CONTENTS :-

"You are my devotees, followers, critics, You have built thousands of temples in my name all the length & breadth of Bharat, even in foreign lands. You remember me even in Indonesia, Malesiya through my Ramlila play. Why do you not build one Grand Temple at my Janmasthan, Ayodhya?".

First Published on 1st February 1991 Second Edition on Deepawali Yugabda 5100 (19th October, 1998) .

PREFACE

The struggle for the liberation of Sri Ram Janmabhoomi and restoration of a magnificent Ram Temple at Ayodhya has been going on continuously, in one form or the other, for several centuries. Many generations have participated in it and have paid heavy price in martyrdom. Only the perverse and blind will say that the Vishva Hindu Parishad is the originator of this struggle, V.H.P .represents only the latest reincarnation or organised manifestation of this centuries old Hindu aspiration. The V .H.P., deeply committed to the Hindu ideal of 'Sarva Pantha Sama Bhava', which alone can be the foundation of positive secularism, has been very keen to find a peaceful solution to this centuries old discord. It has sincerely felt that India's experiment in secularism will succeed only when the present day generation of Indian muslims dissociate themselves from the medieval ideology of religious exclusivism, expansionism and iconoclasm, pursued by foreign invaders like Babur or by intolerant rulers like Aurangzeb and glorification of such acts of vandalism in the name of religion. And, therefore, VHP has been trying all means of dialogue and persuasion to make Muslim leaders understand and appreciate its point of view. It is really sad to see that Muslim leaders instead of taking any initiative on their own, to close this centuries old chapter and conflict and to begin a new one of harmony and trust, have only been indulging in a futile exercise of defending such symbols of medieval vandalism. Instead of identifying themselves with their pre-Islamic ancestors like Rama and Krishna, they are still trying to trace their history from foreign invaders like Muharnamad-bin-Kassim, Muhammad Ghaznavi, Mohammad Ghori, Babur etc. It became very evident during the recent bilateral negotiations between the VHP and the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC), through a welcome initiative taken by the present Government at the Centre. It was made very clear at the very outset by the VHP representatives that they have no objection for the talks without prejudice to the schedule programme of the Parishad whether it is Karsewa or the Satyagrah or conferences or anything else. Thus began the bilateral talks on 1st December between the VHP and AIBMAC in the presence of the representatives of the Government. The VHP was represented by Sarva Shri, V. H. Dalmia, B. P. Toshniwal, S.C. Dixit, Moropant Pingle, Acharya Giriraj Kishore, Kaushal Kishore, B.P. Shukla and Surya Krishna. According to the official minutes of the second meeting held on December 4, 1990 in the presence of the Minister of State for Home Affairs and the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, "Shri Zafar-yab Jilani, Convenor of the B.M.A.C., claimed that there has been no evidence in support of the fact that the Babri Masjid was constructed at the site after demolishing a Hindu temple. He said that there is neither any archaeological nor any historical evidence in support of the demolition. He further said that there is no proof of records in its support." He further said that there is no mention of the demolition of temple in any historical account at the site before the construction of the mosque.

Overlooking the centuries old history of the discord and conflict, Mr. Jilani further said that the movement of the V.H.P. is of recent origin. Even when the idols were placed in the mosque in 1949 there was no intensity in the movement till 1986. If it could have been the birthplace of Lord Rama, there could have been a continuous agitation and there would have been mention in the records.

When the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Shri Sharad Pawar asked why such a mention is found in Official Gazettes, Shri Azam Khan, a minister in U.P. Government and member of AIBMAC, "claimed that this problem was the creation of the Britishers to divide the society." The minutes say, "In the meeting many Muslim speakers asserted that Babar never visited Ayodhya and hence there is no question of his demolishing the temple." It was in the face of such assertions made by Muslim leaders that Shri Moropant Pingle, on behalf of V.H.P., suggested that "in the next meeting some three-four experts from each side should take part in the deliberations for placing evidences of respective sides in a coherent way." The Chief Minister of Rajasthan, Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat "suggested that the evidence of both sides should be exchanged and examined by experts. But Mr. Jilani was of the opinion that first the members of both committees should examine the evidences and then the experts' help should be taken." As the VHP was keen to find an amicable solution at the earliest, Shri Pingle "suggested that all these should be done within a time-frame." Therefore, "with the consultation of a!l including the three Chief Ministers and the Minister of State of Home Affairs, the following decisions were taken: (a) Both sides should furnish evidences to the Minister of State for Home Affairs by 22.12.1990. (b) The MOS(H) will make available photocopies of evidences to all concerned by 25.12.1990, and (c) After reviewing the evidences both parties will meet further on 10.01.1991 at 10.00 A.M." To carry the story of these bilateral negotiations, an official document prepared by the office of Minister of State for Home Affairs under the title "Synopsis of evidences presented by the V.H.P. and AIBMAC to the Government for discussion on 10.1.1991 " says, ''as per the agreement reached between the representatives of the two contending parties on 23.12.1990, the two sides had to submit rejoinders on these evidences by 6.1.1991. The VHP submitted the rejoinder in which it tried to refute claims of the AIBMAC pointwise. The AIBMAC did not react to the evidences put forward by V.H.P. Instead, it submitted photocopies of more evidences in support of its claims. Since the AIBMAC did not give comments on the evidences put forward by the VHP, it is not possible for the Government to decide the areas of agreement and disagreement. On 10th January, 1991, the two sides met at Gujarat Bhavan, in the presence of Government representatives. Three experts namely Prof. B.R. Grover, Prof. Devendra Swaroop and Dr. S.P. Gupta invited by the VHP also attended the meeting and presented a summary of the evidences submitted by the VHP before the meeting. It was decided that the documents submitted by both the parties would be distributed under four heads - historical, archaeological, revenue and legal and both the parties would submit names of their respective experts, who after having studied the documents would assemble on 24th and 25th January, 1991 to discuss them and to submit their comments before 5th February, 1991 when the two parties would again meet to arrive at some decision on the experts' report.

But, the reasons best known to them, the AIBMAC started dithering and retracting after this. While the V.H.P.submitted its list of experts on the appointed date, the AIBMAC failed to do so. They submitted the list on 18th January, but went on changing it till the last day. Ultimately, the experts presented by them on 24th January included four office bearers of the AIBMAC itself and four outsiders namely Dr. R.S. Sharma, Dr. D.N. Jha, Dr. Suraj Bhan and Dr. M.Athar Ali, while the VHP side was represented by legal luminaries as Justice Guman Mal Lodha, M.P., Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwal, Justice D.V. Sehgal, Senior Advocate Shri V.K.S. Chaudhury, academicians as Prof. B.R. Grover, Prof. K.S. Lal, Prof. B.P. Sinha, Dr. S.P. Gupta, Dr. Harsh Narain and Prof. Devendra Swaroop. The AIBMAC experts right from the beginning started claiming that they had not read the evidences submitted earlier and had not even visited Ayodhya, and hence they would need minimum six weeks time to study them. And actually on 25th January, they did not turn up, keeping the VHP panel of experts waiting for two long hours.

