By Vinay Nalwa
From denying the existence of Sri Ram to questioning the authenticity of Ramayana, these arguments were presented in court to deny justice to Hindus. However, the truth perseveres and emerges resilient. The Ram Janmabhoomi case serves as a testament to this unwavering truth, taking five centuries to reclaim the holy site in Hindu worship.
In court, the Hindu side, advocating for Sri Ram temple at the birthplace, sought the right to worship with dignity. They had to substantiate in the court not only the existence of their revered God’s birthplace but also the god itself. On the other side, representing the Islamic perspective, associated adverse possession through violence, argued against the Hindu claims.
Hindu side had proofs from as ancient as Sanskrit text “Ayodhya Mahatmya” from the Skandapurana that mentions the existence of a temple at Ram Kot, known as Ramjanmabhoomi. This text, composed centuries before Babar’s invasion, extols the virtues of worship at the Janmasthan, especially on Ramanavami day. While the temple was not visible, remnants of the destroyed Hindu temple, including four pillars used to construct a mosque in Ramkot, were found.
Despite Mughal rulers’ attempts to keep them away, Hindus reoccupied the site, continuing to offer worship. Large gatherings, particularly during Ram Navami, became a tradition at this spot. Hindus vigorously defended the holy site against Muslim attacks. Ayodhya witnessed many clashes including the one in 1853 when 75 Muslims attempting to recapture the temple were killed and buried nearby.
Records of European travelers and archaeologists spanning two and a half centuries provide evidence, including official documents from British rule, supporting the claim that the temple at Sri Ram’s birthplace was replaced by a mosque. Sitaram Goel cited non-British Muslim sources to show that the Babri mosque displaced a Hindu temple.
Various non-Hindu accounts affirm the reverence for Sri Ram and the destruction of the Hindu temple at Ramjanmabhoomi. European travelers like William Finch and Joannes de Laet, along with authors like Thomas Herbert and Herman Moll, described the ancient ruins and the significance of Ayodhya.
William Finch, the European traveler (1608-11) has written in his travel report about the existence of the ruins of Ramkot, the castle of Ramchandra and houses, where Sri Ram had incarnated thousands of years ago and Finch recorded that Sri Ram was born in human form to see tamasha of the world .He further writes that the castle was build four hundred years ago. He did not see any mosque in the area but saw a lot of Brahmins and Hindu pilgrims . He found Brahmin priests in the ruins of the castle, recording the names of pilgrims. Which they say has been a custom since last three hundred ninety four thousand and five hundred years. Finch informs that Ayodhya is a city of ancient note
Joannes de Laet, a director of the Dutch East India Company, wrote a book titled ‘De Imperio Magni Mogolis Sive India Vera Commentaries’ about Ayodhya in 1631. In the first chapter, Ayodhya’s description is similar to William Finch’s, with the exception of details about pilgrims’ ceremonial ablutions in the neighboring river. De Laet describes a cave two miles from the rivers, believed to house the ashes of the God. Pilgrims visit from all parts of India, worship the idol, and take grains of charred rice as proof of their visit, believed to have been kept there for many centuries.
Thomas Herbert was another celebrated author and traveler was sent in 1626 … for journey to Africa and Asia where he spent major part in Persia and India.“Some Years Travels into Divers Parts of Asia and Afrique .’he got it again printed after revision in 1638 A.D . In this book he mentioned about many monuments and also the monument which was most memorable to him was the “pretty old castle of Ranichand built by a Bannyan Pagod of that name” which he described as an antique monument built by Ramachandra 9,94,500 years ago. He also recorded the presence of Brahmins recording the names of pilgrims .These travel accounts enjoyed a great reputation at the time of their publication and have since been considered the best that appeared in England prior to the close of the seventeenth century.
