Click on banner!

Ayodhya - The Truth

Subject: AYODHYA
From: address.below.or@web.site (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
Date: 15 Dec 1997 00:00:00 UT
Message-ID: <Bharat-2350.971215@news.mantra.com>
Organization: Mantra Corporation
X-Url: http://www.flex.com/~jai
Keywords: Bharat Ramjanmabhoomi India Ayodya Bajri news Jai Maharaj
Reply-To: jai@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian.kerala,alt.religion.hindu,
soc.culture.indian.karnataka,soc.culture.tamil,soc.culture.bengali,
alt.culture.kerala,soc.culture.indian.delhi,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,hawaii.nortle

Forwarded posts from Rajiv Varma

Ramajanmabhoomi at Ayodhya - Archeological Evidence

The following was posted to SCI by Dinesh Agrawal back in 1992. This is for all the Ayodhya related discussions going-on now on SCI (esp. for my able friend Mr. Oberoi, who brings up NO-RJB-AT-BABRI theory again and again w/o refuting the overwhelming evidence to the contrary). - Rajiv

------------------------------------------------------

[ Subject: RAMAJANMA BHUMI: AYODHYA-New Archaeological Discoveries
[ Organization: Penn State University
[ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:08:32 EST
[ From: <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
[ Message-ID: <92310.200832DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
[ Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian

Below I am producing a recent report on the new archaeological findings in the Ramjanambhoomi complex during the ground-leveling operation undertaken by the UP government in April-June this year. The report was submitted to the Home Ministry, and then subsequently was published by the 'Historian Forum' New Delhi in the form of a beautiful booklet with colored pictures on glossy paper to demostrate the original colors of the objects unearthed during this operation. Totally there are 32 pictures of these startling objects of a Hindu temple, which conclusively prove that there was a Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Rama/Vishnu at the site where now the dilapidated Babri structure stands. To ask any further proof is to degrade one's own intelligence. Dinesh Agrawal...

***********************************

RAMAJANMA BHUMI: AYODHYA - NEW ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES

ON THE 18TH OF JUNE 1992, when the ground near the Ramajanma Bhumi was being levelled, a most startling archaeological discovery was made at Ayodhya. At a depth of about 12 feet from the ground level near the Ramajanma Bhumi temple, towards the south and beyond the fencing, a big hoard of beautifully carved buff sandstone pieces was located in a large pit, dug down below the old top level.

A careful study by a group of eight eminent archaeologists and historians found that all these objects are architectural members of a Hindu temple-complex of the 11th century A.D.

The group comprised Dr. Y.D. Sharma, former Deputy Director General, Archaeo logical Survey of India, Dr. K.M. Srivastava, former Director, Archaeological Survey of India, Dr. S.P. Gupta, former Director, Allahabad Museum, Prof. K.P. Nautiyal, Vice-Chancellor, Avadh University and former Head of the Ancient History and Archaeology Department, Garhwal University, Prof. B.R. Grover, former Director, Indian Council of Historical Research, Shri Devendra Swarup Agrawal and Dr. Sardindu Mukherji of the Delhi University, and Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Malaya of Bhopal.

The Temple: The experts who visited the site on behalf of the academic organization, "The Historians' Forum", on the 2nd and 3rd of July 1992, are unanimously of the view that the temple, to which these fragments belong, is of the developed NAGARA style of ancient temple architecture which was current in northern India during the later part of the early medieval period i.e. the period after 900 A.D. and before 1200 A.D. The temples of this style are characterized by a distinctly imposing Shikhara, which is a tall and tapering spire over the Garbha-griha or sanctum sanctorum, which houses the main deity.

The Shikhara Amalaka: The developed Shikhara is like a mountain with several tiers of subsidiary Shikharas, rising one above the other and projecting partially from the main Shikhara. The Shikharas are crowned with a very distin- ctive circular piece of stone, called amalaka, which is shaped like a cogged wheel, with bead-like mouldings along the periphery. It is so very typical of the tepmles of northern India that no one in the world who knows even a little about the Hindu temples can cast any doubt about its position in the temple structure. There are two examples of half-amalakas, in the present hoard of objects, evidently used on the top of the subsidiary Shikhra, called Shikharas of Karnas, i.e. fringe spires.

