Ram & Ayodhya by Meenakshi Jain - A journey in history, antiquity, archaeology and law
One reads few books for entertainment, some to know about subjects we are interested in, few to understand the world, and some to understand others. There are few books which when read enable you to know more about oneself, one's identity and heritage without which we are lost. One such book I have read in recent times is 'Ram & Ayodhya' by Meenakshi Jain.
Yes, this work is about the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute and the temple. But the underlying theme is about what defines us, how we are a 'single culture', attributes which unite us as a civilization and how we as a people have reclaimed it repeatedly over millenniums. It also educates us about the machinations both external and internal that time and again attempted to destroy and separate us from our roots and the methods they employed.
Faith in Rama - Attribute of Bharatiya civilization
Meenakshi Jain's research shows how Bhagwan Ram and his story 'Ramayana' is not an epic which has encapsulated Bharatiyas for thousands of years but an ingrained attribute which defines our civilization. Ram has been part of this land and culture irrespective of the geography, language and local traditions. Among those who understood this and extolled the importance of Ram and Ramayana in Indian traditions in the last century include Rabindranath Tagore, Aurobindo, MK Gandhi, C Rajagopalachari and Congressmen like RC Dutt. RC Dutt's writing highlighting the importance of the epic in India life before presiding over the Lucknow session of Indian National Congress in 1899, succinctly encapsulates this emotion.
RC Dutt writes, "In India, the Ramayana is still a living tradition and a living faith. It forms the basis of the moral instruction of a nation and it is a part of the lives of two hundred millions of people...To know Indian epics is to understand the Indian people better". And where is Congress today?
Foreign observers like Edwin Arnold, Monier Williams, AA Macdonell and Maurice Winternitz too understood the importance of Ramayana as the identity of Bharat and not just a epic tale. Maurice Winternitz describes Ramayana as "...perhaps no other poem in the entire world literature has influenced the whole thinking and writing of the folk through all centuries...Since more than 2000 years the poem of Rama has remained alive in India and it continues to live in all strata and classes of the folk. High and low, princes and peasants, landlords and artisans, princesses and shepherdesses are well versed with the characters and stories of the great epic".
With the significance of Rama and Ramayana set in view of various observers and leaders, Meenakshi Jain's groundbreaking work explores the evolution of the influence of Rama and his story through literary, sculptural, archaeological and epigraphic evidences.
Rama lives across Bharat in all forms
By the time of Kautilya in 4th century BC, Ramayana was as prevalent across Bharat as it is today. His work Arthashashtra refers to Ramayana to drive the message of being morally upright unlike Ravana. Mahavibhasha, a commentary of Katyayaniputra's Jananaprasthana dated to 2 BCE, refers to Ramayana's size and content, Sita's abduction and rescue by Rama. It was so prevalent across Bharat, that in 251 CE, K'ang-seng-hui rendered the Jataka form of Ramayana into Chinese indicating its influence in the entire region. Our own Puranas like Vayu Purana, Vishnu Purana, Matsya Purana and Padma Purana all had accounts of Rama's story.
Ashvagosha in in Buddacharita, Gaudiya recension of Valmiki's Ramayana, Assamese Ramayana by Madhava Kandali, translation of Ramayana by great Manipuri scholar Angom Gopi, Ranganatha Ramayanam in Telugu in 13th century, story of Rama in Sangam literature, Kavirajamarga by Nripatunga and Rama Katah by Ponna in Kannada, Ravanavadha play in Gujarati, Ramavatara composed by Guru Gobind Singh in Punjabi, Ramayanamanjari by Kshemendra from Kashmir show the pan-Bharat presence and influence of Rama and Ramayana. For the sake of Dravidian chauvinists and Kannada 'oratagaras' it is pertinent to mention that Purananuru collection of Sangam Literature refers to the abudction of Sita and Ravana, how Sita dropped her ornaments, Ahananuru verses refers to the council by Rama on sea coast before the epic war and from Pampa Ramayana to Rama Katha of Narahari during Vijayanagara period all refer to Ramayana in complete devotion puncturing their separatist theories of the states being alien to the cultural heritage of Bharat. These evidences also show how cultural heritage of Bharat transcends the present boundaries of states and languages.