Significantly, the evidences submitted by both the sides does establish that the present structure called Babri Mosque, was built in the year 935 A.H. (1528 A.D.) by Meer Baqi at the order of foreign invader Babar. The question remains as to why this particular site was chosen to build this mosque? Did Babar / Meer Baqi find this spot lying vacant or was an earlier Hindu shrine/ structure standing on the site was demolished and converted into a mosque? Was there any historical significance attached to the site? It was to answer these central questions that the VHP had collected literary, archaeological, revenue and legal evidences. Instead of accepting or challenging this evidence, the AIBMAC and its experts have thought it better to walk away or to side track the central issue. Faced with such a piquant situation, the VHP announced to place the whole evidence before the Court of Public Opinion to enable it to make its own judgement and so here you find it. The evidence speaks for itself and needs no commentary. While placing on record its deep gratitude to all historians and legal experts, who took great pains in digging out this valuable evidence, the V HP dedicates their labour of love to the people of India, who as arbiters of India's destiny will recompensate it by their further determination to liberate the Rama Janmabhoomi, at whatever cost which may have to be paid for this cause. 1.2.1991 Surya Krishna

On the western ramparts of the ruins of ancient Hindu fortress, called Ramkot or Ram Durga, in the centre of the temple city Ayodhya, amidst a large number of Hindu shrines, on the high mound overlooking the latter, stands a medieval Islamic structure, claimed as the 'Babri Masjid'. The fact that this structure was built after displacing the holy Hindu shrine of Ram Janmabhoomi, existing on the site believed by the Hindus to be the birthplace of Rama, and therefore held specially sacred by them, rests on a mass of literary, historical and judicial evidence.

Some persons seek to question the very foundations of this evidence by arguing that Rama is a mythical and not a historical character, and that it cannot be proven that he was born on the Janmabhoomi site. That objection can be answered by pointing out that such proof is not required according to the international standards prevalent in this kind of issue.

No one in the world has demanded evidence for the sacred character of the mosques on the Temple Mound in Jerusalem. Is it proven that the Dome on the Rock or the Al-Aqsa mosque was built over Mohammed's footprint in the rock? Is it true that Mohammed landed there after a journey through heaven on a winged horse? No one has questioned the ground on which the Muslims hold these places to be sacred. And so, even the Israeli government upholds the right of the Muslims to their sacred places. Similarly, the grotto in which Jesus is believed to have been born is protected as a place of pilgrimage for Christians. The belief that Jesus was born there is neither theologically important nor historically verified. Yet, the Christians' right to their sacred place is upheld without questioning.

Like followers of other religions, we do not need to offer a justification for considering that very site sacred.

So, the relevant question to be considered is not: can you prove the ground on which you hold this site to be sacred? The relevant, question is: is there proof that an old and persistent tradition among Rama devotees has considered the site as the sacred Ram Janmabhoomi, and that Rama worship took place there in a temple, before and until Babri Masjid was built? The evidence, which is presented here, will prove that the question has to be answered in the affirmative.

The literary evidence beginning with Valmiki's Ramayana, written, even on the most modest estimates, before the 2nd century BC, shows how Ayodhya became a sacred city in Hindu perception, a place of abundant sanctity and pilgrimage on account of its being considered as the city of Rama's birth, activities (lila) and death. The evidence also points to the fact that Hindu veneration has been for the site itself, which, as much as the temples or images standing thereon (if any), is in. itself considered an object of worship.

The existence of a Ram-Janmabhoomi shrine at Ramkot, marking what was believed to be birthplace of Rama, and held by the Hindus as one of their holiest spots on earth in the 12th-13th centuries, is well attested by its description in the Ayodhya Mahatmya, a sacred Hindu text forming part of the Vaishnava Khanda of the Skanda Purana. The Ayodhya Mahatmya narrates the supreme glory of the Ram Janmabhoomi shrine situated to the west of Lomash Ashram and north of Vasishtha Kund, specially for offering worship on this spot on Ram Navami day, Rama's birthday.

All the historical literature after 1528 AD, when a mosque was constructed by Mir Baqi at a spot west of Lomash and north of Vasishtha Kund under the orders of the Moghul conqueror Babar, and using 14 black Kasauti-stone pillars for an erstwhile Hindu building, attest that the Hindus continued to consider this as their holy Janmasthan shrine, kept returning to it to offer their devotions, occupied its courtyard in due course, and built thereon a Ram- Chabootra (cradle of baby Rama) and a Sita-kitchen. There are numerous accounts that prove the continued celebration of Ram- Navami festival at this place with great gatherings of people, and bitterness between Hindus and Muslims over the former's attempts to take over the place, leading to several disputes and clashes in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. This literature contains a mass of uncontroverted testimony from Muslims and European writers accepting that the Babri mosque was constructed on the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, destroying the temple and using its materials.

Against this mass of testimony, it has been pointed out that Babar's own otherwise meticulous, diary is silent about a temple demolition and mosque construction at the Janmabhoomi site. This seeming "argument from silence" has been conclusively explained by Mrs Beveridge in her English translation (Babur Nama in English) Babar reached the Ayodhya area on March 28, 1528 and camped there for a short period to settle the affairs of Awadh. Unfortunately, in all known copies of Babar's diary, there is a break in the narrative between April 2 and September 18 of 1528 The loss of these pages could have occurred during the storm on May 17,1529, or during Humayun's stay in the desert after 1540 Any reference to the destruction of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple would logically have to be found in those missing pages.

To the literary testimony for the continuous tradition of Rama worship at the disputed site, and for the uncontroverted belief that the 8abri Masjid had replaced a Ram-Janmabhoomi temple, we may add another category of written evidence: the revenue records. These show that the Masjid / Janmabhoomi area has been considered as Waqf property only after 1931 (and even then this was contested, and that it has always been known as "Janmasthan". In fact, most pre-8ritish documents call the 8abri mosque the "Masjid-i Janmasthan", or even just Janmasthan.

Our archaeological evidence comes from the excavations conducted in the area immediately south of and adjacent to the 8abri mosque. Here the fieldwork was conducted from 1975 to 1980 by the Archaeological Survey of India under the direction of Prof. B.B.Lal. The excavations have revealed the existence of a series of burnt-brick pillar-bases at regular intervals. These are found arranged in parallel rows in the directional alignment in which a number of black-stone pillars are existing in the mosque.