The Shikhara Jala: The second most significant find is the curvilinear part of the Jala mouldings present on the Shikharas. It is beautifully decorated with scrolls. It also belongs exclusively to the north Indian temples of the period after 900 A.D. since the technique of its carving involves the method of scoop- ing out of the areas around the floral elements so that the art-motifs are framed with surface absolutely plain. It is called 'Stencil' technique.

The Capital: The third most noteworthy sculptured piece of stone in this collection is a rectangular capital of a piller with beautiful mouldings in the form of highly stylised lotus petals arranged as narrow parallel strips carved in low relief around the capital.

The Cornice: The fourth example of stone sculptures belongs to the most characteristic member of the Nagara style of temples -it is called Chhadya, and in Hindi Chhajja, sun-shade, where the straight wall over the high plinth meets the base of the Shikhara. It is carved and shaped like rectangular Mangalore tiles to serve not only as a sun-shade but also allow the rain water to run off quickly and protect the structure. It is a corner-stone of the cornice.

Floral frieze: There is one frieze of continuous leaf-moulding which decorates one of the top lines of the plinth of the temple.

Door-Jamb: There is one example of a door-jamb or dvara-shakha of the main entrance of the temple. It is decorated with a meandering floral design, carved in 'Stencil' style.

Images of Vishnu's Incarnations: There is also a fragment of a stele embellish- ed with the most significant sculptures of a number of Vaishnavite gods, viz. a Chakrapurusha, i.e. a youthful male figure standing gracefully at an angle (tribhanga) and holding vertically in the palm of the right hand the character- istic wheel or Chakra of Vishnu.

Another image is that of Parshurama, sitting cross-legged and holding a battle-axe in the left hand. Below him is the image of Balarama, the elder brother of Krishna, with a canopy of serpent-hoods and having a wine-cup in his hand. Still below him is the image of a mother godess (matri-devi), the bestower of all good luck.

As per the iconographic stipulation, there should have been an image of Dashrathi Rama, i.e., the son of Dasharatha, above the image of Parshurama, in order to complete the trio of three Ramas in the full set of ten incarnations of Vishnu. Evidently, the temple to which this stele belongs has necessarily to be a Vaishnabite one.

Shiva-Parvati: Besides the above, there are several other images. One is of Shiva-Parvati, also called Uma-Maheshvara. It was found from a shallow mound called Nala, located some 200 meters away from the site of the above hoard of art and architectural pieces. Though Shiva's head is now lost, his hand hold- ing a Trishula or trident is fully intact. Similarly, although Parvati's face is not extant, her hand from behind Shiva's neck is found resting on his right shoulder in an embracing position. Stylistically, it is also datable to the 11th century.

Terracotta Figurines: Art objects of burnt clay belonging to the earlier periods, such as the Kushana (1st-3rd century) have also been found. These images belong to various Hindu gods and godesses.

EXPLORATIONS

From 4th July through 18th July 1992, Prof. B.R. Grover camped at Ayodhya, during the period when the ground acquired by the UP Government was being levelled up. It is during this operation that he came across towards the east and south of the Ramajanma Bhumi, large floor-areas, in the pre-Islamic levels, which were carefully paved with burnt bricks. These places were then systemati- cally exposed and photographed in situ for permanent record. He located some brick-walls as well. He noticed similar flooring and also brick-walls at the so-called Janmasthan area, across the modern road, built by the British after cutting the Rama Kotmound. The floor covered with burnt-bricks spreads over thousands of square metres now largely encircled by the newly constructed Rama Divar. During that period Prof. Grover had released as many as three reports of his findings to the press which prompted the Historians' Forum to send two eminent field-archaeologists to examine the reported discoveries.

FRESH EXCAVATIONS

Huge Brick Walls: On the 22nd and 23rd of July Dr. K.M. Srivastava and Dr. S.P. Gupta went to Ayodhya and scraped the section facing east and also dug at least two feet still deeper in a small area along this section. They discovered a huge burnt-brick wall of more than a dozen courses running along the section and beyond it. Below this, after a little break, the remains of another brick- wall have been found. At two different pre-Islamic levels, there are the remains of brick-laid floors.

