one 'Chakrapurush'
sculpture also showing 'Parashuram' and 'Balram', an image of 'Shiv-Parvati'
(largely broken) and many carved stones such as corner were
terrecotta Hindu images of Kushan period (1 st to 3 rd Century
A.D.). These and other objects found during subsequent excavations
during July 1992, were found to be members of a Hindu temple
complex of about 11 th Century A.D. by a team of 8 eminent
archaeologists and historians. The team included Dr. Y. D. Sharma,
former Deputy Director General of Archaeological Survey of India,
and Prof. B. R. Grover, Director of Indian Council for Historical
Research. 4. The destruction of Babri structure on Dec. 6, 1992
revealed many archaeological remains which irrefutably prove that
Mir Baqi had incorporated parts of the preexisting temple in the
construction of the Babri mosque. The remains include a temple
bell, several intricate and detailed carvings, an image of Vishnu,
and several other Hindu images. The principal amongst the findings
however is a 2 ft wide by 4.5 ft long buff sandstone tablet 'SHILA
LEKH' bearing an inscription in 'Devanagari' script and Sanskrit
language. The 'Shila lekh' describes an ancient Ram Mandir
existing at Ram Janma Bhoomi at least since the 12 th Century A.D.
which was built by a Garhwal king Raja Govindachandra. The 4 th
line of this 'Shila lekh' specifically describes a temple of Lord
Vishnu (Hari) at the 'Janma Bhoomi Sthal'. The 15 th line
describes it as a massive, magnificent temple dominating the
landscape, and with steeples 'shikhar' adorned with gold 'Kalash'.
The 17 th line specific- ally mentions the location as Ayodhya and
the 'Saket Mandal', while the 19 th line mentions the 'Vaman
Avatar' and then mentions Ram as the destroyer of evil Ravan. NET,
IT WAS A TEMPLE! BRIEF HISTORY - 1528 THRU 1934 : As per
historians, since 1528 there have been at least 76 armed conflicts
in which over 300,000 Hindus sacrificed their lives to restore the
Ram Janma Bhoomi temple. Summary of these conflicts is as follows:
Babar's reign (1528-1530) - Hindus launched 4 attacks in which
100,000 people were killed. Humayun's reign (1530-1556) - Hindus
launched 10 separate initiatives to regain control. Akbar's reign
(1556-1605) - Hindus fought 20 battles. Aurungzeb's reign
(1658-1707)- Hindus fought 30 battles. One such battle was led by
Guru Gobind Singh in which Aurungzeb's army was defeated. Four
years later, Aurungzeb again attacked Ayodhya and regained control
after killing 10,000 Hindus. Sahdat Ali (1798-1814) - Hindus
fought 5 battles. Nasir-uddin Haidar (1814-1837) - Hindus fought 3
battles. Wajid Ali Shah (1847-1857) - Hindus fought 2 battles.
British Rule (1912-1934) - Hindus fought 2 armed conflicts. Hindus
never gave up on one of their holiest places. Hence the only
conflict free periods were when they were allowed to worship
inside the disputed structure. For example, in order to avoid
further conflict, during the latter part of his reign Akbar
allowed Hindus to build a platform known as 'Ram Chabutra', and to
install and worship images of Ram Parivar in the so called Babri
compound. This practice was later opposed by Aurungzeb which
resulted in most battles for the control of the shrine during his
reign. In 1751 A.D. Maratha Sardar Malhar Rao Holkar after
defeating the Pathans in the plains of Ganga and Yamuna, asked
Nawab Safderjang to hand over Ayodhya, Kashi and Prayag to the
Peshwas. In a letter dated February 23, 1756, Nanasaheb Peshwa
asked Sardar Scindia to annex Ayodhya and Kashi as the handover of
these holy places was already promised to Raghoba Dada by
Suja-uddoula. Later in 1789 A.D. Sardar MahadJi Scindia did annex
Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi, but due to his untimely demise was not
able to restore the temples of Ram Janma Bhoomi, Krishna Janma
Bhoomi and Kashi Vishweshwar back to Hindus. Joseph Tieffenthaler
(1710 - 1785), an Austrian Jesuit priest toured Oudh (Ayodhya)
region between 1766 and 1771 A.D. His account of Indian History
and geography was translated and published in French in 1786 A.D.
