Revisiting Ram Janmabhoomi – Part III
Please read this post in continuation of Revisiting Ram Janmabhoomi – Part II and Revisiting Ram Janmabhoomi – Part I.
This post contains further references and evidence supporting the presence of a ShriRam Mandir at the disputed site. In the next part, I will strive to summarise evidence exchanged between VHP and AIBMAC in 1991. I believe the VHP subsequently submitted a rejoinder in reponse to AIBMAC’s evience but the the AIBMAC did not do so – I am not absolutely certain of this though so if any of you have more information, please do leave a comment below.
First some excerpts from a summary of the archeological evidence (source):
1. The Babri structure had 14 pillars made of ‘Kasauti’ black stone with Hindu images. Also inside the Babri compound was a piece of a door jamb with images of ‘Mukut-dhari Dwarpal’ and ‘Devakanyas’. Iconographical evaluation of these pillars and the door jamb by Dr. S. P. Gupta (former Director of Allahabad Museum) showed that these belonged to a Hindu temple of the 11 th Century A.D. when the Garhwal Kings of Kanauj ruled Ayodhya.
2. Between 1975 and 1980 Prof. B. B. Lal (the then Director General of Archaeological Survey of India) conducted an excavation behind the Babri structure. The excavation showed pillar bases of burnt bricks (of the preexisting temple). The most beautiful pottery dated around 8 th-9th Century B.C. was also found.
3. On June 18 th 1992, when the ground near the Ram Janma Bhoomi was being levelled, at a depth of 12 ft, several beautifully carved buff sandstone objects were found. These objects included images of Vaishnav divinities with one ‘Chakrapurush’ sculpture also showing ‘Parashuram’ and ‘Balram’, an image of ‘Shiv-Parvati’ (largely broken) and many carved stones such as corner were terrecotta Hindu images of Kushan period (1 st to 3 rd Century A.D.).
These and other objects found during subsequent excavations during July 1992, were found to be members of a Hindu temple complex of about 11 th Century A.D. by a team of 8 eminent archaeologists and historians. The team included Dr. Y. D. Sharma, former Deputy Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, and Prof. B. R. Grover, Director of Indian Council for Historical Research.
4. The destruction of Babri structure on Dec. 6, 1992 revealed many archaeological remains which irrefutably prove that Mir Baqi had incorporated parts of the preexisting temple in the construction of the Babri mosque. The remains include a temple bell, several intricate and detailed carvings, an image of Vishnu, and several other Hindu images.
The principal amongst the findings however is a 2 ft wide by 4.5 ft long buff sandstone tablet ‘SHILA LEKH’ bearing an inscription in ‘Devanagari’ script and Sanskrit language. The ‘Shila lekh’ describes an ancient Ram Mandir existing at Ram Janma Bhoomi at least since the 12 th Century A.D. which was built by a Garhwal king Raja Govindachandra.
The 4 th line of this ‘Shila lekh’ specifically describes a temple of Lord Vishnu (Hari) at the ‘Janma Bhoomi Sthal’. The 15 th line describes it as a massive, magnificent temple dominating the landscape, and with steeples ‘shikhar’ adorned with gold ‘Kalash’. The 17 th line specifically mentions the location as Ayodhya and the ‘Saket Mandal’, while the 19 th line mentions the ‘Vaman Avatar’ and then mentions Ram as the destroyer of evil Ravan.
***
Second, a video on History of Ayodhya and the Evidence (recommended; 40mins long).
***
Next, excerpts from Rama-Janmabhumi Temple: Muslim Testimony by Harsh Narain (emphasis added):
All relevant British government records followed by the District Gazetteer Faizabad compiled and published by the Congress Government in 1960 declare with one voice that the so-called Babari 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 selfstyled ‘secular’ scholars and leaders are hotly contesting that the existence and demolition of such a temple is a myth floated by the British in pursuance of their policy of ‘divide and rule’. Syed Shahabuddin and many Muslim divines go a step further and assert that neither Babar nor any other Muslim for that matter would take into his head to erect a mosque by displacing a temple, for, they argue, such a mosque would not be a mosque in the eyes of the Shari’ah and would be liable to demolition by the Muslims themselves.