Antiquity and popularity of Rama through sculptural evidences further showcase the importance of Ramayana in our civilization. Earliest representation from Ramayana is a terracotta from Kausambi dated to 2 BCE. Sculpted panels found at Paunar in Maharashtra dating to the mid-fifth century are among the oldest pieces of archaeological evidence testifying to the iconographic representation of Rama. Among the oldest sculptural examples are found in the Jain temple of Parshvanatha at Kajuraho which dates to th mid-10th century. Similar evidence from Bihar, Bengal, Tripura, Assam, Orissa, MP reinstate the popularity of Rama. Stone panel in Nagarjunakonda in AP showing Rama Sita taking leave of Dasharatha dated to 3 CE, sculpted rocks at Badami in Karnataka depicting Hanuman's visit to Ashoka Vatika 7 CE, whole phrases and passages from Ramayana quoted in Pallava inscriptions dated to 7-8 CE, sculptures in Rama temples in Kerala show the ingrained popularity of Rama in Southern India. Similarly, sculptures in Dwarka in Gujarat, Ravananugrahamurti from Abaneri in Rajasthan dated to 8-9 CE, terracotta from Nachara Khera in Haryana showing scenes from Ramayana sculpted in Kushan style dated to 3 CE indicate the pan-Bharat presence of Ramayana in our temples and sculptures too.
It is the same with epigraphic evidences from all across Bharat. Meenakshi Jain takes the trouble to list out various epigraphical evidences that showcase the popularity of Rama 'cult' as she terms it. Of interest to me were the inscriptions of Damodaravarman of Anandagotra dated to 400 CE and Mamallapuram inscription of Narasimhavarman 1 at the Ganesha Temple written in Sanskrit and dated 630 CE. While the Damodaravarman inscription have versus from Valmiki Ramayana, Mamallapuram inscription give detailed account of Shiva pushing down Kailasa along with 10-headed Ravana to Paatala. Similarly in Karnataka, stone pillar inscription of Santivarman in Talagunda in Shivamogga dated to 455 CE refers to Bhagiratha and Kakutstha. Chalukyas of Badami revered Ramayana so much that it is evident in their inscriptions dated as early as 543 CE.
However, author Meenakshi Jain rightly says that all these evidences and the Hindu attachment to Rama, Ramayana and associated sacred spaces escaped the consideration and imagination of Left academics who are ideologically disdainful of faith.
Ayodhya through the ages
The antiquity of Ayodhya goes back to the days of Puranas. Ayodhya was founded by Manu in Satya Yuga and handed over it to Ikshvaku. The Puranas not only narrate stories but are also repository of our history. One can trace the genealogy of kings from Manu to Dasharatha and even later. Later Kosala went into the hands of the Nandas and later to the Mauryas. Later it was in the control of Sungas followed by Dattas, Kushans and the Guptas. It was under the Guptas that Ayodhya regained its glory as a centre of vedic learning. First Islamic invasion under Mahmud Ghaznavi took place between 1000 CE and 1026 CE when the Pratiharas were ruling the region.
Fathom this. The kind of destruction Islamic invaders caused was such that during the next few centuries and relentless attacks of the Muslim armies, Banaras which was first attacked in 1033 CE was completely obliterated without an iota of its identity as mentioned in the Puranic mahatmyas. Krittivasa, Omkara, Mahadeva, Madhameshwara, Vishveshwara, Bindu Madhava and Kaal Bhairava temples were all razed by Muslims. In many cases mosques were built in their place and the sites were closed to Hindus. Kashi Vishwanatha temple was destroyed no less than 3 times during these centuries. British writers of 19th century state that all the 360 temples in Ayodhya were destroyed by Muslims.
Despite attacks by Islamic invaders, Hindu kings and kingdoms fought back every time and reclaimed their sacred spaces. Every attempt was made to rebuild the temples and this has been proved by archaeological evidences from temples built after they were brought down by the Islamic hordes. Of particular interest are the efforts of the Gahadavalas who stood forth as the champions of Hinduism and the same dynasty which built the Ram Temple at Ayodhya which was destroyed by Babur. Narayana Bhatta reconstructed the Kashi Vishwanatha temple before it was destroyed again by Aurangzeb. Later, the Marathas contributed immensely to reconstruct temple in Kashi and Ayodhya. Role of Balaji Baji Rao in these endeavours is heartwarming. He had made very attempt to reclaim Banaras, Ayodhya and Prayag from Shuja-ud-daulah, the then Nawab of Awadh. Later it was Sawai Jai Singh of Jaipur who made every attempt to reclaim the Hindu temples and spaces despite being under the suzrenity of the Mughals. He used his influence among the Mughal rulers to revive Hindu glory along with Marathas.