Tieffenthaler states 'The Emperor Aurungzeb destroyed the fortress
called Ramkot and built at the same place a Mohammedan temple with
3 domes. Others say that it has been built by Babar. One can see
14 columns made of black stone .. which bear carvings ...
Subsequently Aurungzeb, and some say Babar destroyed the (heathen)
place in order to prevent heathens from practicing their
ceremonies. HOWEVER THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO PRACTICE THEIR
RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES IN BOTH THE PLACES (inside the 3 domed Babri
structure and the compound), KNOWING THIS TO HAVE BEEN BIRTH PLACE
OF RAMA, by going around it 3 times and prostrating on
ground". According to the British records by Thornton (1854
A.D.) and Carnegie (1870 A.D.) till 1855 A.D. Hindus continued to
worship Ram in the 3 domed structure. During the First War of
Independence of 1857 the local Muslim leader Amir Ali persuaded
the Muslims to finally hand over the disputed place to Hindus and
jointly fight with the British. However the British won the War of
1857 and Amir Ali and Hindu leader Baba Ram Charan Das were
publicly hanged from a tree near the Ram Janma Bhoomi. The British
subsequently put a railing wall between Babri structure and the
courtyard and separated the Muslim worshipers who got the Babri
structure and Hindus had no choice but to do puja outside in the
courtyard. NET - HINDUS CONTINUED TO WORSHIP AT THE DISPUTED
STRUCTURE AND NEVER GAVE UP STRUGGLE TO REGAIN CONTROL OF RAM
JANMA BHOOMI SINCE 1528. RECENT HISTORY - 1934 THRU 1992 : In
1934, during the armed conflict between Hindus and Muslims the
Babri structure was damaged. Since 1936, the Babri structure was
an abandoned building and did not function as a community mosque
for local muslims. There is no evidence of any Mutawalli or Imam
or Muazzin or Khatib or Khadim having functioned as the mosque
management as such for the up keep and maintenance of the
'mosque'. A Waqf report dated September 16, 1938 showed 'Syed
Mohammad Zaki' as a Mutawalli. But later the District Waqf
Commissioner found that Mutawalli Zaki was a Shia, an opium addict
and most unsuited for the duties of a Mutawalli. Meanwhile the
Sunni Waqf Board claimed that Babri mosque was under its control.
A report dated December 10, 1949 by the Waqf inspector Mohammad
Ibrahim, to the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, states that 'due
to the fear of Hindus and Sikhs NO ONE OFFERED NAMAZ IN THE SAID
'MOSQUE'. On December 23, 1949 the image of 'Ramalalla' appeared
in the disputed structure and Hindus resumed prayers and worship
inside. On December 29, 1949 Additional Magistrate Markandey Singh
confiscated the building and handed over the posession to Priya
Dutta Ram as Receiver, who assumed charge of the same on January
5, 1950. After almost 12 years, on December 18, 1961 the Sunni
Waqf Board filed the law suit seeking the possession of the
disputed structure. This law suit was liable to be dismissed since
the then prevalent statute of limitation for property takeover of
6 years had already passed. SINCE DECEMBER 23, 1949 THERE HAVE
BEEN DAILY HINDU PRAYERS AND WORSHIP AT THE RAM JANMA BHOOMI
TEMPLE. NET, BABRI WAS NOT A FUNCTIONAL MOSQUE, AND IT HAS BEEN A
FUNCTIONAL TEMPLE FOR AT LEAST 42 YEARS.