Thomas Herbert further provides information on Sri Ram’s significance and influence on this country. “Ducerat (Dashrath), who beget Rama, a king so famous for piety and high attempts, that to this day his name is exceedingly honoured, so that when they say Ram-Ram, it’s as if they should say ‘all good betide you’. That is, all good will fall on you. From addressing Ram-Ram it is expected that all good would fall on the caller and listener.”
Herman Moll wrote Atlas Geographus; or a complete system of geography , ancient and modern. In the book Herman Moll writes that the greatest fame of Ayodhya was the ruins of Ramchandra castle and it was inhabited by Brahmins , who used to encourage the idolaters to wash in the holy river Sarayu
Another unquestionable and descriptive evidence came from Joseph Tieffenthaler written accounts in the form of book ,‘Descriptio Indiae’, i.e.Description of India. The Austrian Jesuit priest who stayed in Awadh in 1766-71 lived in India for more than two decades and he was well versed with both Persian and Sanskrit so his accounts on the existence of temple at the birthplace of Lord(Sri) Ram and how it was converted into a mosque are the most authentic .Tieffenthaler visited Fyzabad and travelled the whole of Oudh during 1766-1771. His book on geography “the modern traveler” published in 1828 in which he has presented concrete evidence of the existence of temple at the birthplace of Lord(Sri) Ram.
On the southern bank of Deva (or Goggrah) are found various buildings erected by the Gentoos (Hindu) in memory of(Sri) Ram, extending from east to west. The most remarkable place is that which is called Sorgodoari, that is to say, the heavenly temple because they say that Rama carried away from thence to heaven all the inhabitants of the city. The deserted town was repeopled and restored to its former condition by the famous king of Oojein (King Vikramaditya of Ujjain). There was a temple here on the high bank of river. “…The emperor demolished the fortress called Ramcot, and erected on the site a Mohammedan temple with a triple dome.
Fourteen black stone columns, five spans in height, occupy the Ramjanmabhoomi and Ayodhya fortress site. Twelve support mosque arcades, two form part of a Moor’s tomb. Hanuman, king of the monkeys, allegedly brought these columns from Ceylon. A square lime-covered chest, called bedi, marks where Rama was born; Babur destroyed it. Nearby, black rice grains turned stones are said to date back to(Sri) Ram’s time. The city, a mile from Fyzabad, has a riverbank fortress. Tieffenthaler mentions a hill fortress, Gouptar, tied to (Sri)Ram’s descent after defeating Ravana. His detailed accounts, considered accurate, include the demolition of Ramkot and the existence of a three-dome mosque at the birthplace of Lord(Sri) Ram.
French scholar C. Mentelle also wrote about Ayodhya in his book, Cosmography on Geography, on Chronology and on Ancient and Modern History. “Avadh, also known as Aoude and Oude in our country (France), and the learned Indian name it Adjudea, is one of the most ancient cities, situated on the banks of the River Ghagra and we consider that the tenth incarnation of Lord Vishnu happened in this city, in the form of Ramaji, whose father was the king of Avadh. The Indians come here from far off places on a big pilgrimage. “In those days at Ayodhya there was an edifice called the celestial temple, from where it is said that(Sri) Ram and(Sri) Ramaji had taken to the heaven all the inhabitants of the city. This temple and several others were destroyed.”