History of Conflict
Austrian Jesuit Joseph Tieffenthaler who toured Awadh between 1766 and 1771 in his accounts mentioned the Hindu dedication to the Janmasthan and mentions that a temple was destroyed at Rama's birthplace by a Mughal ruler. He also saw Hindu worshiping a cradle in the premises and also recounts the large Hindu gatherings during Rama Navami. More importantly, he never wrote anything about Muslims offering namaaz there.
A record of the litigation at Ayodhya in the book gives a chronological history of court cases and proceedings on the Ramjanmabhumi case since 1858. One fact is that though the Hindus had been worshiping at the Janmasthan continuously without a break, there are hardly any records of Muslims offering namaaz at the Babri masjid. There is no continuity even in the appointments of Khatib (caretakers of Mosques) since the mosque was built. Records show that Namaaz was not offered till almost 1935 only after which weekly Friday Namaaz was being offered at the mosque. Even this was discontinued after a few years.
Interestingly on 30th November 1858, it was a Nihang Sikh a resident of Punjab who constructed a Chabutra near the Mihrab and Mimber a placed the picture of Ram's idol and wrote name of 'Ram' on the whole of Masjib with charcoal. A complaint was filed by Muhammad Asghar, the Khattib with the British administration which is the oldest record of the litigation at the site. Ever more importantly, Muhammad Asghar in his complaint declared that the outer space of the Babri Masjid was lying desolate meaning that it was never used by the Muslims. Hindus were praying here for hundreds of years. Allahabad HC has regarded this record as irrefutable proof that Hindus prayed in the Masjid and the inner courtyard and this would have been impossible had the entire premises been in the possession of Muslims.
Records of riots in in Ayodhya 1912 and 1934 throw more light on the nature of the use of the Janmasthan. In 1886 the government allowed the Hindus to worship over the Chabutra which angered the Muslims. In 1910 they began cow slaughter as an act of revenge and riots broke out. The record of riots indicate the nature of the use of the Masjid where Hindus continued to use the premises for pooja activities. In 1934, after news of cow slaughter by Muslims came, a large crowd of Bairagis attacked the Babri Masjid and attempted to destroy it. Substantial damage was done to the structure but the district administration ordered that the cost of repair would be compensated by the government. It was only after this incident that records show that Muslims began to use the premises regularly, only to keep a check on Hindus.
The most important day in the history of the litigation after the destruction of the temple by Babur in 1528 in my opinion is 23rd December 1949 when a group of Hindus had entered the Babri Masjid the previous night and places idol of Sri Rama in the mosque. This changed the course of litigation and future legal battles. But this development also brought out the anti-Hindu face of Nehru. He was more concerned about its repercussions in relations with Pakistan and situation in Kashmir than the sentiments of Hindus. In his letter to then UP CM GB Pant, he wrote developments at Ayodhya could have repercussions on all-India affairs and especially Kashmir. In another letter to KG Mashruwala, Nehru writes "If we on our side behaved properly it would be far easier to deal with Pakistan. Today many Congressmen have become communal insofar Pakistan is concerned and this reacts on their behavior towards Muslims in India". What was Nehru thinking by undermining every Hindu sentiment by asking them to swallow everything that they suffered while pampering the Muslims throughout.
Machinations of the Left Historians to discredit Ram Janmabhoomi
The Babri Masjid debate was vitiated by a cabal of Left Historians mostly from the JNU, Delhi University and Aligarh Muslim University. Their agenda was to scuttle any settlement in favor of Hindus and instead prove to be a thorn in the process. They were driven more by their agenda of hate against the Hindu claims rather than go by available facts and evidences. Many historians were card-holding members of the CPI and CPM but in court they were identified as 'independent historians'. Their interventions were driven by their own imaginations and references to their own works which was a result of more imagination rather than archaeological and historical evidences.