-------------------------------------------------- "Mosques
built after destroying temples are the sign of slavery and Muslims
should hand over the same to Hindu Society" -Mahatma Gandhi
in 'Navjeevan' dated July 17, 1937. "Hindus profess
secularism because they are cowards and are afraid of Muslim
countries." - Syed Shahabuddin - Convenor of Babri Masjid
Coordination Committee (BMCC) in 'Sunday' dated March 20, 1983.
-------------------------------------------------- On April 7-8,
1984 the Dharma Sansad (religious congregation) took decision to
launch a movement for replacement of the existing mosque-turned
temple with a proper temple structure. OPTIONS OFFERED BY HINDU
LEADERSHIP : Prior to December 6, 1992 Hindus had offered
following options: Muslims should hand over the Babri structure as
a goodwill gesture to Hindus. The unused Babri mosque has no
religious significance to Muslims what so ever, (since as per the
administrative officials in Faizabad, OF THE 26 MOSQUES IN AYODHYA
REGION JUST HALF ARE IN USE FOR OFFERING NAMAZ and the rest are in
a bad shape), hence this is not an unreasonable request. If that
is not acceptable, then this nonfunctional mosque should be
relocated. Hundreds of mosques in other Islamic countries have
been relocated for minor reasons such as road expansion. So there
is ample precedent for it. Since the location of Ram Janma cannot
be changed the temple cannot be moved. If the superstructure is
important to the Muslims then it can be relocated to another site,
the way Abu Simbel temple in Egypt was moved out of the way of the
Aswan Dam. Hindus will bear all the relocation expenses. India has
demonstrated technology for this operation since recently 800 year
old Kudavelli Sangameshwara temple in Andhra Pradesh was taken
apart and rebuilt 600 meters from the original site. Some Shia
leaders had agreed to the latter plan. However to the prominent
Muslim leadership (BMCC and BMAC) all such proposals were futile.
The biggest concession they were willing to make was to allow a
Ram temple next to the Babri structure (meaning the sign of Muslim
conquest will continue to look down upon the temple, as an insult
to Hindus). The events of December 6, 1992 should be viewed in
light of these facts. You are encouraged to read more and find out
for yourself the truth behind the Ayodhya issue. References : 1.
Ram Janmabhoomi Vs Babri Masjid -by K. Elst, Voice of India Publ,
1990, 173pp 2. Ayodhya & After -by K. Elst, Voice of India
Publ, 1991, 419 pp 3. VHP's evidence on Ram Janmabhoomi, 6 th
January 1991 4. Vivek, Special Ayodhya issue 1993 5. Ram Janma
Bhoomi - New Archeological Evidence, by Y.D. Sharma et al
published by Historians' Forum, New Delhi, 1992 6. Ayodhya -
Dec.6, 1992, Destruction of Babri structure - Who? What? Why? A
Video (report) by Jain Studios, New Delhi. 7. Legal Aspects of RJB/
BM issue - by Justice Deoki Nandan. Was Babri Structure a Mosque?
"Islamic law on mosques" Fallacies in Muslim Board's
stand on Ayodhya case By B.P.Singhal Indian Express, April 24,
1993, New Delhi Edition. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board
has reportedly come up with the plea that "If the Government
constructs an alternative mosque in lieu of the Babri Masjid at
some other place the same under the rule of Shriat will not be a
mosque and no Muslim can participate in a trust created for this
purpose." According to the Board, "a place remains a
masjid no matter if that masjid had been demolished and idols
placed on that spot." There are two serious fallacies in the
stand of the Muslim Law Board. Firstly, the structure that was
demolished was not a mosque. At the time of destruction and for 43
years previously the place had been a functioning temple
recognised as such not merely by the Hindus who have been
worshipping there ever since December 23, 1949 but also
acknowledged by the law courts which not only permitted the
continuance of the pooja of Ram Lala but even restrained the
Muslims as well as the administration from interfering with the
pooja in any way whatsoever. The High Court rejected an appeal
against this injunction in 1955. All these facts are a part of
court records. It possibly cannot be a mosque just because the
BMAC began to call it the "Babri Masjid." Nor can it
become a mosque on the basis of frivolous case filed by the Sunni
Waqf Board laying claim to it. The case has gone on for 32 years
precisely because the Sunni Waqf Board has no case and if the case
was to be decided against the Muslim, the Congress was afraid that
it would seriously erode its vote-bank. Had the case the slightest
chance of going against the Hindus it would have been decided a
long time back -perhaps in one of the pre-election years. It also
does not and cannot become a mosque just because the Prime
Minister decided to call it a "mosque" in his television
speech of December 7, 1992. The truth at last triumphed and the
Government's very own white paper did not dare call it a
"mosque" on any of its 122 pages. All along it had been
termed either as a "disputed structure" or a
"shrine" or the "RJB-BM Complex" etc. etc.