…Sayyid Shahabuddin Abdur Rahman, the well known Muslim historian who died in an accident recently, modifies the stand of the Muslim divines thus: ‘It is also thinkable that some mosque was erected close to or at a short distance from a temple demolished for some special reason, but never was a mosque built on the site of a temple anywhere.’ (See his Babri Masjid, 3rd print, Azamgarh: Darul Musannifin Shibli Academy, 1987, p.19.)
As regard the verdict of the Shari’ah, it is true that there are theologico-juristic rulings to the effect that no mosque can be built on land grabbed or illegally/illegitimately acquired. See for example the great Fatawa-i Alamgîrî, Vol. 16, p.214.
But the question is, Do they hold true for land acquired in Jihad as well?
The answer has to be an emphatic ‘No’. The Prophet has made it clear that all land belongs to God or the Prophet (‘Alamu anna’l-arza li’llah-i wa rasul-i-bi), and, obviously, through the Prophet to the Muslims (Bukhari,II, Kitab al-Jihad wa’s-Siyar, Hadith 406).
lqbal puts the following words, in a Persian verse, into the mouth of Tariq, the great conqueror of Spain: Har mulk mulk-i mast ki mulki Kbuda-i mast. That is, all land belongs to the Muslims, because it belongs to their God. Ibn Taymiyyah, the 14th century theologian and jurist, argues that Jihad simply restores lands to the Muslims, to whom they rightly belong. This serves to vouchsafe to them the moral right to extort lands in Jihad from others.
Thus, the argument from the Shari’ah has no leg to stand upon.
Now, I proceed to cite certain purely Muslim sources beyond the sphere of British influence to show that the Babari mosque has displaced a Hindu temple – the Ramajanasthan temple, to be precise -wholly or partly.
First, an indirect evidence. In an application dated November 30, 1858, filed by one Muhammad Ashghar, Khatib and Mu’azzin, Babari Masjid, to initiate legal proceedings against ‘Bairagiyan-i Janmasthan’ the Babari 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’.
The Bairagis had raised a platform in the courtyard which the applicant wanted to be dismantled. He has mentioned that the place of Janmasthan had been lying unkempt/in disorder (parishan) for hundreds of years and that the Hindus performed worship there (maqam Janmashtan ka sad-ha baras se parishan para rahtha tha Ahl-i Hunud puja karte they). See Sayyid Shahabuddin Abdur Rahman, op. cit., pp. 29-30.
…My second document is the Hadiqah-i Shubada by one Mirza Jan, an eyewitness as well as active participant in the Jihad led by Amir Ali Amethawi during Wajid Ali Shah’s regime in 1855 for recapture of Hanuman Garhî (a few hundred yards from the Babari mosque) from the Hindus. The book was ready just after the failure of the Jihad and saw the light of day in the following year, viz. in 1856, at Lucknow. Ra’is Ahmad Jafari has included it as chapter IX in his book entitled Wajid ‘Alî Shah aur Unka Ahd (Lucknow: Kitab Manzil, 1957), after, however, omitting what he considered unnecessary but without adding a word from his side.
Now, let us see what information we gather from it, germane to our enquiry. Mirza Jan states that ‘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 center of worship and capital of Rama’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 mukhtasar-i qanati). The Janmasthan temple is the principal place of Rama’s incarnation, adjacent to which is the Sita kî Rasoî. Hence,what a lofty mosque was built there by King Babar in 923 A.H. (1528 A.D.), under the patronage of Musa Ashiqan! The mosque is still known far and wide as the Sîta kî Rasoi mosque. And that temple is extant by its side (aur pahlu mein wah dair baqi hai) (p. 247).
It must be borne in mind that Mirza Jan claims to write all this on the basis of older records (kutub-i sabiqah) and contemporary accounts.
My third document is a chapter of the Muraqqah-i Khusrawî, otherwise known as the Tarîqh-i- Avadh, by Shykh Azamat Ali Kakorawi Nami (1811-1893), who happened to be an eyewitness to much that happened during Wajid Ali Shah’s regime. The work was completed in 1869 but could not see the light of day for over a century. Only one manuscript of it is extant and that is in the Tagore Library of Lucknow University. A press copy of it was prepared by Dr. Zaki Kakorawi for publication with the financial assistance of the Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad Memorial Committee, U.P., Lucknow.