Meenakshi Jain writes, "While in some cases, the stand on Ayodhya seems influenced by the general Marxist devaluation of the role of religion in human affairs, in other instances the disdain for Hindu beliefs appeared a cover for a sectarian agenda". The proof of this assertion becomes glaring as one goes through their machinations in and outside the court. In most cases they tarnished image of anyone and everyone who opposed their views and in others they made a fool of themselves.
As archaeological evidences from the 1970s kept coming to support the claim of a underlying temple, the Left academics kept shifting their position. First they said there was no structure underneath the Babri Masjid and it was built on vacant land. Later they said it could have been a older masjid itself. When temple artifacts were found they claimed it could well be of a Buddhist structure or even a non-religious structure such as a house!
But when excavations after the demolition confirmed the existence of a Vishnu temple in form of a twenty-line inscription, the Left cabal tried to debunk it by saying that the ASI itself must have surreptitiously brought it from elsewhere and placed it before excavations. Mind you that these excavations were done under supervision of all parties including the Muslims parties and the Left historians themselves. No doubt later the court exposed them and made them look like juveniles who toys were snatched away from them.
They were so confused that they could not make up their minds whether they even began blaming the British for 'forging' evidences to favor Hindus. Yes, this was true. When irrefutable evidences were provided through artifacts, Left historians claimed that the British favored the Hindu claim as they wanted to drive a wedge between the two communities. The same historians refused to even consider evidences from Muslims sources like Babar Nama and said it could be a hyperbole by the Muslim kings to showcase their greatness! This confusion led them to make incoherent claims in court which actually helped the Hindu cause rather than oppose it with facts.
Attempts were made to resolve the issue amicably with the government as the mediator. Both sides VHP and Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) would provide evidences and a suitable decision would be taken by all. On 10th January 1991 it was decided that the evidence would be divided under four heads - history, archaeology, revenue records and law and would be examined by experts nominated by both parties. Both the VHP side and the BMAC side nominated 10 experts who were to meet on 24th January 1991. But suddenly just before the date the BMAC historians asked for six weeks time when they very well knew the dates in advance. The same historians had just a week ago had claimed that there was absolutely no proof of a pre-existing temple at Babri site and 42 academics had signed a statement in this regard. Worse still, on the day of the meeting i.e 24th January 1991, the Left historians nominated by the BMAC did not show up.
The most poisonous role was played by Professor Irfan Habib. As more archaeological evidences came up to show that a Vishnu Temple existed which was destroyed by Babur's armies, he started to cast aspersions on archaeologists like BB Lal and even made personal accusations. He started the campaign against the Gahadvala inscription which was the clinching evidence by claiming that it was a plant from some private collection. He had raised objection to even the transcript of the inscription where Muslim invaders were referred to as Paschayats. Prof Habib claimed that the word Paschayats did not refer to Muslims but could be a reference to the Rashtrakutas of Kanauj or Dadaun.
Here this game was deep and less known then. Left historians like him and Romila Thapar have always attempted to tone down the Islamic invasions and tried to paint a different picture by attributing other reasons for the destruction of temples and killing of Hindus. In few cases they attributed the invasion to local rivalry or as a fight between two sects withing Hindus. In other cases they claimed that the Islamic kings had no religious intentions but were only interested in treasures like any other kings. In the case of Ayodhya Ram Mandir too, Habib tried the same formula.
 |
| Allahabad High Court's observations on BMAC historian D Mandal |
The Left historians were so unethical that they wrote entire books trying to counter the archaeological evidences without even visiting the site or investigating themselves. D Mandal another pro-Babri archaeologist wrote a book Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition where he claimed that the pillar bases found by BB Lal were from different structures and were not load bearing. But during examination by Allahabad High Court, Mandal confessed that his book was based on the photographs taken by Prof. BB Lal near the Babri Mosque! The court castigated him refused to consider him an expert. It said that his entire opinion was short of the requirement under Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1872 to qualify as an Expert.
Another 'expert' pro-Babri historian Shireen Ratnagar had justified Mandal's claims by writing a foreword to his book. The Court observed that Ratnagar tried to give justification to a report or comments of a person, who himself had not gone into the field archaeology. Ratnagar also admitted in court that "I wrote my critique on the basis of the said sole photograph by BB Lal". This is the credibility of these 'expert' historians.