Secondly, even if it was a mosque till December 22, 1949, it
ceased to be a mosque after the expiry of six years from the day
of the alleged adverse possesion specially after the dismissal of
the appeal by the High Court in 1955. (While limitation period for
individual rights is 12 years, the same for corporate bodies and
orgainizations like the Sunni Waqf Board is only six years). The
law has already been laid down on this very point as far back as
1938. In a case where a mosque was adversely possesed by Hindus
for a period of 12 years, the Muslims had filed a case as
beneficiaries of the Mosque (having a right to pray therein) for
its restoration. A Full Bench of the Lahore High Court (reported
in AIR 1938, Lahore 369, and Indian Cases 945) had laid down as
follows: "When a mosque is adversely possesed by non-Muslim,
that is to say Hindus, the Muslims lose all the right in the land
and the buliding, including the right to worship. The building
cannot maintain the character of a mosque, and no duty is cast
upon the persons in possesion thereof to maintain its original
character or to maintain it even as a buliding. All the rights of
the Muslims being thus extinguished, including the right to pray,
the persons in possesion commit no wrong, much less a continuing
wrong, by not permitting, or refusing the right of the Muslims to
pray therein. A suit instituted by a Muslim as a beneficiary for
the excercise of his right to pray at a mosque is suit for the
enforcement of an individual right and is not covered by the
provisions of Order-1, Rule-8 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure." This judgement of the Lahore High Court was
appealed against and the Privy Council, while confirming the
judgement, added: "There is no analogy between possesion in
law of a building dedicated as a place of prayer for Muslims and
the individual deities of the Hindus. The land and building of a
mosque is ordinary property and not a jurist person. A suit could
not be brought by or against a mosque in its name. this right of a
Muslim worshipper at a particular mosque may be regarder as an
individual right. It is not a sort of easement in gross, but an
element in the general right of a beneficiary to have the Waqf
property recovered by it proper custodians and applied to its
purpose. Such an individual may, if he sues in time procure the
ejectectment of a trespasser and have the property delivered to
the Muttawalli for the purpose of the Waqf. But if the title
conferred by the settler has come to an end by reason that for the
statutory period no one has sued to eject a person possessing
adversely to the Waqf, the rights of all the beneficiaries are
gone, the land or the place cannont be recovered by or for the
Muttawalli and the endowment, or its terms can no longer be
reenforced. The individual character of the right to go to a
mosque for worship matters nothing when the place is no longer a
Waqf and the right is no gorund for holding that a person born
long after the property has become irrecoverable can enforece the
ancient dedication, if any, or any part of it. The right of
worshippers at a mosque stand or fall with the character of the
property being Waqf and do not continue apart from their right to
have the property recovered for the Waqf and applied to its
purpose. As the law stands, notice of rights of individual
beneficieries does not modify the effect under the Limitation Act,
of posession adverse to Waqf." That then is the law which the
All India Muslim Personal Law Board should have known. The Board
should gracefully accpet the law. Likewise all those who swear by
the Rule of Law should accpet this position.
If
you enjoyed this article, please visit: http://www.hinduunity.org
|
|
