AYODHYA

[Guest guest]

N.S. Rajaram

The Ayodhya Dispute - Fact and fiction in the temple-mosque

controversy (Part 2)

 

Continued From Part 1...

 

Editor's Note: The following are excerpts from the book, The Ayodhya

Dispute written by N. S. Rajaram.

 

The First Dispute: The Temple And The Mosque

 

The first dispute

As observed previously, there are really two disputes about Ayodhya:

the first open, ancient and historical; the second covert, recent and

ideological. The first dispute is over the right of possession to the

ancient site known as Rama Janmabhumi. This has been deliberately

thrown into confusion by introducing a mass of irrelevant information

- such as, whether Babar was too tolerant a human being to indulge in

temple destruction, and so forth. What is attempted in this chapter

is

a simple presentation of basic material so that one has an

uncluttered

and unambigous historical picture.

 

For all the sound and fury in the media about Ayodhya, the historical

question is surprisingly simple: was there or was there not a Hindu

temple at the spot known as Ram Janmabhumi that was destroyed to

build

a mosque? The answer is also equally simple - 'yes'. There are two

parts to the question: was there a Hindu temple, and was it destroyed

and a mosque known as Babri Masjid built in its place. Again the

answer is - 'yes' to both questions. It is as simple as that.

 

This is what I shall try and make clear in this chapter, by

presenting

the latest and the bare minimum amount of details necessary. A great

deal has been written about all this, most of which is unnecessary

while some of it is meant intentionally to confuse. The reader will

see that when properly presented, there is little room for confusion.

 

There are basically two sources for studying the history: literary

sources and the archaeological record. Following the demolition on

December 6, 1992, a great deal of archeological and historical

information has come to light. Thus, much of the published material,

as well as the controversy about previous temples at the site has

been

rendered moot by new discoveries following the demolition. What is

presented here is a summary of the latest evidence - literary as well

as archaeological.

 

Literary evidence

The latest (fifteenth) edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in its

article on Ayodhya tells us:

 

Rama's birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul

emperor

Babur in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple. (Article on Ayodhya,

Encyclopaedia Britannica volume 1, 1985: Fifteenth Edition.)

 

The Britannica, though generally regarded as an authoritative

reference work is not a primary source. When we turn to the primary

sources, the material available on the topic is so voluminous that

one

despairs of ever obtaining a simple, easliy comprehensible account.

One recent author (Harsh Narain, below) cites more than a hundred and

thirty references in English, French, Hindi, Sanskrit, Urdu, Persian

and Arabic. And I have identified several not found in his work. So

the problem one is faced with is not a lack of material, but one of

selection.

 

Fortunately, Sita Ram Goel has compiled a two volume magnum opus

under

the heading Hindu Temples: What happened to them? The second volume

is

particularly valuable in that it presents a comprehensive summary of

the Islamic record, quoting chapter and verse from the primary

sources. Even a cursory glance through these volumes leaves little

doubt regarding either the destructive record of Islam in India, or

the record of dishonesty and venality of the Secularists.

 

The two volumes by Goel are an invaluable source for researchers,

though, typically enough they are studiously ignored by Secularist

historians and their allies in the media. For the lay reader, Goel

has

provided also a highly readable summary of the two volumes in his

book

Islam vis-a-vis Hindu Temples.3 It is recommended reading for every

serious student of Islam in India.

 

As far as Ayodhya itself is concerned, the most comprehensive

discussion of the primary material available is probably the book The

Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on the Muslim Sources by Harsh

Narain.4 The scope of this work according to its author is:

 

The work sums up my search and research for historical sources,

particularly Muslim, on the existence and desecration of the Rama

Janmabhumi temple and its replacement with with the Babri Mosque at

Ayodhya. That way it has emerged as a more or less full account of

the

sources shedding light on the issue. ...

.... In February 1990, I published the result of my research in

certain

dailies. My article on the subject in the Indian Express for February

26, 1990 aroused a controversy.

 

Subsequently, I hunted out more evidence in favour of my theses, the

most significant one issuing from the pen of a descendant of Babar -

Aurangazeb's grand-daughter, to be precise - which should have

clinched the issue. (p vii)

 

We next go on to examine several of these sources provided by Harsh

Narain. As previously noted, they are so numerous that we can do no

more than survey a few. But even this survey will suffice to show

that

until recently, until the Secularists created the so-called

'controversey', no author - Hindu, Muslim, European or British

official - had questioned that a temple existed on the spot which had

been destroyed to erect the mosque. We may begin with a few

references

from European writers provided by Harsh Narain. These are from

published sources that are widely available.