Mass Destruction: There are clear cut marks of massive destruction of the huge wall mentioned above since brick-debris and large pits have been located here. Further, there are two hard rammed floors of Chunam and Kankar, laid one above the other with a significant break in between but over the level of the brick- wall.

There is therefore, enough new archaeological material which conclusively proves what Prof. B.B. Lal, the previous excavator of this site, has been repeatedly saying that here at the Ramajanma Bhumi there was an impressive structure of the 11th-12th century built on pillers standing on a series of parallel burnt-brick bases which was destroyed in the early 16th century, in all likelihood the bases carried on them the same temple-pillers which are fixed in the 'mosque'.

These new archaeological findings also confirm the views expressed earlier in 1990 by Dr. S.P. Gupta that the 16 black stone pillers and one piece of door- jamb with carvings of gods and godesses existing in the so-called 'Babri Mosque structure' and also the adjoining areas, belong to a 11th century Hindu temple, possibly Vaishnavite.

Muslim Testimony: The new discovery further confirms the claims of all early Muslim authors, like the grand-daughter of Aurangzeb whose writing was cited in Sahifa-i-Chihal, Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, Mirza Jan, the author of Hidiqa-i- Shahada and a large number of other 18th, 19th, and even 20th century scholars like Shri Abdul Hai, have repeatedly mentioned that anciently here, at this very site, called 'Janmasthan', there was an imposing Hindu temple which was destroyed by the Muslims and a mosque was built over its debris.

Mir Baqi's Claim: Indirectly though, the newly acquired archaeological evidence also equally confirms the statement made by Mir Baqi in his inscriptions, still found fixed in the structure of the 'mosque', that at this very place he built a structure for the angels to descend, specifically at the command and permiss- ion of Babar.

The Hindu Testimony: And finally, it lends full support to a long standing Hindu tradition of the Valmiki's Ramayana, the Vishnu and other Puranas and a host of other works of the Sikhs, Jainas and Buddhists as well as the Sanskrit classics like Kalidasa's Raghuvamsham, according to which for thousands of years this ancient settlement with Rama Kota was occupied and reoccupied following desertions and destructions, the story of which has, however, been recollected in two important monographs, one is entitled Ayodhya by Hans Bakker and the other is Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid by Koenraad Elst published in English in recent years.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CONTROVERSY

Babar Stayed at Ayodhya: The so-called 'Babri Mosque' was built in 1528 A.D. The Babarnama, Babar's diary of everyday events and autobiography, mentions that on March 28 in the year 1528 Babar came to Ayodhya, called 'Oudh' in those days, and camped on the river-side of a tributary of the Saryu, flowing near the township. Here he stayed for a few days, till April 2nd, 1528, after defeat ing the then Afghan ruler of this place who had rebelled against him. He may have stayed longer, but no one knows exactly how long since the original pages of his hand-written diary pertaining to the period between April 2nd and Sept. 18 of 1528, were lost in a storm that overtook Babar's tents in 1529.

After Aurangzeb: The successors of Babar continued to rule over this place till the early 18th century. After Aurangzeb's death (1707 AD), the territories of Awadh were marked by lawlessness. During the reign of the Mughal Emperor Md. Shah and the tenure of the governorship of Burhan-un-Mulk Saadat Ali Khan, a serious riot took place between the Hindus and the Muslims (1735 AD), the former claiming their right over Ramajanma Bhumi. This is the earliest judicial reference available in this regard so far.

What the Europeans Saw and Wrote?:In 1767 itself, a Jesuit missionary, Joseph Tieffenthaler, who stayed at Ayodhya for a number of days and left behind his account written in Latin, found that in spite of the Mughal Kings' efforts to prevent them, the Hindus had re-occupied the courtyard, raised a 'Rama Chabuta- ra' thereon and worshiped there by circumambulating it three times and finally prostrating before it. On the Rama Navami day they congregated here in lakhs. Significantly, they continued to worship under the domed structure as well. More details are available in the accounts of Montgomery Martin, Edward Thorn- ton, P. Carnegy and others.