Archaeological evidence of "robber's trench " clearly proves that some of the bricks from the pillar-bases were intentionally removed by those who destroyed the temple. However, stratigraphical evidence proves that these pillar-bases were built in the 11th century and they continued to be in use till the end of the 15th century. From immediately below the topmost floor, which apparently belongs to the general floor of the mosque, archaeologists have recovered variety of Islamic Glazed Wares, which are dated to different periods between the 13th and 15th centuries. Evidently, the temple belonged to the period immediately before the construction of the mosque. In the early 16thcentury when the mosque was built at this very place, the builders of the mosque used a number of black-stone pillars from the old temple existing here. Some of these pillars have been found used as load bearing pillars for the arches of the domes of the mosque. Art-historical studies of these pillars show that they bear a large number of images of gods and goddesses, such as Yakshas, Devakanyas, Dvarpalas and Ganas, and sacred motifs, such as the purnaghata, lotus, hansa and mala, all of which belong to the Hindu iconography.

It is, therefore, clear that the evidence of the pillar bases, the pillars and the glazed wares is conclusively in favour of the thesis that a temple has existed on the "Janmabhoomi" from the 11th to 15th century, and that it was destroyed in the 16thcentury, to which period of "Babri Masjid" belongs.

The city of Ayodhya has undeniably been a city of great antiquity and a sacred spot to the Hindus for a long time. Giving the location of the city on the bank of river Saryu, and describing its area, prosperity and glory, Valmiki has said in his Ramayana:

Vyasa incorporated the story of Ram through the Ramopakhyan in the Vanparva of his epic Mahabharata. The earlier Sanskrit dramatist Bhasa who lived before the advent of Christ, wrote his dramas 'Pratima' and 'Abhishek' based on the life of Ram. Identifying Ram with his archanavtar, he writes:

Kalidas the greatest classical poet and dramatist devoted the l0th canto of his Raghuvansham, to the narrative of Vishnu's incarnation on earth as Ram. In the 13th Canto of his book, where the poet refers to the return of Ram and Sita to Ayodhya in the Pushpak- Viman, he speaks of Ram as Vishnu himself:

There is not a single important poet or writer in classical Sanskrit literature who has not paid his best obeisance to Lord Ram in one form or another. Instead of attempting an exhaustive enumeration of such works or citing illustrations therefrom, we may only mention the following ones:

For the last two millennia, the tradition of veneration to Ram has existed in the Hindu society in one form or other. The earliest known inscription to testify to this is found in the Nasik cave inscription of 19th regnal year, that is 150 AD. Of Satvahana king Vasisthi-putra Pulumavi which contains the following eulogisation of Gauitamiputra Satkarni:

A series of subsequent inscriptions such as Gandhar inscription of Vishwavarman (423 A.D.), Chalukya inscription of Pulakesin I (543 A.D.), Mamallapuram inscription (8th century A.D.), Hansi inscription of Chahmanan Prithiraja n (1168 A.D.) establish the continuity of this tradition throughout.

Econometric evidence proved that the worship of Rama as an incarnation of Vishnu is at least as old as the time of Brihatsamhita of Varahmihir, (5th century A.D.) who prescribes the details of Rama's iconometry in chapter 57 verse 30. Till the end of the 12th century A.D., the canons of iconometry regarding the image of Rama was laid down in the Matsyapurana, Manasollas, Bhatta-uptal & Al-Beruni.

Not only the Padmapurana 1.2.3. Haribans 1.41, Brahmapurana, ch 180 Garudapurana 1.202, Varahpurana ch N, but also the Gwalior inscription of the Gurjar Pratihar king Bhoja in the 9th century described Rama as an incarnation of Vishnu.

Besides Manasollas, Dasavatarcharit of Kashemendra, Gitagobindam of Jaidev, Naisarcharit of Sri Harsha & the Ram Charitam of Sandhyakarnandin adulate Rama as Vishnu's avatar.

Even the ancient Jam writers such as Amitagati (11th century) spoke of Rama as the all-knowing 9 all pervading protector of the World.

The evolution of the tradition of Rama worship at least from 4th century A.D. is established by the early Rama shrines surviving at ancient Ramgiri hill (modern Ramtek) 30 kms. From Nagpur, dedicated by the Vakataka queen Prabhawatigupta {5th century), Ambamata temple at Osion near Jodhpur, {11 th century) containing images of Rama-Janaki & Hanuman, Rajivlochan temple {12th century) at Rajim in Raipur district erected by Jagapal the minister of Kalachuri king Pritideva II and dedicated to Rama by an inscription of 1145 A.D., and the Rama temple at Mukundapur in Reva district (12th century) built by Malaysingha. Paintings depicting episodes from Rama's life have adorned the walls of numerous temples in India and outside from the famous Deogarh temple in M .P. (late gupta period) to the Angkor Bat in Cambodia.

According to well-researched conclusion of scholars, there existed at least five Vishnu temples in Ayodhya in the 12th century viz.

These are both textual and archaeological evidence to prove that it was a common practice from early times for the devotees of Rama (or Krishna) to offer worship to a temple image which was looked upon as being an embodiment of Rama (archanavtar). Instead of worshipping Rama in his earthly human form, a practice has grown of devotees worshiping him in the form of one (Vishnu) whose avatar he was believed to be. The textual support to this practice is found in the Padmasamhita, a Vaishnav text dating before 1000 A.D. which says :

This practice was quite natural, considering that Rama was initially seen as an incarnation of Vishnu, but came later to be seen as Vishnu himself. This practice is corroborated by the image installed in the ancient Rajivlochan at Ambamata temple referred to earlier. In the former, the temple has been specifically dedicated to Rama by an inscription (1145 AD.) and been popularly known and revered as Rama temple, but the image inside is that of four armed Vishnu. In the latter, the images of Rama & Sita are completely like Laxmi-Narayana but are identified as Rama-Sita by the presence of the seated Hanuman at their feet. An inscription of 467 AD. testifies to the installation by a devotee of the image of "Chitrakutsvami-Anantashayi" referring to both Rama & Vishnu.