 

A. Führer in his The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in

the

North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Archaeological Survey of India

Report, 1891, pp 296-297 records: 'Mir Khan built a masjid in A.H.

930

during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name. This old

temple

must have been a fine one, for many of its columns have been utilized

by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar's Masjid.' [This is

supported by archaoelogy as we shall soon see.]

 

H.R. Neville in the Barabanki District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp

168-169, writes that the Janmasthan temple 'was destroyed by Babar

and

replaced by a mosque.' Neville, in his Fyzabad District Gazetteer,

Lucknow, 1905, pp 172-177 further tells us; 'The Janmasthan was in

Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to

Ayodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple

and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar's mosque. The

materials of the old structure [i.e., the temple] were largely

employed, and many of the columns were in good preservation.' [Again

supported by archaeological finds.]

 

One could cite many more in similar vein, but these examples should

suffice for recent European records. When we reach back in time, what

we find particularly interesting are the accounts attributed to Guru

Nanak. He was a contemporary of Babar, and an eyewitness to his

vandalism. Nanak condemned him in the strongest terms. Harsh Narain

writes (pp 14-15):

 

Guru Nanak, according to Bhai Man Singh's Pothi Janam Sakhi, said to

have been composed in 1787 Anno Vikrami/1730 A.D., visited Ayodhya

and

said to his Muslim disciple Mardana: 'Mardania! eh Ajudhia nagari Sri

Ramachandraji Ji ki hai. So, chal, iska darsan kari'e. Translation:

'Mardana! this Ayodhya city belongs to Sri Ramachandra Ji. So let us

have its darsana.'

 

This indicates that Nanak visited Ayodhya shortly before the

destruction of the Rama temple by Babar. Man Singh's book was written

two hundred years later, which means that he was drawing upon

existing

traditions or some other source relating to Nanak's visit to Ayodhya.

But another work by Baba Sukhbasi Ram gives a similar account, again

suggesting that Nanak visited Ayodyha before the temple was destroyed

by his contemporary, the invader Babar whose atrocities he condemned.

'These kings are nothing but butchers' said Nanak, refering to the

Moghuls and others in his time.

 

Before I get to the Islamic evidence, it is worth looking at an

Indian

account from the twelfth-thirteenth century period attesting to the

atrocities of the Islamic invaders. It is preserved in the

'Bhuvana-kosha' section of the Garuda Purana which throws light on

the

invasions of the Mlecchas and the Saindhavas (Arab occupiers of

Sindh). The 'Kumarika-khanda' of the Skanda Purana speaks of invaders

based in Mulasthana or the modern Multan. So does the Kurma Purana.

 

Returning to the Bhuvana-Kosha of the Garuda Purana, the Mlecchas of

the Himalayas and the Turushkas (Turks) of the north were the

Ghaznavids and the Ghurids. In the Introduction to the Garuda Purana,

the well known Puranic scholar A.B.L. Awasthi points out:5

 

The Mlechchhas of the Himalaya region and the Turushkas of the North

mentioned in the Bhuvana Kosha section [of the Garuda Purana] also

reflect upon the Turkish conquest of Northwestern India by the

Ghaznavids. The passage found in the Garuda Purana that the country

was threatened by the Dasyus (dasyutkrishta janapadah) is also very

significant and it reflects upon the age of terror and turmoil caused

by the Turkish invasions.

 

The alien invasions of such people, who destroyed the shrines and the

roots of religion, viz, Deities, Brahmanas and cows, and also carried

away the ladies. They defiled the tirthas, which also caused great

terror.

 

The Pauranikas accepted the challenge and exhorted the Kshatriyas of

accepting the svadharma of giving protection to country and culture.

....

 

The freedom of the country was also imperilled after the fall of

Prithviraja III at the hands of Muhammad Ghori after the second

battle

of Terain (1192 A.D.). The Pauranika points to the political blunder

of the Chahamana ruler who was succumbed in [sic] sensuous slumber in

the company of his newly acquired wife Samyogita [or Samyukta].

 

We shall soon see that this is not very different from what Muslim

chroniclers themselves tell us. But the Secularists would have us

believe that there was no persecution and no mass destruction of

temples. Going by their logic, both the victims and the perpetrators

were subject to identical fantasies!