The Committee vetoed the publication of its chapter dealing with the Jihad led by Amir Ali Amethawi for recapture of Hanuman Garhî from the Bairagîs, from its funds, on the ground that its publication would not be opportune in view of the prevailing political situation#, with the result that Dr. Kakorawi had to publish the book minus that chapter in 1986, for the first time.
Later, however, he published the chapter separately and independently of any financial or other assistance from the Committee in 1987 from the Markaz-i Adab-i Urdu 137, Shahganj, Lucknow-3, under the title Amîr Alî Shahid aur Markah-i Hanuman Garhî.
It is a pity that, thanks to our thoughtless ‘secularism’ and waning sense of history, such primary sources of medieval Indian history are presently in danger of suppression or total extinction. Dr. Kakorawi himself laments that ‘suppression of any part of any old composition or compilation like this can create difficulties and misunderstandings for future histori ans and researchers‘ (P-3).
Well, what light does our author, Shykh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorawi Nami, have to throw on the issue of demolition versus non-existence of the Janmasthan temple? The opening paragraph of his book is akin to the passage quoted above from Mirza Jan’s Hadîqah-i Shuhada. I give below the paragraph in the author’s own words, omitting very few details: ‘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 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’ (p.9). .’Among the Hindus it was known as Sîta kî Rasoî(p.10). The passage has certain gaps, thanks to the wretched condition of the manuscript, which I have tried to fill within brackets.
Dr. Kakorawin has appended to the book an excerpt from the Fasanah-i Ibrat by the great early Urdu novelist. Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur (1787-1867), which constitutes our fourth documents. It says that ‘a great mosque was built on the spot where Sîta kî Rasoî is situated. During the regime of Babar, the Hindus had no guts to be a match for the muslims. The mosque was built in 923 (?) A. H. under the patronage of Sayyid Mir Ashiqan … Aurangzeb built a mosque on the Hanuman Garhî … The Bairagîs effaced the mosque and erected a temple in its place. Then idols began to be worshipped openly in the Babari mosque where the Sîta kî Rasoî is situated’ (pp.71-72). The author adds that ‘formerly, it is Shykh Ali Hazin’s observation which held good‘ and quotes the following Persian couplet of the Shykh:
Bi-bîn karamat-i butkhanah-i mara aiy Shaikh!
Ki chun kharah shawad khanah-i Khuda garded
Which means: O Shykh! just witness the miracle of my house of idols, which, when desecrated, or demolished, becomes the house of God (a mosque). So, purporting to mean that formerly temples were demolished for construction of mosques, the author, Surur, laments that ‘the times have so changed that now the mosque was demolished for construction of a temple (on the Hanuman Garhî’ (P.72).
The..documentary evidence leads us to certain incontrovertible conclusions, which can be stated as under:
…That there did exist a temple called the temple of Janmasthan at Ayodhya, where Rama is believed to have incarnated and that adjacent to it was what is called Sîta kî Rasoî, which might originally have been part of it….
That, like Muslim rulers who desecrated Mathura, Vrindavana, etc., Babar chose Ayodhya for spread of Islam and replacement of temples by mosques, thanks to its supreme importance as a holy place of the Hindus, and in 1528, under the patronage of Sayyid Mir Ashiqan, got the so called Babari mosque erected in isplacement of the Rama-Janmasthan temple, certain relics of which appear to have persisted at least till 1855.
…That the Babari mosque was also called ‘masjid-i Janmasthan’ and ‘masjid-i Sîta kî Rasoî’ from long before 1855.
… That the Hindus had long been carrying on worship at the Rama-Janmasthana even after the replacement of the Janmasthana temple by the Babari mosque.
…That the foregoing facts are yielded by authentic Muslim records and have not been fabricated by the muchmaligned British to ‘divide and rule’.
This chapter was first published as an article in the Indian Express dated 26 February 1990. Diacritical marks are being added in this Edition (1998).
And finally, a brief summary of findings based on both literary and archaeological/epigraphic evidence (Source: The evidence at Ayodhya: wasted 17 years of Liberhan by N S Rajaram):
1. All the literary sources without exception…are unanimous that a Rama temple existed at the site known since time immemorial as Rama Janmabhumi.