When further evidences of temple remnants like amalaka, chhadya jala, etc were unearthed during excavations after the demolition in 1992, the Left historians who had no real arguments now started to allege the VHP and ASI had acted in collusion to 'plant' the evidences. Their desperation was for all to see when they termed the ASI excavations as 'Karsevak Archaeology'.
When the clinching evidence of 'Gahadavala inscription' was found after demolition of the Babri Masjid, the Left historian complained about no photograph of the inscription 'in situ'. It was well known that the inscription fell from the roof of the dome and hence no in situ photograph was possible. Then D Mandal claimed that the inscription was found intact but developed a crack later during transit insinuating that the one shown in public was a different inscription probably sourced from a museum or a private collection. The fact was that D Mandal was not present when the Masjid was demolished on 6th Dec, 1992. He even claimed that the temple referred to in the inscription was not the temple that was present at the site but somewhere else!!! He offered absolutely no explanation for this reasoning. They were intellectually so deprived that some pro-Babri historians claimed that the inscription could have been forged.
Another historian ironically named Sita Ram Roy said that the inscription was from 18th century given the nature of the script used, use of words Ayodhya, Vishnu Hari, etc. This claim was debunked by several historians including KV Ramesh who also deposed before the HC and gave evidence of the inscription. Meenakshi Jain writes, "Shockingly, Sita Ram Roy admitted in court that at the time of writing the article he had not seen full photograph, estampage of the inscription or its dechipherment yet he had no hesitation in pontificating on a matter of such importance in the Ayodhya dispute."
Prof Habib continued his tirade without offering concrete proof and resorted to accusations. On the inscription again he simply tried to discredit by saying that 'all the archaeological evidence adduced by the VHP is heavily tained'. Later he claimed that the Gahadavala inscription was actually the Fuhrer's inscription at the Lucknow museum and the original inscription here was replaced by unrelated blocks. He then claimed that the great King Govindachandra mentioned in the inscription was a weak princeling Govindachandra without providing a shred of evidence for the claim.
The pro-Babri historians who had no educated counters to the ASI report of 2003, tried new ways to disparage the archaeological evidences which were right in front of the eyes of all the parties. They said that the use of lime, mortar and surkhi indicates that the structure beneath was a Islamic structure as it was more prevalent in this kind of architecture. Remember that in between the same historians had claimed that the structure beneath could be a Buddhist or Jaina structure. However, examples of the use of surkhi were available from the Vikramashila excavations and also at Gollathagudi temple in AP built in 12th CE. Lime mortar has been used at Kaushambi and dated from 600 BCE to 100 CE. Lime plaster was found in Gujarat from pre-Gupta periods too. Hence, this argument of pro-Babri historians/archaeologists also fell flat.
The amount of lies and unverified insinuations Prof Habib and his gang have done over Ram Janmabhumi deserves no less than capital punishment for lying under oath and bringing further enmity between communities.
Archaeological evidence for Ram Temple at Janmabhoomi
Former Director of Allahabad Museum Dr SP Gupta too shed light on the nature of the structure below the Masjid given the carvings of the pillars, the floor of the underlying structure and their bases. He also ruled out the possibility of a Buddhist or Jain structure at the site given the absence of any image of Buddha or a Tirthankara.
The response of the Left historians to this was hilarious. In a joint statement Romila Thapar, S Gopal and KN Panikkar claimed that the pillars did not mean that the structure was a Hindu temple as such carvings were found on residential structures. They also claimed that the pillars could have been brought from elsewhere and used as load bearing pillars while constructing the Masjid. In both the arguments they made a fool of themselves as any layman could say that the underlying structure could not be a residential structure given the other temple artifacts found at the site by BB Lal which confirm a temple. Secondly, if the pillars were brought from outside how could anyone transport pillar bases too which had more carvings?
BB Lal's findings was endorsed by Iravatham Mahadevan who also ruled out the possibility of any Buddhist or Jain foundation and said that 'it would not be surprising if a 11th century temple had actually stood on a still earlier temple as is the case in Dwarka and Mathura.'