Serious Riots: In 1855 once again a big clash took place in which scores of men were killed; such riots and killings never subsided: there are several historical, judicial and revenue records to prove their occurrences.

During the British Raj: After the establishment of the British rule in Avadh in 1856, the battle for Janmabhumi was primarily fought in the courts of Law. How- ever, in 1934 a very serious riot took place in which the domes were destroyed to a very large extent. After this, it is common knowledge that the authorities repaired the structure and closed it down for some time. However, it was opened in favour of the Hindus, step by step, after 1949 under various judicial orders

New Evidence: In continuation of its earlier efforts, the Historians' Forum feels happy to place in the hands of the public and the government this new uncontrovertible archaeological evidence which proves that there did exist at this very site a magnificient temple, from at least the 11th century, which was destroyed to build a mosque-like structure over the debris of the temple in the 16th century. There is every possibility that there existed at this site one or more temples of still greater antiquity, some of which were built with burnt-bricks in which images of gods and goddesses made of terracotta were installed.

***

AYODHYA - SUMMARY OF FACTS

By R. K. Hariprasad and Sonu Nadira

Dr. S. P. Gupta, Director of Allahabad Museum has since retired. Mr. Justice Deoki Nandan has since retired. Prof. B. B. Lal, Director General of Archaeological Survey of India has retired.
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.

------

(The author is a former Addition Secretary for Home)


AYODHYA: A HISTORICAL WATERSHED

By Giri Lal Jain

Following is the final chapter of Late Mr. Giri Lal Jain's (veteran journalist) book, "The Hindu Phenomenon".

------------------------------------------------------

AYODHYA: A HISTORICAL WATERSHED

1992 will doubtless go down in Indian history as the year of Ayodhya. This is so not so much because recent events there have pushed into background all the other issues such as economic reforms and reservations for the 'other backward castes' as because they have released forces which will have a decisive influence in shaping the future of India.

These forces are not new; they have been at work for two centuries. Indeed, they were not even wholly bottled up. But they had not been unleashed earlier as they have been now. It is tryly extraordinary that the demolition of a nondescript structure by faceless men no organization owns up should have shaken so vast a country as India. But no one can possibly deny that it has. These forces in themselves are not destructive even if they have led to some violence and blood-letting. They are essen-tially beneficent. They shall seek to heal the splits in the Indian personality so that it is restored to health and vigour.

Implicit in the above is the proposition that while India did not cease to be India either under Muslim or British rule despite all the trials and tribulations, she was not fully Mother India. And she was not fully Mother India not because she was called upon to digest external inputs, which is her nature to assimilate, but because she was not free to throw out what she could not possibly digest in the normal and natural course. this lack of freedom to reject what cannot be assimilated is the essence of foreign conquest and rule. The meaning of Ayodhya is that India has regained, to a larger extent than hitherto, the capacity to behave and act as a normal living organism. She has taken another big step towards self-affirmation.

All truth, as Lenin said, is partisan. So is mine. I do not pretend to be above the battle, or, to rephrase Pt. Nehru, I am not neutral against myself. But partisan truth is not demagogy and patently false propaganda, which is what advocates of 'composite culture' have engaged in. Two points need to be noted in this regard.

First, no living culture is ever wholy autonomous; for no culture is an airtight sealed box; Indian culture, in particular, has been known for its catholocity and willingness to give as well as take. It withdrew into a shell when it felt gravely threatened and became rigid; but that is under- standable; indeed, the surprise, if any, is that Indian culture survived the Islamic and Western onslaught at all.

Secondly, a culture, if it is not swallowed up by an incoming one, whether by way of proselytization or conquest or both, as the Egyptians and Iranians were by Islam, or if it is not destroyed as the Aztec was by the Portuguese and Spaniards, must seek to recover; even Indians in Latin America have not given up the effort. Surely, since no one can possibly suggest that Indian culture was either swallowed up or destroyed; it is only natural that it should seek to recover its genuine self. Surely, this is neither an anti-Islamic nor anti-Western activity.