2. Archaeology confirms the existence of temples going back to Kushan times, or about 2000 years. This date may well be extended by future excavations assuming that such excavations will be permitted by politicians.
3. Archaeology records at least two temple destructions: the first in the 12th-13th century; the second, later, in all probability in the 16th. This agrees well with history and tradition that were temple destructions following the Ghorid invasions (after 1192 AD) and restored, and was destroyed again in 1528 by Babar who replaced it with a mosque. This is the famous — or infamous — Babri Masjid that was demolished by kar-sevaks on December 6, 1992.
4. A large inscription discovered at the site dating to 11th-12th century records the existence of numerous temples including a magnificent one in which Hari-Vishnu was honored as destroyer of the ten-headed Ravana. Ayodhya was always known as a temple city.
***
More to follow in Part IV.
Additional Reading
Liberhan: Rock and a hard place by Sandhya Jain
Switch to Hinduism and back by Zia Haq.
# This attitude reminded me of: Lies and Half Truths in the name of National Integration
Related Posts:
Summary of the Historical Question
Revisiting Ram Janmabhoomi – Part II
Revisiting Ram Janmabhoomi – Part I.Â
Adding this link here for the record (to be moved to the Comments section once tech glitch is fixed):
Excavations prove temple existed beneath Babri Mosque by KK Mohammad, Nov 6, 2018
Reading: Years Later, Destruction of a Mosque Still Echoes. The article carefully avoids mentioning that the structure was built on the site of (and using pillars and other material from) an extant temple
Dear Shantanu,
This is a wonderful compilation and history of Ram Janmabhoomi – a.k.a Ayodhya. Thanks for uploading this wonderful dig deep analysis of our historians/researchers.
Very insightful
-Vikram
Thank you Vikram…I am glad you found it useful…but the real credit must go to the historians and the researchers/academics who did the hard work…I am merely the publisher.
Long but worth a read: Arun Jaitley’s speech in Rajya Sabha on the Liberhan report:
http://www.lkadvani.in/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=6906&p=0
Sir, please take a look at this brilliant effort by @ssudhirkumar and @auldtimer
http://serious–fun.blogspot.com/2010/09/rjbm-dispute-appeal-to-indian-media.html
I request you to please publicize this effort to the readers of your blog, given the gravity of the judgement, whichever way the judgement goes.
Fantastic read! Great work Shantanu, in compiling all the relevant info and fascilitating the read with one click! Not sure how the verdict turns out or if it comes out at all.
I just read the following….arguments of Babri lovers and the counter arguments. The link is below….some are thought provoking, some are fun!
http://agniveer.com/2188/arguments-of-babri-lovers/
Unfortunately your indepth analysis will not be documented in mainstream media!
what can i say? just fantastic, magnificent, marvelous. great work presented with most humble manner. once again, great indeed!
What a brilliant compilation. True that historians and archeologits must get the credit for all the hard work, but it very hard to find neutral, scientific analysis of entire body of direct and indirect evidence. Besides, I find it very hard to understand why our TV media never puts up the scientific facts clearly and focusses more on emotive aspects of the problem rather than factual/scientific ones and choose to dwell upon the issue starting only at certain specific point in history not from the very begining. I firmly believe that trying to supress certain aspects of this piece of important history in the name of secularism will not do justice to the nation. Let the truth be told, and facts (both direct and indirect) be stated as clearly as they are, without any agenda and without any interpretations. This is young, mature, confident and progressive nation now that is seeking its powerful place in the world. We need to face the lingering deamons and injustices of the past head-on now and in order to bury it peacefully and move on to great future. For that, it is very very important that truth and facts be not supressed or over-interpretted and be told the nation as it is.
I salute you for putting together such in-depth compilation. This article ought to be read by as many progressive thinking Indians as possible.
From ‘No loopholes in ASI evidence’:
NEW DELHI: “In our view, the conclusion drawn by the ASI in the project accomplished within an extra-ordinary brief period and with such an excellence precision and perfection deserve commendation and appreciation instead of condemnation.” — Justice Sudhir Agarwal.