An inscription of 467 A.D. testifies to the installation by a devotee of the image of "Chitrakutsvami- Anantashayi" referring to both Rama & Vishnu. The same practice is indicated by an inscription found at Ayodhya which says that the Gahadval king Chandradev visited Ayodhya on 23rd Oct. 1093 on a pilgrimage on the occasion of a solar eclipse when he bathed in the Saryu and performed the worship of Vasudeva the protector of the three worlds. HkxorfL=Hkqou=krqokZlqnsoL; iwtka fo/kk;)

The long tradition of Rama worship as evidenced lay the numerous literary, scriptural and archaeological sources culminate in the 12th/13th century in the Ayodhya-Mahatmya forming part of the Skandapurana pilgrimage to the city as the best means to salvation. Along with various other holy sites associated with Rama such as Goptar ghat, Swargadwar, Sahasradhara {all of which exist till this day) etc; the Ayodhya-Mahatmya profusely eulogizes the Janmabhoomi shrine and gives it location. The merits of a visit by a devotee observing the vow ozr on the Ramanavami day to the Janmasthana has been described in Ayodhya-Mahatmya in the following words:

"A man who has seen the Janmasthan will not be born again even if he does not offer gifts, practise asceticism, goes on pilgrimages or make sacrifice-offerings. A man observing the vow world be liberated from the bondages of rebirth on arrival of the Navami day because of the miraculous power of a bath and a gift By seeing the Ramjanmabhoomi he shall obtain the result that accrues to one who gives away a thousand red cows day after day".

A large number of Muslim writers who have written detailed accounts of the regional history of Awadh since 17th century, based on older authentic contemporary sources of various nature, have unanimously stressed the fact that on the basis of Babar's order, the Janmasthan of Sri Ram Chandra at Kot Ram Chander, Pargana Haveli, Awadh, which comprised not only the private apartments {mahal sarai) of King Dashrath and Sri Ram but also a temple and a kitchen popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi, were demolished and a mosque constructed thereupon in 1528 AD. under the guidance of the Commander Mir Baqi and the Patronage of a Muslim faqir named Sayed Musa Ashikan.

The earliest of such authors is none other than the grand daughter of Modhul emperor Aurangzeb. Many of these Muslim writers were residents of Awadh and some were eyewitness to or participants in the Hindu-Muslim clashes or the dispute in 1855.

The earliest of such authors is none other than the grand daughter of Moghul emperor Aurangzeb. Many of these Muslim writers were residents of Awadh and some were eyewitness to or participants in the Hindu-Muslim clashes or the dispute in 1855.

Let us now see what the Muslim writers have said:

Abu! Fazl, the author of Akbar Nama/ Ain-i-Akbari (late 16th century) is an eminent writer of the Moghul age who has categorically associated Awadh (Ayodhya) with the residential place (banga) of Sri Ram Chandra who during the Treta age was the embodiment of both the spiritual sovereign supremacy as well as the mundane kingly office. Abu! Fazl also testifies that Awadh (Ayodhya) was esteemed as one of the holiest places of antiquity. He reports that Ramanavami festival, marking the birthday of Raffia continues to be celebrated in a big way. As in the Ain-i-Akbari Abul Fazl is basically concerned with the institutional and administrative system of the Moghuls (under Akbar), he does not provide any further detail about the disputed building; nor, for that matter, about any shrines or buildings in general.

The work entitled Sahifa-i-Chihal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi (comprising forty counsels) was written by the daughter of Bahadur Shah (ibin) Alamgir (Bahadur Shah 11701 to 1712 A.D.) A copy of this work, the transcription of which was completed on 15th Shaban A.H. 1231/11th July, 1816 A.D. was deposited with the library of Mirza Haider Shukoh bin Mirza Sulayman Shukoh- The text of the (relevant) twenty fifth counsel (nasihat) taken from the above manuscript copy is being reproduced appropriately.

Sahifa-i-Chihal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi is the oldest known account of the destruction of Ram-Janmabhoomi for construction of the Babri mosque, and its author is none other than Aurangzeb's grand- daughter.

Mirza Jan, the author of Hadiqa-i-Shahda, 1856, Lucknow, has reproduced the above text in Persian on pp4-7 of his book. The text runs as follows:

"…. The places of worship of the infidel Hindus (musharkin Hindu) situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh, etc., which the 'wicked and worthless' infidels (kufar-i-nakbar), according to their own belief and faith, consider these (places) as the birth place (mualad gha) of Kanhaiya (Lord Krishna), the place (mugami) of Rasoi Sita (pertaining to Lord Raffia), the monument (makan) known as the seat of Hanuman, who, (according to the Hindus) was installed by Ram Chandra over there after the conquest of Lanka-were all demolished for the strength of Islam, and at all these places mosques have been constructed. They (the rulers) should not keep these mosques free from the Friday congregational prayers (jama wa jamait). Rather it is obligatory that no open ceremony of idol-worship should be performed over there and the sound of the Conch Shell should not reach the ear of the Muslims."

(3) Hadiqa-i-Shahada Mirza Jan (1856)

The author was an eyewitness and an active participant in the jihad led by Amir Ali Amethawi during Wazid Ali Shah's rule in 1855 for recapture of Hanumangarhi from the Hindus. His book was ready just after the failure of the jihad and was published the following, year (1856) in Lucknow. In Chapter IX of his book, entitled Wazid Ali Shah Aur Unka Ahd ("Wazid Ali Shah and His Regime"), we find his account of construction of the Babari Mosque.

Mirza Jan who claims to have gone through various old source's says in his own account as follows: "The past Sultans encouraged the propagation and glorification of Islam and crushed the forces of the' unbelievers (kufar), the Hindus. Similarly, Faizabad and Awadh were also purged of this mean practice (of kufr). This (Awadh) was a great worshipping centre and the capital of (the kingdom of) Rama's father. Where there was a large temple, a big mosque was constructed and where there was a small mandaf, there a small kanati masjid was constructed. The temple of Janmasthan was the original birthplace (masqat) of Raffia, adjacent to, which is Sita Ki Rasoi, Sita being the name of his wife. Hence at that site, a lofty (sarbuland) mosque has been built by Babar Badshah under the guidance of Musa Ashikan. . That mosque is till date popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi,..." (4) Muhammad Asghar's petition (1858)

Muhammad Asghar, khatib and muazzan of the Babari Masjid filed a representation dated 30.11.1858, in case no 884, muhalla Kot Ram Chandra, Ajodhya to the British Government. In this complaint against the Bairagis of Janmasthan, he alleged that the Hindus had occupied the mosque, constructed an earthen mound therein, hoisted a flag on a high pole, installed a deity, started puja, wrote the name of Raffia all over the walls and so on. The muazzin also observes that in the outer space of the constructed Babari mosque (i.e. in the courtyard within the walled boundaries of the mosque) there had been Janmasthan lying desolate where the Hindus had been worshipping for hundreds of years. This confirms the fact that even though the site of Janmasthan had been converted by the Babari Masjid, the Hindus had been worshipping in the open space for hundreds of years, i.e. even during the Moghul and the Nawabi periods, and that they had maintained their claim on the entire Janmasthan area.)

(5) Fasana-i Ibrat by the Urdu novelist Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur.