 

Another point frequently made by the Secularists and their allies is

that during the Islamic period, there was little animosity between

Hindus and Muslims, that is to say, the two communities lived

harmoniously together. The animosities that led eventually to the

Partition of India, according to the Secularists, was the result of

the British policy of 'divide and rule'. Well, here is what Alberuni,

who accompanied Mahmud of Ghazna on his numerous campaigns into India

had to say nearly a thousand years ago:6 Yamin-addaula Mahmud

[Ghaznavi] marched into India during a period of thirty years and

more. ... Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and

performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like

atoms of dust scattered in all directions. ... Their scattered

remains

cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion of all the Muslims.

(Emphasis added.)

 

So it was not just the wealth that was looted; Mahmud was responsible

for uprooting Hindu learning from the places he invaded. This is not

very different from the account given in the Bhuvana-Kosha of the

Garuda Purana and other Hindu chronicles. From this we can see that

the hostility between the Hindus and the Muslims has a thousand year

history that surely cannot be blamed on the British!

 

It is unnecessary to dwell too much on the documentary evidence since

all questions about the pre-existence of the temple at the site of

the

Babri Masjid have been settled by archaeology, especially following

its domolition on December 6, 1992. Actually the primary interest

relating to the Muslim records is not so much in what they have to

say, but in how there have been systematic attempts by Islamic and

Secularist interests in recent years to distort and conceal them.

This

is what Arun Shourie has called 'Hideaway Communalism'. We shall be

looking at this phenomenon in the next chapter, but here are a few

excerpts beginning with Harsh Narain's observations on recent

negationist efforts.7

 

All relevant British government records followed by District

Gazetteer

of Faizabad compiled and published by the Congress government in 1960

declare with one voice that the so-called Babri mosque at Ayodhya is

standing on the debris of a Ramajanmasthan temple demolished by the

order of Babar in 1528. Syed Shahabuddin, JNU historians, and

self-styled 'secular' scholars and leaders are hotly contesting the

proposition, contending that the existence and demolition of a temple

is a myth floated by the British in pursuance of their policy of

divide and rule. ... (p 102)

 

Now I proceed to cite certain purely Muslim sources beyond the sphere

of British influence to show that the Babri mosque has displaced a

Hindu temple ... (pp 103-4)

 

Then Harsh Narain goes on to cite a few significant examples. I will

refer to a few - and a few others will be noted later. The interested

reader on the Ayodhya dispute can refer to Narain's book. Sita Ram

Goel's two-volume magnum opus gives a more comprehensive summary of

the record of the Islamic vandalism in India. We shall be concerned,

however, mainly with Ayodhya. (JNU is the Jawaharlal Nehru University

in Delhi which is considered the Meccah of Secularists with AMU, the

Aligarh Muslim University a close second.)

 

In 1855, Amir Ali Amethawi led a Jihad (Islamic religious war) for

the

recapture of Hanuman Garhi, situated a few hundred yards from the

Babri Masjid which at that time was in the possession of Hindus. This

Jihad took place during the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah. It ended

in

failure. A Muslim writer, one Mirza Jan, was a participant in that

failed Jihad. His book Hadiqah-i-Shuhada was published in 1856, i.e.

the year following the attempted Jihad. Miza Jan tells us:

 

.... wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since

the establishment of Sayyid Salar Mas'ud Ghazi's rule, the Muslim

rulers in India built mosques, monasteries, and inns, appointed

mu'azzins, teachers and store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously, and

vanquished the Kafirs. Likewise they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh,

too from the filth of reprobation (infidelity), because it was a

great

centre of worship and capital of Rama's father. Where there stood a

great temple (of Ramajanmasthan), there they built a big mosque, ...

Hence what a lofty mosque was built there by king Babar in 923 A.H.

(1528 A.D.), under the patronage of Musa Ashiqqan! (Harsh Narain: p

105)8

 

Harsh Narain goes on to add: "It must be borne in mind that Mirza Jan

claims to write all this on the basis of older records (kutub-i

sabigah) and contemporary accounts." Except for its tone of triumph

the account is not very different from what the Garuda Purana has to

say. Similar accounts are found in a few other Puranas as already

noted.