…The ASI view that evidence pointed to the existence of a temple, forms the key material evidence relied upon by the court. Perhaps keeping in mind the criticism of ASI’s findings, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma in their comments have countered allegations of the report being influenced by powers that be.
They emphasized that the court controlled excavation was transparent. The charge that the finding of a huge structure preexisting the Babri Masjid, was “managed” has been addressed in detail. It had been alleged that the report was “biased and imagined” and failed to faithfully reproduce the actual findings.
But the judges have decisively recalled the facts of the case. While Justice Agarwal pointed out how representatives and lawyers of each party in the suit were permitted to shadow ASI officials during the actual excavations, Justice Sharma highlighted how “even Muslim members have also signed the report of ASI.”
“The court has taken full care and issued specific directions to maintain transparency. Two judicial officers remained posted there. The excavation was conducted in the presence of the parties, lawyers and their nominees. Nobody can raise a finger about the propriety of the report on the ground of bias,” Justice Sharma observed, rejecting pleas that the report be discarded.
The court said that the ASI report contains all the details including details of stratigraphy, artifacts, periodisation as well as details of structures and walls. The pillar bases mentioned in the report establishes beyond all doubt the existence of a huge structure.
In addition to above, existence of circular shrine, stone slabs in walls with Hindu motifs and more particularly sign of Makar Pranal in wall No. 5 (wall of disputed structure), divine couple and other temple materials, etc. conclusively proves the existence of a hindu religious structure, the judges have argued.
Another grievance related to ASI allegedly ignoring key evidence thrown up in the form of bones of animals found from the sites. This, it was argued, disproved that the structure below was a Hindu one since animals couldn’t have been killed there. But the judges countered by relying on a host of ancient literary Hindu texts sanctioning animal sacrifice.
“It is a well known fact that in certain Hindu temples animal sacrifices are made and flesh is eaten as Prasad while bones are deposited below the floor at the site itself,” Justice Agarwal noted, upholding the ASI findings that a Nagara style northern Indian temple existed prior to the disputed structure. HC was also surprised to note the “zeal” in some of the archaeologists and historians appearing as witnesses on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board who made statements much beyond reliefs demanded by the Waqf.
***
So much for the experts:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-Allahabad-HC-exposed-experts-espousing-Masjid-cause/articleshow/6716643.cms
How Allahabad HC exposed ‘experts’ espousing Masjid cause
Abhinav Garg, TNN, Oct 9, 2010, 03.07am IST
..While the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed objections raised by the experts to the presence of a temple, it was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to extended judicial scrutiny.
Most of these experts deposed twice. Before the ASI excavations, they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and, after the site had been dug up, they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa. During lengthy cross-examination spread over several pages and recorded by Justice Agarwal, the historians and experts were subjected to pointed queries about their expertise, background and basis for their opinions.
To the court’s astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, found themselves withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displaying an “ostrich-like attitude” to facts.
He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were all connected — one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness.
Some instances underlined by the judge are: Suvira Jaiswal deposed “whatever knowledge I gained with respect to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told” (other experts). She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute “after reading newspaper reports and on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department.” Supriya Verma, another expert who challenged the ASI excavations, had not read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation. She did her PhD under another expert Shireen F Ratnagar.
Verma and Jaya Menon alleged that pillar bases at the excavated site had been planted but HC found they were not present at the time the actual excavation took place.
Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the “introduction” to the book of another expert who deposed, Professor Mandal. She admitted she had no field experience.
“Normally, courts do not make adverse comments on the deposition of a witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not, but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements…” the judge has noted.
He said opinions had been offered without making a proper investigation, research or study in the subject. The judge said he was “startled and puzzled” by contradictory statements. When expert witness Suraj Bhan deposed on the Babri mosque, the weight of his evidence was contradicted by anotherexpert for Muslim parties, Shirin Musavi, who told the court that Bhan “is an archaeologist and not an expert on medieval history”.