Dr. Zaki Kakorawi has appended an excerpt from this book by Surur (1787-1867) in his work. The excerpt reads as follows: "During the reign of Babar Badshah, a magnificent mosque was constructed in Awadh at a place which is associated with Sita ki Rasoi. This was Babari mosque. As during this period the Hindus could not dare to offer any resistance, the mosque was constructed under the benign guidance of Saiyed Mir Ashikan. Its date of construction could be reckoned from (the words) Khair-Baqi. And in the Ram Darbar, a mosque was constructed by Fidai Khan, the subedar."

After further describing the construction of another mosque at Hanuman Garhi by Aurangzeb, the author states that later on, after the defeat of Nawab Shujauddaula at Buxar, the Bairagis occupied the Garhi: "The Bairagis mitigated the mosque at Hanuman Garhi and constructed a temple (thereon). in the Babri mosque comprising the site of Sita ki Rasoi. The (Nawabi) administration could not do anything about it."

It may be noted that Surur mentioned the Sahifa-i Bahadurshahi, copied in 1817, as the source from which his observations could be verified by anybody interested.

Kakorawi (1811-1893) wrote this book in 1869, but it did not see the light of day for more than a century. When Dr. Zakri Kakorawi prepared a press copy, the F .A. Ahmad Memorial committee agreed to publish the book, in 1986, but without the chapter on the 1855 episode. Subsequently, Dr. Kakorawi published this chapter independently in 1987, under the title: Amir Ali Shah Aur Markah- i Hanuman Garhi.

It contains this account: "Awadh was the capital of the father of Lachman and Ram. (There) under the guidance of Musa Ashikan, a magnificent Babri mosque was constructed at the site of the temple within the premises of Janmasthan, which was popularly known amongst the Hindus as Sita Ki Rasoi. The date of construction can be reckoned from Khair Baqi ...And a mosque was also constructed at the site of Ram Darbar by Fidai Khan, Subedar, which was later demolished and renovated by the Hindus".

(7) Zia-i Akhatar by Haji Muhammed Husan (Lucknow 1878)

The author states: ' 'The mosque which had been built by Saiyid Musa Ashikan in 923 AH in compliance with the order of Zahiruddin Badshah, Delhi, after demolishing the private apartments (mahal sarai) of Raja Ram Chander and the kitchen of Sita, as well as the second mosque built by Muiuddin Aurangzeb, Alamgir Badshah, (in fact) both these mosques had developed cracks at various places because of the ageing character. Both these mosques have been gradually mitigated by the Bairagis and this very fact accounts for the riot. The Hindus have great hatred for the Muslims.

(8) Gumgashte Halat-i-Ajodhya Awadh "Forgotten Events of Ayodhya", i.e. Tarikh-i Parnia Madina Alwaliya (in Persian) Lucknow 1885, by Maulvi Abdul Karim.

The author, who was then the imam of the Babari Masjid, while giving a description of the dargah of Hazart Shah Jamal Gojjri states: "To the east of this dargah is mahalla Akbarpur, whose second name is also Kot Raja Ram Chander Ji. In this Kot, there were few burjs (towery big halls). Towards the side of the western burj, there was the house of birthplace (makan-i paidaish) and the kitchen (bawarchi khana) of the above-mentioned Raja. And now, this premise is known as Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji. After the demolition and mitigation of these houses (viz. Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji), Babar Badshah got a magnificent mosque constructed thereon. " In this work, the author has referred to numerous contemporary sources. It was translated into Urdu by his grandson Maulvi Abdul Gaffar in 1979.

Ayodhya, under the patronage of Saiyid Ashikan, and Sita ki Rasoi is situated adjacent to it. The date of construction of the mosque is Khair Baqi (923 AH). Till date, it is known as Sita ki Rasoi. By its side stands the temple. It is said that at the time of the conquest of Islam there were still the temples, viz. Janmasthan, which was the birthplace of Ram Chanderji, Swargadwar alias Ram Darbar, and the Treta ka Thakur. Babar built the mosque after having demolished Janmasthan."

"...in short, the turbulence (of 1855) reached such a stage that apart from the mitigated mosque at Hanumangarhi, the Hindus built a temple in the courty9fd of Babri Masjid where Sita ki Rasoi was situated. .."

{c} "...Ultimately, on Zildaqqa 1271 AH {July 1855), for the tenth or twelfth time, nearly two or three hundred Muslims gathered at Babri Masjid which is situated inside the Sita ki Rasoi..."

It is important to, observe that the learned author used as many as eighty-one sources (manuscripts and books) covering the history of India/ Awadh from the 17th-19th centuries, comprising mostly Muslim authors, though a few Hindu and European writers have also been referred to.

In parenthesis, we remark that the calculation of the year 923 from the numerical values of the letters making up the expression "Khair Baqi" (as before the adoption of Indian numerals, letters were still used sometimes to encode numbers), rests on a mistake. The full expression which is repeated in the inscription on the Masjid, is "Bavad Khair Baqi", of which the numeral value adds up to 935, the AH year partly coinciding with 1528 AD.

Maulani Hakim Sayid Abdul Hai (d. 1923), an eminent scholar on the history of Islamic culture and also rector of Nadwatul-Ulama, wrote on "India under Islamic Rule" in Arabic in the early 20th century. The book was published in Hyderabad in 1972. It was translated into Urdu and published with a foreword by his worthy son, Maulana Abdul Hasan Nadwi, alia Ali Mian, by the Nadwatul-Ulama, Lucknow 1973. An English translation was published in 1977.

The book contained a chapter on "The Mosques of Hindustan"("Hindustan ki Masjidein)- giving at least six instances of the construction of the mosques on the very sites of the Hindu temples demolished by the Indian Muslim rulers during the 12th- 17th centuries. As regards Babri Masjid, he writes: ' 'this mosque was constructed by Babar. at Ayodhya which the Hindus call the birthplace of Ram Chanderji. There is a famous story about his wife Sita. It is said that Sita had a temple here in which she lived and cooked for her husband. On that very site Babar constructed this mosque. "

The author, L.N.S. Qanungo, says that the book has been written with the active help of and in consultation with Munshi Maulvi Hashmi, who has collected all the material and agreed to the contents of the book.

This is a unique book, which is a product of joint efforts by a Hindu and a Muslim. Significantly, this book also confirms all that has been said in the Gumgashte Ha la t-i Ayodhya on the demolition of Janmasthan and the construction of the Babri mosque.

Tieffenthaler, the Austrian Jesuit priest who stayed in Awadh in 1766-71, reports that Babar destroyed the birth-place temple of Rama and constructed a mosque by using its pillars. However, Hindus refused to give up the place and in spite of the Moghul's efforts to prevent them, they were coming to the place for worship. They had constructed the Ram Chabootra in the mosque's courtyard, which they used to perambulate thrice, then to prostrate on the ground. They practised their devotion at the chabootra and in the mosque. Tieffenthaler testifies that they continued celebrating Ram Navami with great gatherings of people from all over India.