Report by Montgomery Martin, British Surveryor mentions a local oral tradition of Ayodhya in 1838. It mentions that the city was deserted after the death of Sri Ram’s descendant, Brihadbala. It was King Vikramaditya of Ujjain who not only cleared the forests that had covered the ancient ruins, but also re-established it and he got the Ramgarh Fort erected and built 360 temples. Martin brought forward that the mosque was built on the ruins of Ramkot with pillars taken from Sri Ram’s palace, rather than of a building constructed by Vikramaditya, and the figures thereon having been damaged by the bigot (i.e. Babar)
In East India Company Gazetteer of 1854 by Edward Thornton there is mention that Babur’s Mosque being embellished with 14 columns of old Hindu temple. It also mentions that the Hindus practised pilgrimage and devotion on the Ramchabootra (platform-like structure) which they believed to be Sri Ram’s cradle
P. Carnegy, the Officiating Commissioner and Settlement Officer of Faizabad, also gives precise location of Ramjanmasthan and about Hindus worshipping at the place of birth of Sri Ram amidst the conflict with Muslims. He reports that until 1855, both Hindus and Muslims worshipped alike in the mosque-temple. Another fact that came out of his report was that after proclamation of British rule in 1858, a great injustice was done to Hindus in the form of complete restrictions on them to worship inside the disputed structure. For the purpose, a railing was erected to keep the Hindus to worship on a platform outside the fence. All of these accounts of Carnegy have been further substantiated by the subsequent gazetteers.
An intriguing account comes from Edward B. Eastwick, an Anglo-Indian, in 1882, Eastwick authored the Handbook of the Bengal Presidency, published by John Murray, London. In his book, Eastwick notes that the janmasthan, where (Sri Ram)Ramachandra was born, lies 1/3 of a mile west of the Hanumangarh. Adjacent to the door is a Muslim cemetery, holding 165 individuals who perished in a 1855 clash between Muslims and Hindus for the temple’s possession. Muslims initially charged Hanumangarh’s steps but were repelled with significant losses. The Hindus, successful in their third attempt, took the Janmasthan, where the slain Muslims were buried. Eleven Hindus lost their lives, thrown into the river. Eastwick highlights that until British rule in 1858, Hindus worshipped in the ‘temple.’ Europeans, upon entering the unadorned building, are expected to remove their shoes. Notably, it features 12 black pillars from the old temple. Eastwick also provides valuable information on the Ramnavami fair in 1880, attended by half a million devotees during a time of relatively lower population.
Gazetteer records from different sources affirm the destruction of three significant Hindu temples in Ayodhya by the Moghuls, with mosques subsequently erected on the sites. The Gazetteer of the Province Oudh (1877) and the Imperial Gazetteer of Faizabad (1881) confirm the construction of mosques by Babur and Aurangzeb on the janmasthan, swargadwar, and Treta-ka-Thakur locations. Reports by H.R. Neville in the Barabanki District Gazetteer (1902) and Faizabad District Gazetteer (1905) detail disputes over the janmasthan temple’s destruction by Babur and its replacement by a mosque, causing ongoing tensions. Col. F.E.A. Chamier’s 1886 court verdict acknowledges the unfortunate construction of a mosque on sacred Hindu land 356 years prior. The Archaeological Survey of India Report by A. Fuhrer (1891) further verifies the use of the Ramjanmabhoomi temple’s columns in the construction of the Babri mosque, with Aurangzeb also building mosques on other temple sites.
Baburnama in English by Annette 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 displaced, and that as an obedient follower of Muhammad, Babur regarded the substitution of the temple by a mosque as dutiful and worthy.
Hans Bakker, Professor of History of Hinduism in1984 in his comprehensive study, has mentioned that an old Vaishnava temple was situated on the holy spot where Rama descended on earth. It was destroyed by Babur in 1528 and a mosque was built on it. The black-stone … pillars have been driven upside down into the ground at the grave of the Muslim Sufi saint, Musa Ashiqan, who is said to have incited Babur to demolish the janmabhoomi temple. Bakker concludes that Ramjanmabhoomi temple was one of the oldest Rama temples in the country to be in existence in the 12th century.
There were many muslim records stating and eulogising destruction of many significant temples of India before European accounts.
Hadiqah-i-Shubada was Muslim source to prove how temples on the birthplace of Sri Rama were destroyed by Mughals. Mirza Jaan, the author of Hadiqah-i-Shubada was an active participant in the jihad led by Amir Aki Amethawi during Wajid Ali Shah’s regime in 1855 for recapture of Hanumangarhi (a few hundred yards from the Babri mosque) from the Hindus.