Pt. Nehru almost never used the phrase 'composite culture'. His was a more organic view of culture and civilization. He believed in, and spoke of, cultural synthesis which, if at all, could take place only within the old civilizational framework since Islam did not fianlly triumph. Pt. Nehru also wrote and spoke of the spirit of India asserting itself again and again. Surely, that spirit could not be a composite affair. In the Maulana Azad memorail lecture he also spoke of different cultures being products of different environments and he specifically contrasted tropical India with the deserts of Arabia. He even said that a Hindu-Muslim culture synthesis had not been completed when other factors intervened. Apparantly he was referring to the British Raj.

This should also dispell the impression that the Nehru era was a continuation of alien rule intended to frustrate the process of Indianization of India. This charge is not limited to his detractors. It is made by his admirers as well, though, of course, indirectly and unknowingly. They pit secularism against Hinduism which is plainly absurd. Hindus do not need the imported concept of secularism in order to be able to show respect towards other faiths. That comes naturally to them. For theirs is an inclusive faith which provides for every form of religious experience and belief; there can be no heresy or kufr in Hinduism.

For Nehru, secularism, both as a personal philosophy and state policy, was an expression of India's cultural-civilizational personality and not its negation and repudiation. Secularism suited India's requirements as he saw them. For instance, it provided an additional legitimizing principle for reform movements among Hindus beginning with the Brahmo Samaj in the early part of the nineteenth century. It met the aspirations of the Westernized and modernizing intelligentsia. Before independence, it denied legitimacy to Muslim separatism in the eyes of Hindus, Westernized or traditionalist. If it did not help forge an instrument capable of resisting effectively the Muslim League's demand for partition, the alternative platform of men such as Veer Savarkar did not avail either. After partition, it served the same purpose of denying legitimacy to moves to consolidate Muslims as a separate communalist political force.

Pt. Nehru's emphasis on secularism has to be viewed not only in relation to the Muslim problem which survived partition, but it has also to be seen in the context of his plea for science and India's need to get rid of the heavy and deadening burden of rituals and superstitions, products of periods of grave weakness and hostile environment when nothing nobler than survival was possible. Seen in this perspective, the ideologies of socialism and secularism have served as mine sweepers. They have cleared the field of dead conventions sufficiently to make it possible for new builders to move in. Sheikh Abdullah exaggerated when he charged Pt. Nehru with Machiavellian- ism, but he was not too wide off the mark when he wrote in Aatish-e-Chinar that Nehru was "a great admirer of the past heritage and the Hindu spirit of India.. He considered himself as an instrument of rebuilding India with its ancient spirit".

The trouble is that self-styled Nehruites and other secularists are not able to recognize that India is no longer the convalescent she was not only when Gandhiji launched his first mass movement but also when she achieved independence with Pt. Nehru as the first prime minister. The two leaders have helped nurse her back to health as have their critics in different ways. That is the implication of my observation that the energies now unleashed have been at work for two centuries.

Only on a superficial view, resulting from a lack of appreciation of the history of modern India, beginning with Raja Rammohan Roy in the early 19th century, can the rise of Ramjanakbhoomi issue to its present prominence be said to be the result of a series of 'accidents': the sudden appearance of the Ramlalla idol in the structure in 1949 and the opening of the gate under the Faizabad magistrate's orders in 1986 being the most important. As in all such cases, these developments have helped bring out and reinforce something that was already growing - the 200-year-old movement for self- renewal and self-affirmation by Hindus. If this was not so, the 'accidents' in question would have petered out.

Similarly, while it cannot be denied that the RSS, the VHP, and the BJP have played a major role in mobilizing support for the cause of the temple, it should also be noted that they could not have achieved the success they have if the general atmosphere was not propitious and the time not ripe. Indeed, not to speak of Gandhiji who aroused and mobilized Hindus as no one had before him, fought the Christian missionary assault and successfully resisted the British imperialist designs to divide harijans from Hindu society, it would be unfair to deny Nehru's and Indira Gandhi's contribu- tions to the Hindu resurgence that we witness today. A civilizational revival, it may be pointed out, is a gradual, complex, and many-sided affair.