(3) Report by Montgomery Martin, British Surveyor (1838).

He proposes that the Masjid was built on the ruins of the Ramkot itself, rather than of a building constructed by Vikramaditya, and that the pillars used in the mosque have been taken from Ram's palace, the figures thereon having been damaged by the bigot (i.e. Babar)

This mentions the Babar's mosque is embellished with 14 columns of elaborate workmanship taken from the old Hindu temple. It also mentions that the Hindus practised pilgrimage and devotion on the Ram Chabootra, which they believed to be Ram's cradle.

It mentions that Ayodhya has three mosques on the sites of three Hindu shrines: the Janmasthan, the site where Ram was born; the Swargadwar Mandir, where his remains were buried; and the Treta ka Thakur, famed as the scene of one of his great sacrifices.

He describes the Ramkot with all its bastions and palaces and says that the columns of Janmasthan temple made of strong close- grained dark slate-coloured Kasauti (or touchstone) and carved with different devices were used by Muslims in the construction of Babar's mosque. Carnegy also notes the construction of the new Janmasthan temple on the neighbouring plot of land in the early 18th century. He reports that until 1855 both Hindus and Muslims worshipped alike in the mosque-temple.

It confirms that the Moghuls destroyed three important Hindu temples at Ayodhya and constructed mosques thereon. Babar built the Babri mosque on Ram Janmabhoomi in 1528, Aurangzeb built one on Swargadwar, and either Aurangzeb or Shahjahan did the same on Treta ka Thakur. All other assertions from Carnegy's Historical Sketch of Faizabad are confirmed in this Gazetteer.

The report confirms that Babar built the Babri mosque in 1528 on the site of Janmasthan temple marking the birthplace of Rama. On Swargadwar Mandir, Aurangzeb constructed a mosque, and on Treta- ka- Thakur the same was done by either Aurangzeb or Shahjahan, according to the well-known Mohammedan practice of enforcing their religion on others. The columns of the destroyed Janmasthan temple have been used in the Babri mosque.

(9) Imperial Gazette of Faizabad (1881).

It confirms the construction of three Moghul mosques at Ayodhya on the site of three celebrated shrines, viz. Janmasthan, Swargadwar and Treta-ka- Thakur.

(10) Court verdict by Col. F. E.A. Chamier, District Judge, Faizabad (1886).

In delivering his judgement in Civil Appeal No.27 of 1885, the Judge, after visiting the Babri mosque site for personal inspection, observed: "It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance."

(11) Archaeological Survey of India Report by A. Fuhrer (1891)

Fuhrer accepts that Mir Khan built the Babri mosque on the site of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple, using many of its columns. He also confirmed that Aurangzeb had constructed two other mosques in Ayodhya on the sites of Swargadwar and Treta-ka- Thakur temples.

Neville reports that' 'numerous disputes have sprung up from time to time between the Hindu priests and the Mussalmans of Ayodhya with regard to the ground on which formerly stood the Janmasthan temple, which was destroyed by Babar and replaced by a mosque".

(13) Faizabad District Gazetteer by H. R. Neville (1905).

This chronicle confirms that the Janmasthan temple marking the birthplace of Ram at Ramkot was destroyed by Babar and replaced by a mosque using the materials and columns of the temple. In spite of its desecration, Hindus continued to regard it as a holy spot. The desecration caused numerous disputes and clashes between the communities.

(14) Babur Nama in English by Annettee Beveridge (1920)

After analysing the inscriptions on the Babri mosque and studying the archaeological features, she says that Babur was impressed with the dignity and sanctity of the ancient Hindu shrine it displayed, and that as an obedient follower of Mohammed, Babar regarded the substitution of temple by a mosque as dutiful and worthy.

(15) Archaeological Survey of India (1934).

It identifies all the holy sites of Ayodhya with reference to the ancient texts, numbered them and put up signposts in stone to mark the sites. The Babri mosque was identified as the Ram Janmabhoomi and a signpost was embedded there saying: "Site no.1: Janmabhoomi".

This Gazetteer records that under Babar's orders the ancient Janmasthan temple was destroyed and the Babri mosque was constructed on its site. The material of the old temple including some of the original columns were employed in building the mosque.

(17) Encyclopaedia Britannica (1978, 15th edition, vol.)

This most authentic Encyclopaedia records that Rama's birthplace is marked by a mosque erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple. The Encyclopaedia also provides a photograph of the present structure, describing it as the mosque on Rama's birthplace, Ayodhya, U.P., India.

In his most comprehensive study, the Dutch scholar Bakker has repeatedly and categorically accepted that an old Vaishnava temple was situated on the holy spot where Rama descended on earth. This Janmabhoomi temple was destroyed by Babar in 1528 and replaced with the now-existing mosque structure, 14 black-stone pillars from the temple were utilized by Mir Baqi in the construction of the mosque. Two more pillars have been driven upside down into the ground at the grave of the Muslim saint Musa Ashiqan, who is said to have incited Babar to demolish the Janmabhoomi temple. A seventeenth specimen, which is a doorjamb with matching sculpture and similar age (and possibly from the same temple) is kept inside the new Janmasthan temple on the neighbouring mound. Bakker concludes that Ram Janamabhoomi temple was one of the oldest Ram temples in the country which was in existence in the 12th century. (cfr. Bakker: Ayodhya, Egbert Forsten, Groningen 1986, part I, pp. 43-59,60-66, 119-153 part ll, pp. 118- 121, 143-149, 173-175)

(19) Ram Janmabhoomi us. Babri Masjid by Koenraad Elst (1990).

The Belgian scholar Elst centred his study of the Ayodhya controversy on a critical examination of the anti-Mandir argumentations of Mrs. Surinder Kaur (The Secular Emperor Babar), Syed Shahabuddin (articles in Muslim India and Indian Express), and a group of JNU historians (The Political Abuse of History). Confronting these argumentations with the available evidence, as well as checking them in terms of logic and methodology, he concludes, that the anti- Mandir thesis is untenable. (cfr. Elst : Ram Janmabhoomi us. Babri Masjid, a Case Study in Hindu-Muslim Conflict, Voice of India, Delhi 1990)

In the revenue records, Kot Ram Chandra, the residential headquarters of Sri Ram Chandra has been shown quite distinct from the city (shahar) of Ayodhya. In the records, Janmasthan, a large complex serves as a landmark in Kot Ram Chandra. The first regular settlement Report (1861) as well as the later records confirm that these records are in continuation with the Summary Settlement (1858-59) as well as with the earlier records of the Nawabi period. The revenue records clarify the factual proprietary position of Janmasthan vs. Babri Masjid, and show how the site has generally been treated as Janmasthan and nothing else.