 

Another interesting piece of evidence unearthed by Harsh Narain is a

chapter in the book Muraqqah-i-Khusravi, known also as the

Tarikh-i-Avadh. Its author is one Shaikh Azmat Ali Kakorwi Nami

(1811-1893). He was a contemporary of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah and an

eyewitness to the events of the era, including the failed Jihad to

recover Hanuman Garhi from the Hindus. His work was completed in

1869,

but languished in manuscript form for over a century in the Tagore

Library in Lucknow. It saw the light of day only in 1986 when it was

published by Dr. Zaki Kakorawi. But this was a censored version in

which the F.A. Ahmad Memorial Committee which funded it removed

crucial parts. The reason given for this extraordinary action was

that

Kakorawi's edition contained accounts pertaining to the Jihad against

Hanuman Garhi. This, the Committee found politically unacceptable.

 

Fortunately, a year later (1987), Kakorawi published the missing

portion at his own expense under the title Amir Ali Shahid aur

Ma'rakah-i-Hanuman Garhi. The author pointedly observed that

"suppression of any part of any old composition or compilation like

this can create difficulties and misunderstandings for future

historians." (Harsh Narain: p 106) May our Secularists heed his

words!

What is there in the work that made the F.A. Ahmad Committee so

sensitive? Well, here is the passage for the reader to judge.

 

According to old records, it has been a rule with the Muslim rulers

from the first to build mosques, monastaries, and inns, spread Islam,

and (put a stop) to non-Islamic practices, wherever they found

prominence of (kufr). Accordingly, even as they cleared up Mathura,

Brindaban, etc. from the rubbish of non-Islamic practices, the Babari

Mosque was built up in 923 (?) A.H. under the patronage of Sayyid

Musa

Ashiqan in the Janmasthan temple (butkhane Janmasthan mein) in

Faizabad-Avadh, which was a great place of (worship) and capital of

Rama's father. (Harsh Narain: p 106)

 

In another work also known as Tarikh-i-Avadhi, by one Alama Muhammad

Najamulghani Khan Rampuri (1909) tells us:

 

Babar built a magnificent mosque at the spot where the temple of

Janmasthan of Ramachandra was situated in Ayodhya, under the

patronage

of Saiyad Ashikhan, and Sita-ki-Rasoi is situated adjascent to it.

The

date of construction of the mosque is Khair Baqi (923 AH) [or 1528 AD

with the correction]. Till date, it is known as Sita ki Rasoi. By its

side stands that temple. It is said at the time of the conquest of

Islam there were three temples, viz. Janmasthan, which was the

birthplace of Ram Chanderji, Swargadwar alias Ram Darbar, and Treta

ka

Thakur. Babar built the mosque having demolished Janmasthan. (History

versus Casuistry, p 17; emphasis added.)

 

The translation is again by the redoubtable Zaki Kakorawi. It is

important to note that the conscientious author of Tarikh-i-Avadhi

used as many as eighty one books and manuscripts. The fact they were

available to him in 1909 suggests that a few of them might lie

concealed in some libraries and archives. In fact, as late as 1923,

the book Asrar-i-Haqiqat written by the Hindu scholar Lachmi Narain

Qunango assisted by Maulvi Hashmi confirms all of the above details.

The book leaves one with the impression that many sources were still

available to them, especially to the Maulvi who served as Pandit

Lachmi Narain's munshi. It is to be hoped that they are not being

destroyed in the interests of 'Secularism'.

 

The Imperial Gazetteer of Faizabad (1881) confirms the construction

of

three Moghul mosques at Ayodhya on the site of three celebrated

shrines: Janmasthan, Swargadwar and Treta-ka-Thakur. Archaeological

Survey of India tells us that Mir Khan (on Babar's orders) built the

mosque at Janmasthan using many of its columns. Aurangazeb had the

other two mosques built. We see therefore that demolition of temples

and replacing them with mosques was a systematic practice under

Moghuls. It was simply a continuation of earlier policies of all

Muslim rulers as both Hindu and Muslim records testify.

 

This brings us to a Persian text known as Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasa'ih

Bahadurshahi written in 1707 by a grand-daughter of the Moghul

emperor

Aurangazeb, and noted by Mirza Jan in his Urdu work Hadiqah-i Shuhada

previously cited. Mirza Jan quotes several lines from it which tell

us:

 

.... keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should

keep all idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in

realization of Jizyah, grant no exceptions to Hindu Rajahs from

dancing attendance on 'Id days and waiting on foot outside mosques

till end of prayer ... and 'keep in constant use for Friday and

congregational prayer the mosques built up after demolishing the

temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and

Avadh ... (Harsh Narain: pp 23-24; emphasis added.)