Again, only on the basis of a superficial view is it possible to see developments in India in isolation from developments in the larger world. Nehru's worldview, for instance, was deeply influenced by the socialist theories sweeping Europe in the wake of the First WW and the Soviet revolution in 1917. By the same token, this worldview, which has dominated our thinking for well over six decades, could not but become irrelevant in view of the collapse of communist regimes in eastern Europe, and the disarray in the Soviet Union itself. This cannot be seriously disputed even on rational grounds. Intensification of the search for identity in India today is part of a similar development all over the world, especially in view of the collapse of communist 'universalism'. But if it is a mere coincidence that Ramjanabhoomi issue has gathered support precisely in this period of the disintegration of Soviet power abroad and the decline of the Nehruvian consensus at home, it is an interesting one.

At the conscious level, the BJP, among political formations, has chosen to be an instrument of India's cultural and civilizational recovery and reaffirmation. As such, it is natural that it will figure prominently in the reshaping of India in the coming years and decades. But others too will play their parts in the gigantic enterprise. VP Singh, for instance, has already rendered yeoman service to the cause by undermining the social coalition which has dominated the country's politics for most of the period since independence.

When a master idea seizes the mind, as socialism did in the twenties, and as Hindutva has done now, it must usher in radical change. In the twenties and the decades that followed before and after independence, conservative forces were not strong enough to resist the socialist idea. Similarly, conservative forces are not strong enough today to defeat the Hindutva ideal. There is a difference, though, for a while the socialist ideal related primarily to economic reorganization and was elitist in its approach by virtue of being a Western import, Hindutva seeks, above all, to unleash the energies of a whole people which foreign rule froze or drove underground.

When a historic change of this magnitude takes place, intellectual confusion is generally unavoidable. The human mind, as a rule, trails behind events; it is not capable of anticipating them. But it should be possible to cut through the mass of confusion and get to the heart of the matter.

The heart of the matter is that if India's vast spiritual (psychic in modern parlance) energies, largely dormant for centuries, had to be tapped, Hindus had to be aroused; they could be aroused only by the use of a powerful symbol; that symbol could only be Ram, as was evident in the twenties when the Mahatma moved millions by his talk of Ramrajya; once the symbol takes hold of the popular mind, as Ram did in the twenties and as it has done now, opposition to it generally adds to its appeal.

An element of subjectivity and voluntarism, typical of a modern Western- ized mind, has got introduced in the previous paragraph because that is the way I also think. In reality, the time spirit (Mahakala) unfolds itself under its own auspices, at its own momentum, as it were; we can either cooperate with it, or resist it at our peril.

Historians can continue to debate whether a temple, in fact, existed at the site of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya; whether it was , in fact, a Ram temple; whether it was destroyed; or whether it had collapsed on its own. Similarly, moralists and secularists can go on arguing that it is not right to replace one place of worship by another, especially as long as the foregoing issues have not been resolved. But this is not how history moves and civilizational issues are settled.

Pertinent is the fact that for no other site have Hindus fought so bitterly for so long with such steadfastness as over Ramjanambhoomi in Ayodhya. There is no rational explanation for this and it is futile to look for one. All that is open to us is to grasp the fact and power of the mystery.

In all cultures and societies under great stress flows an invisible undercurrent. It does not always break surface. But when it does, it transforms the scene. This is how events in Ayodhya should be seen. The Patal Ganga, of which all Indians must have heard, has broken surface there. Human beings have doubtless played a part in this surfacing. But witness the remarkable fact that we do not know and, in fact, do not care who installed the Ramlalla idol in the Babri structure and who demolished the structure on 6 December 1992.

While almost everyone else is looking for scapegoats, to me it seems that every known actor is playing his or her allotted role in the vast drama that is being enacted. We are, as it were, witnessing the enactment of a modern version of Valmiki's Ramayana.

(by Late Shri Giri Lal Jain)

End of forwarded posts from Rajiv Verma

The best strategy for long-lasting peace, economic growth and the strong defense of south Asia is the reunification of countries in the subcontinent.

Jai Maharaj
Jyotishi, Vedic Astrologer
http://www.flex.com/~jai
Om Shanti

Home | Index of articles | Top

Copyright © 1998 Mantra Corporation and by authors and publishers as mentioned hereabove.  All Rights Reserved. The information contained at this site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed, or stored without prior written authority of Mantra Corporation and of authors and publishers referred to above.