The booklet Ram Janmabhumi Ayodhya: New Archaeological Discoveries published in 1992 contained the pictures of pillar bases for the first time. The publication of these photographs were concrete evidence of a temple. However the Left historians caught again on teh wrong foot changed tactics to counter the photographic evidence. Some claimed that the pillar bases were walls and few claimed it to be from a 'ordinary pillared' structure. BMAC historians later even claimed that these pillars were not load bearing ones but only decorative pieces.
Even this was debunked by Professor KV Raman in 1992 after the demolition of the Masjid. He categorically said that the new archaeological discoveries show that a "...very impressive sculptural panel showing Dashavatars and a terracotta figurine of the Varaha incarnation of Vishnu had been unearthed from the site. It clearly indicated the existence of a Vaishnava temple or a Rama temple as Rama is an incarnation of Vhishnu".
 |
.
Excavations after the demolitions of Babri Masjid unearthed irrefutable artefacts and remnants of a pre-existing temple. Dr. Rakesh Tiwari Director UP State Archaeology prepared a list of 263 artifacts relating to a Hindu temple which were found during leveling. Apart from the amalaka, chhadya jala, etc a large piece of stone decorated with floral motifs fixed below the southern dome on the eastern wall structure. 'Shri' written in Nagari script of the 11-12th century CE on a black stone pillar fixed on the left-hand outer wall of the main entrance of the Babri Masjid. A huge brick wall of several courses of ancient bricks running north-south was discovered by Dr KM Srivatsa, former Director of ASI and Dr SP Gupta. They also found marks of the destruction of the huge wall as brick debris and large pits were located. During a seminar in October 1992, a group of 45 historians and archaeologists examined the sculptures, site plans and sections and attested the ASI findings.
The clinching evidence was the Gahadavala Inscription on a stone slab approx 5 feet by 2.25 feet found after the Masjid was demolished. It recorded that a beautiful temple of Vishnu Hari built with heaps of stone and beautified with a golden spire, unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings was constructed in the temple city of Ayodhya situated in Saketa mandala. It described God Vishnu as destroying King Bali and the ten-headed personage Dasanana (Ravana). Epigraphist KV Ramesh had sated that this inscription clearly referred to the great Govindachandra in whose time Megasuta built a lofty stone temple for the God Vishnu Hari.
A subjoined stone inscription engraved on rectangular slab had twenty lines mentioning King Gocindachandra of the Gahadavala Dynasty who ruled over a vast empire from CE 1114 to 1155. The versus praise Vishnu, his avataras, history of the dynasty, past great kings, military might of the dynasty, great works undertaken by them and also the way the Islamic invaders from the west were annihilated. Here I would urge one to read the history of the Gahadavalas who fought the turks, defeated the early Muslim armies, and also initiated a major building programme at Ayodhya. Among the temples they build were the Chandra Hari, Vishnu Hari and Dharma Hari temples.
The ASI excavations in 2003 after Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey of the area by TOjo-Vikas International Pvt Lt. The ASI report was submitted to the court on 22nd September 2003 along with the techniques adopted, entire process of excavation, recording of structures and which were antiquities documented by still and videos cameras. The ASI excavated a total of 90 trenches. The excavations revealed the artifacts from first millennium BCE, KUshan period, Gupta period, Rajput period, medieval period and the pre-Babri Masjid periods. A massive structure which was found below the Masjid had a minimum dimension of 50X30 meters in north-south and east-west directions with nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat foundations, below concrete blocks topped by sandstone blocks.
The ASI excavations revealed that the Ram Chabutra had not less that five different structural phases and its base was no less than 2.67 meters deep. The massive structure below the Babri Masjid included a 50m long wall and seventeen rows of pillar bases. The excavations found many figurines, stone architectural fragments like amalaka, pillar with ghatapallava base with dwarf beings as weight-bearers, kirtimukhas and divine couple as well as miscellaneous objects which further confirmed the non-Muslim nature of the structure beneath the Masjid. This structure was different from residential structures and provided sufficient evidence of a construction of a temple. It was this massive structure (Vishnu Hari temple) wich was demolished and the the Babri Masjid was built.
Hindus win the legal battle
In my opinion, the victory in court is not a mere victory for the Ram Temple at Ayodhya but a victory of our civilizational values and our hoary past which we usually refer to. A study of the legal battle and the verdict is a lesson in history for every Bharatiya. Am convinced that even future Hindu battles will have to take the legal route as we have irrefutable evidences which none can disparage.