 

Spoken like a true child of Aurangazeb!

 

Mirza Jan is not the only writer to cite this work. Mirza Rajab 'Ali

Beg Surur in his work describing the destruction of the Rama temple

at

Ayodhya states that in the Sahifah-i Bahadurshahi (as the work was

also known) "it has come to be described in detail with reference to

year and date. Whoever may choose may look into it." (Harsh Narain:

pp

25-26) This last remark suggests that the work was widely available

in

the nineteenth century, possibly even in print. It evidently

contained

details concerning the destruction of the temple and the bulding of

the Babri mosque at Janmabhumi.

 

Needless to say the Sahifah-i Bahadurshahi, written by a member of

the

Moghul royal family is an important primary source. If there is

anywhere an extant copy of it, it is of utmost importance to put it

in

safe custody - out of reach of the Secularists and their allies with

their by now well established propensity for tampering with important

evidence.

 

Then there is the evidence of the three inscriptions at the site of

the mosque itself, at least two of which mention its construction by

Mir Baqi (or Mir Khan) on the orders of Babar. Babar's Memoir

mentions

Mir Baqi as his governor of Ayodhya. Some parts of the inscription

were damaged during a riot in 1934, but later pieced together with

minor loss. In any event, it was well known long before that,

recorded

for instance in Mrs. Beveridge's translation of Babur-Nama published

in 1926.

 

In the light of all this overwhelming evidence, it is truly amazing

that anyone should even contemplate denying these facts. It can only

mean that the Secularists who are contesting this evidence are either

complete ignoramuses bent on a foolhardy mission, or have complete

confidence in their political influence to bulldoze over facts and

evidence and sustain their own false version. Overwhelming as it is,

even this is not the strongest evidence we have: archaeological

evidence is stronger still.

 

Discoveries at the site I: The Temple City of Ayodhya

Until recently, much of the evidence was literary, based on accounts

in chronicles, supplemented by some archaeology around the site. Even

then, archaeology left little doubt regarding the existence of a

previous temple at the site at which the Babri Masjid is situated.

Ayodhya has drawn the attention of competent archaeologists including

a few internationally known experts like B.B. Lal and S.P. Gupta. As

a

result, the volume of data available is huge running into several

volumes. Some of it has probably been rendered obsolete by

discoveries

following the demolition of December 6, 1992. They settle once and

for

all the question: Was there a Hindu temple at the site before Babri

Masjid was built in 1528?

 

Let us next look at what archaeology has to say about the Ayodhya

site. The first point to note is that Ayodhya lies in a region that

is

generously watered, and has therefore been densely populated since

time immemorial. As a result, archaeological work at Ayodhya is more

difficult, and has not been on the same scale as at Harappan sites

lying a thousand miles to the west. And for the same reasons, luck

plays a large role in the success of any exploration at Ayodhya,

which

is true of archaeology in general. Here is what a leading

archaeologist, Dr. S.P. Gupta (former director of the Allahabad

Museum), has to say about recent excavations at Ayodhya. Gupta

probably has the most extensive experience among the archaeologists

to

have explored the site.9

 

>From 1975 through 1980, the Archaeological Survey of India under theship of Professor B.B. Lal, a former Director General of the

Survey, undertook an extensive programme of excavation at Ayodhya,

including the very mound of the Ramajanmabhumi on which the so-called

"Janmasthan Masjid" or Babri Mosque once stood and was later

demolished on 6th December 1992.

 

This is an interesting observation: the Babri Mosque was known also

as

the 'Janmashtan Masjid' even to the Muslims! Obviously they believed

it to be the birthplace of Rama - not Babar. We shall see later that

until the Secularists showed them the value of it, the Muslims never

used Negationism; far from it, they took great pride in their record

of vandalization of Hindu sacred places. To continue with Gupta's

account:

 

At Ayodhya, Professor Lal took as many as 14 trenches at different

places to ascertain the antiquity of the site. It was then found that

the history of the township was at least three thousand years old, if

not more ... . When seen in the light of 20 black stone pillars, 16

of

which were found re-used and standing in position as corner stones of

piers for the disputed domed structure of the 'mosque', Prof. Lal

felt

that the pillar bases may have belonged to a Hindu temple built on

archaeological levels formed prior to 13th century AD ...