In the first settlement report (1861), the entire complex of Janmasthan shown under abadi (populated) is covered under khasra No . 163 with 10 plots with superior ownership declared in the name of Sarkar Bahadur Nazul (government), and the mahants of Janmasthan along with their names and title to land have been shown with subordinate proprietary right (malikan-i matahit).

The map of Hadbast of the village Kot Ram Chandra appended to the Settlement Report (1861) shows only Janmasthan and the symbol of Mosque is not indicated any where on the plot in question.

This position is maintained even in the later three Settlements effected during the 19th-20th centuries (Fasli 1301, 1344 and 1397, corresponding to AD 1893, 1939 and 1989). In the 1937 settlement and latest Khasra Kistwar map the position is the same as in 1861 Hadbast map. As per revenue practice, numbers of the plots in the various categories of the revenue documents have however undergone change from one settlement to another. In the 1989-90 Settlement, the erstwhile Janmasthan complex has been shown under four khasra numbers, viz. 159, 160, 146 and 147 R. Ram Janmabhoomi, without being mentioned have been shown in two numbers, 159 and 160. Of these, most of the area has been shown in the ownership of the local mahant while some portion has been put under Nazul. The new Janmasthan monument misnomered as Janmasthan to the north of the latter, shown in khasras Nos. 146 and 147 R is vested in the ownership of the local mahant.

Even though the amended khasra records of the Nazul Department (1931) under No.580 put both the structures of the Babri Masjid and the Chabootra Temple in Waqf possession, Mahant Raghunath has been declared as subsidiary proprietor of the entire plot. However, the position taken by the Nazul records (1931) is not further reflected in any of the regular revenue settlements of 1936-37 and 1989-90.

In the Settlement Reports since 1861, no plot or sub-plot has been shown as Waqf. Muhammad Asghar and Mir Rajab Ali who claimed themselves to be khatibs and muazzana of the Babri Mosque were in fact and zamindars of village Shahanwa, about 6 miles from Kot Ram Chandra, and held nankar/muafi (maintenance grant) on account of services rendered by them to the British government.

The text in Annexure, Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid at Ayodhya: an Archaeological and Art-Historical Examination, by Dr. S. P. Gupta, is a detailed survey of those findings at the disputed site which are relevant for the present discussion. It lists the details about the components of an earlier temple that have been re-employed in The Babri Masjid, and the results of excavations just outside the building. These excavations were carried out in 1975-80 by the Archaeological Survey of India, and led by Prof. B.B. Lal. Their object of investigation was primarily the early period, presumed to have been the period of the events, which formed the historical core of the Ramayana epic. Therefore, the findings relating to the medieval period have not been highlighted in the concise ASI excavation reports published so far .

Dr. S. P. Gupta, former director of the Allahabad Museum, who participated in the excavations, has written this first-hand report on the category of findings pertinent to the present discussion. His conclusions have been broadly confirmed by Prof. B. B. Lal, in an article published in Manthan {October 1990), as well as in an interview with BBC television.

Incidentally, we have taken note of the fact that some historians of Jawaharlal Nehru University have thought it necessary to raise suspicions against the professional integrity of Dr. Gupta and Prof. Lal. In a statement published in Indian Express (December 5, 1990), they insinuate that Dr. Gupta falsely claims participation in the excavations, and that Prof. Lal has changed his archaeological conclusions in order to satisfy newly arisen political exigencies. Both these insinuations are baseless. The fact that the JNU historians, protagonists of the anti- Mandir camp in the present historical debate, now find it necessary to resort to personal attacks, may indicate an increasing loss of confidence in their own arguments.

A thesis advanced by the anti-Mandir people is that the new Janmasthan temple (also known as Sita Ki Rasoi) on the mound adjacent to the north of the Babri structure is itself the original Janmasthan shrine. On many grounds, this proposition is untenable :

(1) This is relatively new temple and there is no archaeological evidence to suggest that it is more than 250 years old.

(2) Available historical evidence shows that this shrine was originally started by a sadhu named Ram Dasji in about 1704 AD, on a piece of land donated by Mir Masoom Ali Mafidar. Subsequently, the present impressive structure was built by a Hindu minister of Safdarjang (the Shia Nawab of Awadh), Naval Rai, who rebuilt many temples during this period of relative benevolence, mostly on sites of original site destroyed by Muslims. Where the original site was occupied, as in this case, a neighbouring site was used for the construction.

(3) Tieffenthaler described the Babri Masjid in detail as being the site of the original Ram Janmabhoomi, while he also mentions the new Janmasthan temple (Sita ki Rasoi) as a very famous one in the city.

(4) The thesis that the original Ram Janmabhoomi shrine continued without any interference leaves unexplained the origin of the persistent controversy about Ram-Janmabhoomi on the Babri Masjid site.

7.2 Hindus never ceased claiming the site

It is well attested that the Hindus persistently tried to retrieve their Holy Land, which led to conflicts between Hindus and Muslims. The Hindus regained control of the courtyard by the 18th century and kept up their pressure on the site under the domed structure. There is no reasonable explanation for this persistent attachment to the site, except that it was in continuation of an older, pre-Masjid tradition .

A document enclosed with a letter dated 12th August, 1855 from Wazid Ali Shah, the king of Oudh, to the British Resident Major James Outram, carrying the seal of the Qazi of Faizabad in the year 1735 A.D., mentioned that a serious riot had taken place over the Masjid "built by the emperor of Delhi" (apparently a conflict of the kind that took place in 1855) between Hindus and Muslims, during the times of Burhan-un-Mulk Saadar Ali Khan, the first Nawab of Oudh (1707- 1736) over the possession of this mosque. (NAI, Foreign, Political Proceedings, 28th December, 1855, No.355.

Maratha documents show that one of the main objectives of the Maratha operations and policy in North India was the liberation of the sacred cities of Ayodhya, Varanasi and Prayag. In the year 1751 Maratha armies led by Malhar Rao Holkar, at the invitation of Safdarjang, the second Nawab of Oudh, defeated the Pathan forces in Doab. Immediately after his victory Malhar Rao Holkar requested Safdarjang to handover Ayodhya, Kashi and Prayag to the Peshwa. (A.L.Srivastava: The First Two Nawabs of Oudh).

Again, when in 1756 the third Nawab Shujauddaula invited Maratha help against impending Afghan invasion, the Maratha agent of the Court of Oudh demanded the transfer of these three holy places including Ayodhya and the negotiations lingered on for more than a year on this one point. Ultimately in July 1757, Shujauddaula agreed to transfer the holy cities of Ayodhya and Kashi to the Maratha leader Raghoba. But the transfer could not be implemented as Maratha armies got entangled in the conquest of the Punjab, which ultimately led to the tragedy of Panipat (1761 A.D.).