Coming to the Ramjanmabhumi case, given the archaeological evidences and historical proofs the Court had everything at its disposal to give its verdict. The court also took cognizance of the shifting stance of the pro-Babri archaeologists and historians. The court infact exposed the pre-conceived bias of these historians when it stated 'the mind of the experts instead of working for the assistance of the court in finding a truth, tried to create a background alibi so that later on the same may be utilized to attack the very findings. This was more in particular to their objections to the pillar bases found at the site by ASI.
The pro-Babri archaeologists had even claimed that the 50 pillar bases were 'created' by the ASI to further evidence for the temple. This when day-to-day register were maintained along wiith site note book, 25 video cassettes as well as photographs which were also signed and stored in strong room in presence of all parties. Moreover, the credentials of these pro-Babri historians and BMAC nominated archaeologists itself was in question given their lack of experience and work on the subject in matter. Fathom the following admissions of these so-called historians in court:
Suvira Jaiswal, former professor of JNU - "I have not read Babarnama. I have read nothing about the Babri Mosque. I cannot say when Babri mosque came into existence. I cannot say as to what was there at the site before the existence of Babri mosque." The Court expressed surprise that, "considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements and the material got published by the persons claiming to tbe Expert historian, Archaeologist, etc without making any proper investigation, research or study in the subject."
SC Mishra, Satyawati College, Delhi University - "I do not remember the name of any book right now." (On book read on Babar and Babri Masjid)
Sushil Srivastava - "Neither I can read nor write Persian, I can also not read Arabic nor write it. I have no sound knowledge of Sanskrit also." He then submitted that "Except my book 'The Disputed Mosque, A Historical Inquiry, there is no other research of mine nor published about medieval history". He was one of those pro-Babri historians who had also cast aspersions on the Gahadavala inscriptions along with refuting the historical evidences from Islamic and British sources.
Suraj Bhan, Retired Professor in Ancient Indian Archaeology Dept, Kurukshetra Univ - "I did not try to know what is written in Ramayana by Tulsi Das... I cannot tell when Indus valley civilization was discovered. I did not read what features a mosque may not have. It is true that I had formed my opinion prior to submission of ASI's report."
D Mandal, Rtd Professor of Ancient History and Archaeology, Allahabad Univ - He is not a Ph. D. but many have been awarded PH. D's under his guidance! "I never visited Ayodhya" He further admitted that "I have acquired knowledge of archaeology. I did not get any degree or diploma in archaeology." The Court observed:
Shireen Ratnagar, Retired Professor, JNU - She is a Ph.D in Archaeology. "It is correct that in India I have not done any digging and excavation on my own. I am not absolutely certain of the area and extent of the disputed site at Ayodhya. I do not know in which part of Ayodhya the disputed site is located."
 |
| High Court's observation of BMAC historians allegations that the excavation site was tampered with by the ASI |
The court also took into cognizance land revenue records of the disputed site. The first regular settlement report of Kot Ram Chandra appended by 2 maps was the most comprehensive document relating to the Janmasthan complex comprising Rama Janmabhumi in 1861. The 1893 settlement report clearly mentioned the sub-plot on which the Masjid was situated as Sita ki Rasoi. Subsequent revenue records maintained the same position.
Moreover, equally conclusive revenue documents from 1858 to 1991 revealed that no Waqf land had even been associated with the Babri Masjid. Even in 1936 when the UP Muslim Waqfs Act was passed by the provincial British government, there was no mention of the disputed mosque and graveyard too. With no regular Namaaz being conducted on the site, Babri Masjid had no significance for a mosque which could be constructed anywhere. The same was highlighted by the Supreme Court in its Ismail Faruqui and others versus the Union of India case where it held that a Mosque was not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam as a Muslim could offer namaz even on a open ground. It also observed that unless the right to worship at a particular place was itself an integral part of that right i.e the place was of particular significance, then its alienability could not be doubted.