 

On further stratigraphic and other evidence, Lal concluded that the

pillar bases must have belonged to a Hindu temple that stood between

12th and the 16th centuries. "He also found a door-jamb carved with

Hindu icons and decorative motifs of yakshas, yakshis, kirtimukhas,

purnaghattas, double lotus flowers etc."

 

What this means is that Lal had found evidence for possibly two

temples, one that existed before the 13th century, and another

between

the 13th and the 16th centuries. This corresponds very well indeed

with history and tradition. We know that this area was ravaged by

Muslim invaders following Muhammad of Ghor's defeat of Prithviraj

Chauhan in the second battle of Tarain in 1192 AD. This was

apparently

rebuilt and remained in use until destroyed again in the 16th century

by Babar.

 

Impressive as these discoveries are, Lal had actually been somewhat

unlucky. He had barely missed striking a trench containing a treasure

trove of Hindu artifacts from the medieval period. As Gupta tells us:

 

Prof. Lal had hard luck at Ramajanmabhumi. His southern trenches

missed a huge pit with 40 and odd sculptures just by 10 to 12 feet.

But he did get the pillar bases of the pre-16th century

demolished-temple which others did not get.

 

Excavation was resumed on July 2, 1992 by S.P. Gupta, Y.D. Sharma,

K.M. Srivastava and other senior archaeologists. This was less than

six months before the demolition (which of course no one then knew

was

going to take place). Their particular interest lay in the forty-odd

Hindu artifacts that had been discovered in the pit missed by Lal.

These finds had been widely reported in the newpapers. Gupta, a

former of the Allahabad Museum and an expert on medieval artifacts

had a special interest in examining the finds. He tells us:

 

The team found that the objects were datable to the period ranging

from the 10th through the 12th century AD, i.e., the period of the

late Pratiharas and early Gahadvals. The kings of these two dynasties

hailing from Kannauj had ruled over Avadh and eastern Uttar Pradesh

successively during that period.

 

These objects included a number of amakalas, i.e., the cogged-wheel

type architectural element which crown the bhumi shikharas or spires

of subsidiary shrines, as well as the top of the spire or the main

shikhara ... This is a characteristic feature of all north Indian

temples of the early medieval period and no one can miss it - it is

there in the Orissa temples such as Konarak, in the temples of Madhya

Pradesh such as Khajuraho and in the temples of Rajasthan such as

Osian.

 

There was other evidence - of cornices, pillar capitals, mouldings,

door jambs with floral patterns and others - leaving little doubt

regarding the existence of a 10th - 12th century temple complex at

the

site of Ayodhya. So Lal had been right in believing there was an

earlier temple - prior to the one destroyed by Babar. More

discoveries

were made following the demolition of December 6. All these

discoveries leave no doubt at all about the true picture.

 

The discovery of a number of Kushana period terracotta images of gods

and goddesses earlier made it clear, first, that at the Janmabhumi

site Hindu temples were built several times during the 2000 years

with

the interval of only 450 years, from 1528 to 1992, when the Muslims

destroyed the temple and occupied the site and also built a new

structure they called 'Janmabhumi Masjid' in their own record; ...

And

finally, the temple was destroyed sometime after the 13th century AD,

in every likelihood in the early 16th century, as is fully borne out

by the inscriptions of Mir Baqi found fixed in the disputed structure

from back in time, during the British days as is clear from the

accounts given by Mrs. A. Beveridge in her translation of Babur-Nama

published in 1926. (op. cit. 115)

 

So archaeology also leaves little doubt about the existence of the

prior temple. Then came the explosion of Decembr 6, 1992. This

demolished not only the Babri Masjid but the whole case of the

Secularists and their allies. It revealed a major inscription that

settles the question once and for all.

 

Discoveries at the site II: the Hari-Vishnu inscription

The demolition on December 6, 1992 changed the picture dramatically,

providing further support to the traditional accounts - both Hindu

and

Muslim. Some of the kar-sevaks, no doubt influenced by all the

publicity about history and archaeology, went on to pick up more than

two hundred pieces of stone slabs with writing upon them. These

proved

to belong to extremely important inscriptions, more than a thousand

years old. In effect, the kar-sevaks had done what archaeologists

should have done years ago; they had unearthed important inscriptions

- in howsoever a crude form - something that should have been done

years ago by professional historians and archaeologists. The

inscriptions, even the few that have been read so far, shed a great

deal of light on the history of not only Ayodhya and its environs,

but

all of North India in the early Medieval, and even the late ancient

period.