Mirza Jaan states, “Wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since the establishment of Syed Salar Mas’ud Ghazi’s rule, the Muslim rulers in India built mosques, monasteries and inns, appointed muezzins, 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 (Sri)Ram’s father. Where there stood the great temple (of Ramjanmasthan), there they built a big mosque, and where there was a small mandap (pavilion), there they erected a camp mosque (masjid-i-mukhtasari-qanati). The janmasthan temple is the principle place of Rama’s incarnation, adjacent to which is the Sita-ki-Rasoi. Hence, what a lofty mosque was built there by King Babur in 923 A.H. (A.D. 1528), under the patronage of Musa Ashiqan!”
There are great similarities in Shykh Nami’s Tarikh-i Avadh and what Mirza Jaan wrote. Nami says in the beginning of his work, “According to old records, it has been a rule with the Muslim rulers from the first to build mosques, monasteries 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, Bindraban, etc. from the rubbish of non-Islamic practices, the Babri mosque was built up in 923 A.H. under the patronage of Sayyid Musa Ashiqan in the janmasthan temple (butkhane janmasthan mein) in FaizabadAvadh, which was a great place of (worship) and capital of Sri Ram’s father.
First indirect evidence is found in an application dated November 30, 1858 filed by one Muhammad Asghar, Khatib and Muezzin, Babri Masjid, to initiate legal proceedings against, ‘Bairagiyan-i-Janmasthan’. The Babri Masjid has been called ‘Masjid-i-Janmasthan and the courtyard near the arch and the pulpit within the boundary of the mosque, Maqam Janmasthan ka. Bairagis had raised a platform in the courtyard which the applicant wanted to be dismantled.
Allamah Muhammad Najmu mentions in Tarikh-I-Avadh, “At Ajodhya, where there stood the temple of Ramachandraji’s janmsthan, there is Sitaji-ki-Rasoi, adjacent to it, King Babur got a magnificent mosque built there, which is the Jami Masjid, in 933 A.H. under the patronage of Sayyid Musa’ Ashiqan, the date of which is Khayr Baqi (923)… Babur got the mosque built after demolishing the janmasthan, and used in his mosque the stone of the same Janmasthan, which was richly engraved, had precious kasauti stone and which survives even today.”
“Fasanah-i-Ibrat,” written by Mirza Raja All Beg Surur (1787-1867) around 1860 but first published in 1884, recounts the construction of a grand mosque during Babur’s reign at the site of Sita-ki-Rasoi in Avadh. Numerous texts explicitly mention the role of Muslim faqir Sayyid Mir Musa Ashiqan in the demolition of the Ramjanmabhoomi temple and its replacement with a mosque-like structure. A Persian work by another faqir, Mawalayiyy Abu-i-Karim, from the lineage of Musa Ashiqan, was later translated into Urdu and published in 1979. An additional edition titled “Gumashta Hatat-i-Ajodhya Ya’ni Tarikh-Parinahi-Madinatu” was released in 1981. Interestingly, the 1981 edition omits details present in the earlier edition, which narrated how, at the behest of Musa Ashiqan, the Rama temple was demolished by Babur.
Now, with the Supreme Court’s verdict Hindus have reclaimed their sacred space and construction on a magnificent temple is underway.
The crucial question for fellow countrymen of the Islamic faith is whether, in the spirit of Bharat’s secular ethos, are they ready to relinquish control of Hindus most sacred places. As we are no longer in the medieval era where Islamic theologians justified occupying others’ sacred sites to humiliate other community. In this modern age of secularism promoting equal respect for all religions, symbols of forced occupation disrupting religious practices should be dismantled. Will you continue to insist on maintaining control over sites like Krishna Janma Bhoomi and Kashi Vishwanath, sacred to Hindus?
(The writer is an Ph.D in sociology and have authored Ramjanmabhoomi: Truth Evidence Faith)