The Allahabad HC held that the when a mosque is adversely possessed by non-Muslims they lose all the rights in the land an building including right to worship. The building cannot maintain the character of a mosque when non-Muslims use it for their worship purposes as happened in this case. The same does not apply to Hindus for whom as per the Hindu legal and sacred texts clearly held that the temple property could not be lost under any circumstances. The Dharmashastras ensured that the rights of the deity were in perpetuity and could not be interfered with by the king (government). The courts also held the Hindu Law identified Hindu Religious Endowments i.e temples and idols with corporate bodies and juridical persons. The place of worship is also a juridical entity based on the divinity of the place which makes it a Swayambhu deity capable of worship by believers.
Earlier I opined that future Hindu battles will have to take the legal route. This was because of some of the brilliant judgments that have come from our courts ascertaining the civilizational ethos and respecting traditions, unlike the popular opinion of the courts being 'anti-Hindu' by nature. In the 1993 judgement on a petition by Vishwa Adhivakta Sangh, Justice Tilhari of the Allahabad High Court observed that the illustration contained in the constitution and engraved in Chapters 1 to 22 of the Constitution of India as adopted by the Constituent Assembly and bore signatures of all members explained the concept of secularism and cultural heritage using Rama as a reference. This indicated that Rama had been accepted by the Constituent Assembly as a figure of national cultural heritage and cultural importance.
Justice Tilhari said that secularism was not a negation of the spirit of religion or Dharma. He further expressed that "...when Hindus and the devotees of Rama claim rights to have darshan and pooja of that deity whom the devotees worship as Bhagwan and framers of the Constitution treated as great national figure of this country and its basic culture, it is something superficial to argue that the petition is not maintainable and should be dismissed on grounds of technicalities. The judge said that secularism was not the "negation of patriotism which is also part of Dharma...The negation of patriotism renders one lacking a part of faith and Dharma". This profound observation should drive some sense into the politicians and liberals who jump at the mention of Rama, Hindu, Patriotism or Dharma.
Coming back to the final judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the Ramjanmabhumi/Babri Masjid case the court observed that it was the belief of the Hindus that the birthplace of Lord Rama was under the central dome of the Babri Masjid and a secular judge is bound to accept that belief as it is not for him to sit in judgement of that belief of the community. The court was satisfied that the place of birth as believed and worshiped by Hindus was the area under the central dome. Further, the Ram Chabutra and Sita ki Rasoi and Bhandar had been in the possession of and managed by Nirmohi Akhara and this had not been refuted by anyone.
The court also held that the disputed structure was constructed as a Mosque by it had not been proved that namaz was offered at the building continuously since 1528. Even the Mutawalis were not appointed properly. Finally the court noted that a place of 'non-Islamic character' existed at the site before the construction of teh Masjid. Further the accounts of William Funch and Joseph Tieffenthaler attested to continuous Hindu worship there. The 'cumulative effect' of the all the facts before the construction of the Masjid, Hindus worshiped at the place they believed to be the birthplace of Rama and the continuity of the title and possession of the deities remains unhindered, meaning that the Hindus are the true owners of the place and the same had been restored.
Author provides further food for thought and reading
The amount of notes and references mentioned throughout the book is a complete complementary read giving further information and knowledge on the topic. They also support the assertions made by the author. Then the bibliography is another section of the book which is a must read. The bibliography is 19 pages long, on of the longest bibliography I have come across. I mention some of them here which I also feel are must reads/references for anyone who are interested in the subject.
1) Ayodhya: 2002-03, Archaeological Survey of India, 2003
2) Epigraphica Indica
3) South Indian Inscriptions
4) Joseph Tieffenthaler 1786, Description Historique Et Geographique De L'Inde
5) AS Beveridge 1970 Babur-Nama
6) Hans Bakker 1986 Ayodhya
7) P Banerjee 1975 Early Indian Religion
8) P Banerjee Rama in Indian Literature, Art and Thought
9) VS Bhatnagar 1974 Life and Times of Sawai Jai Singh
10) PV Kane 1990 History of Dharmashastras
11) BB Lal 1988 Historicity of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana: What has Archaeology to Say in the Matter
12) SR Mehrotra 2006 The Ramayana tradition in Modern India
13) R Nagaswamy 1980 Sri Ramayana in Tamilnadu in Art, Thought and Literature
14) C Shivaramamurthi 1980 The Ramayana in Indian Sculpture
15) Sri Aurobindo 1971 The Foundations of Indian Culture
 |
| Meticulously planned book which facilitates a systematic read |
Comments