But Peshwa Balaji Bajirao's eagerness to acquire Ayodhya is reflected in one of his letters dated 23th February, 1759 to Dattaji Scindia, his General in the North wherein the Peshwa reminds Scindia that 'Mansur Ali's son (i.e., Shujauddaula} had promised to Dada (i.e. Raghoba} to cede Benares and Ayodhya" and instructs him to take hold to those places alongwith Prayag. (Cf. Sarkar J.N. Fall of the Moghul Empire, Vol. II, Calcutta, 1934 ff231-233).

Historians Dr. A.L. Srivastava, Sir J.A. Sarkar, G.S. Sardesai and Dr. Hari Ram Gupta who have studies this period of history very deeply have concluded that "Had the Bhau (Sadashiv) emerged successful from Panipat, within a few years Kashi, Prayag and Ayodhya would have been emancipated". (Hari Ram Gupta ; Marathas & Panipat, Chandigarh 1961, p.292).

In 1767 Tieffenthaler found that in spite of the Mughal kings' efforts to prevent them, the Hindus had re-occupied the courtyard, raised the Ram Chabootra thereon, and were worshipping there as well as under the domed structure.

In 1854 Thornton recorded in his Gazetteer exactly the same situation as Tieffenthaler had found.

In 1855 there was a big clash in which nearly 300 Muslims under Shah Ghulam Hussain took possession of the Babri mosque and tried to fix doors on it. On protests from Hindus, clashes started. Muslims attacked Hanumangarhi, but were driven back with considerable loss. Then the Hindu counter attacked, stormed the Janmasthan and killed 70 Muslims who were buried nearby. Shah Ghulam Hussain jumped over the wall and fled.

In 1856, the Muazzin of the Babri mosque, in a petition before the British authorities admitted that the courtyard had been in possession of the Hindus for hundreds of years and now they were interfering with the domed structure as well.

In 1934, serious Hindu-Muslim clashes occurred in and around Babri mosque, occasioned by a cow slaughter. Many people were killed and the structure was seriously damaged.

In November and December 1949, the Hindus held large sessions of Ramayana-recitation around the site, in order to purify it. On December 22/23, idols were installed (some say they miraculously appeared) and the place was re-consecrated for Rama worship.

7.3 Attempts to suppress Muslim testimony

While all Muslim writers before 1949 proudly proclaimed the destruction of the Ram Janmabhoomi for construction of the mosque, hailing it was virtuous act of proclaiming the victory of Islam over Hinduism, there are definite indications that in the recent years (especially since the Hindus strengthened their claim over the site) attempts have been made to suppress evidence and manipulate records.

1) Gumgashte Halat-i Ajodhya Awadh by Maulvi Abdul Karim (referred to in 3:8), was translated from Persian to Urdu by his grandson Maulvi Abdul Gaffar. The first edition of his translation, published in Lucknow in 1979 retained the description of demolition of the temple at Janmasthan, but this portion was removed from the second edition published in 1981 (p.53-54).

2) In 1989, a leading intellectual of this country looked for the book "Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein" (Hindustan under Islamic Rule), by Maulana Hakim Saiyid Abdul Hai (referred to in 3: 11), which included a chapter on Hindustan ki Masjidein, containing a description of the demolition of several temples in the country including the Ram Janmabhoomi, and their replacement by mosques. He found that many people who certainly should have known the book, were not willing to recall it. The book was also missing in the libraries of famed Muslim institutes, including AMU. If one perforce wants to consider all this mere concoction and insinuation, this much is verifiable fact: the English version (1977) has the tell tale passage in the descriptions of seven mosques built on temples, including Babri masjid, censored out or substituted.

3) The manuscript of the Muruqqa-i Khusrawi by Sheikh Mohammed Azamat Ali Nami, was only available in the Tagore Library, Lucknow, for over 100 years. In 1986, when the F.A.Ahmad Memorial Committee published it, they omitted the chapter relating to the destruction of Ram Janmabhoomi and the Hindu-Muslim clashes in 1855. Later Dr. Zaki Kakorawi had to get this published independently without getting any financial aid from the committee.

4) The Settlement Record of 1861 (First Khasra Kishtwar Settlement Report) contained only the name of Janmasthan on all the plots of Khasra No.163. But in the copy of the report kept in the Faizabad Mahafazkhana, someone has made interpolations to insert the names of Jama Masjid and Muafi against one of the plots. The interpolation becomes evident if one looks at the record available at Tehsil Office, the record of second Revenue Settlement 1893 AD) and the Revised Khasra record of Nazul department of 1931 A.D.

The fact that some people thought it necessary to conceal, manipulate or even obliterate pieces of testimony to the history and the actual use of the disputed structure and its courtyard, corroborates our view that these pieces do have proof value in favour of the Mandir hypothesis.

The thesis recently advanced by some persons that Babri Masjid did not replace to any extent Ram temple goes against common sense in many ways. The well-attested fact that the Hindu offered Raffia Puja in the mosque courtyard even under Muslim rule, the rows of 11th century pillar-bases along with the wall of the present structure, the touch-stone pillars incorporated in it, the Hindu sculptures they carry, all these indications converge on the thesis of a pre-existent Ram temple replaced by the Babri mosque. This thesis is also in perfect conformity with historically attested behaviour patterns of Hindu devotees and Muslim conquerors. Indeed, the Ram Mandir hypothesis postulates little more than the general patterns applied in Ayodhya too.

By contrast, the anti-Mandir thesis rests, on a number of untenable assumptions:

1) The Babri masjid was built on empty land. But the site is highest point in central Ayodhya, the place of honour: in no city in the world would it ever have been left empty, much less in a temple city of long standing.

2) Mir Baqi went elsewhere to collect the touchstone pillars, but at that other place where the material was readily available, he did hot build a mosque (for no other mosque with such pillars is known).

3) The tradition associating the site with Raffia was created out of nothing while the site was occupied by an imperial mosque. Hindus left whatever place they had earlier considered the birthplace, without a trace, and started an exclusively Hindu worship in a mosque courtyard taking the unparalleled risk of confronting the Muslim power, for no historical reason at all.

4) The British concocted the story, even though their knowledge of these traditions was scant, no priests or sadhus belonging to this tradition would ever believe an outsider's theory (till today they reject any scholarly chronology of Indian history), plenty of temples- turned-mosques were in existence without needing concoction, and no similar rumour-mongering by the British has been reported anywhere in India.

In an academic context, the burden of proof would rest squarely with the those coming up with such a string of far-fetched hypothesis to contradict a well-established