Courtesy Sanjay (emphasis added), excerpts from IMAGINED HISTORIES by Swapan Dasgupta:
…An exploration of the voluminous judgment of the judge, Sudhir Agarwal, is pertinent in the context of a determined bid by India’s vocal left-wing intelligentsia to rubbish the judgment as a departure from modernity, constitutionalism and the rule of law. In a statement by 61 ‘intellectuals’ led by the historian, Romila Thapar, that includes the cream of the left-liberal establishment and sundry art dealers, photographers and food critics, the judgment was attacked for dealing yet “another blow to India’s secular fabricâ€.
…It was the Archaeological Survey of India report of court-monitored excavations in 2003 of the disputed site which set the cat among the pigeons. After exhaustive hearings of “all possible angles in the matter so that there may not remain a grievanceâ€, the high court accepted the ASI report which R.C. Thakran of Delhi University, an expert witness for the Sunni Waqf Board, dubbed “an unprofessional document full of gross distortions, one-sided presentation of evidence, clear falsifications and motivated inferencesâ€.
Thakran’s indignation was understandable. In its conclusion, the ASI submitted that “a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive attached with it†was located at the disputed 2.77 acres in Ayodhya. The scale of the buildings indicated that they were for “public†functions. “It was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.â€
Without mincing words, the ASI report had brushed aside the so-called Historians’ Report to the Nation authored by the professors R.S. Sharma, M. Athar Ali, D.N. Jha and Suraj Bhan released in May 1991. This document was a plea to the government of India “to include impartial historians in the process of forming judgment on historical factsâ€. As an example of this “impartial†history, it was argued that “the full blown legend of the destruction of a temple at the site of Rama’s birth and Sita ki Rasoi is as late as the 1850s. Since then what we get is merely the progressive reconstruction of imagined history based on faithâ€.
Subsequently, as more research pointed otherwise, the goalpost was quietly shifted. In her deposition as an expert for the Waqf Board, the Aligarh historian, Shireen Moosvi, suggested that “the legend of Ayodhya being the birthplace of Rama is found from the 17th century, prior to which there is no legend about Rama’s birthplace in medieval historyâ€. However, during cross-examination, Moosvi also admitted: “It is correct that in Sikh literature there is a tradition that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, had darshan of Ram janmasthan and had bathed in the River Saryu.â€
A horrific misrepresentation was sought to be covered up without the slightest show of contrition.
A curious feature of the 1991 intervention, which emerged from Suraj Bhan’s cross-examination, was the disinclination of the “impartial historians†to undertake any field work. In his deposition, Bhan stated: “I gave this report in May. I might have gone to Ayodhya in February-March…. In my first deposition I may have stated that I had gone to the disputed site before June 1991 for the first time.â€
Nor was Bhan the only armchair archaeologist. Echoing Moosvi, the medieval historian who felt that “to ascertain whether it is temple or mosque, it was not necessary to see the disputed siteâ€, the professor, D. Mandal, another expert witness for the Waqf Board, admitted he wrote his Ayodhya: Archaeology After Demolition without even visiting Ayodhya and with an eye to the presidential reference to the Supreme Court. Mandal also admitted that “Whatsoever little knowledge I have of Babur is only that Babur was (a) ruler of the 16th century. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.†The judge, Agarwal, was sufficiently moved to say about Mandal that “the statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge on the subjectâ€.
…
The lapse would have put an undergraduate to shame but not the “impartial†historians. During her cross-examination, Suvira Jaiswal, another Waqf Board expert historian, confessed: “I have read nothing about Babri Mosque… Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to the disputed site was on the basis of newspapers or… from the report of historians.†Sushil Shrivastava, a “historian†whose bizarre book on Ayodhya secured favourable media publicity and is still cited approvingly by CPI(M)’s Sitaram Yechury, admitted he had “very little knowledge of historyâ€, didn’t know Arabic, Persian, epigraphy or calligraphy and had got translations done by his father-in-law. The judge was stunned by his “dishonestyâ€.
Once the ASI excavations confirmed that the Babri Masjid wasn’t built on virgin land, “impartial†history turned to imaginative history. It was suggested by Bhan that what lay beneath the mosque was an “Islamic structure of the Sultanate periodâ€. Mandal went one better, suggesting that after the Gupta period “this archaeological site became desolate for a long timeâ€. The reason: floods. Supriya Verma contested the “Hindu†character of recovered artefacts from the Kushan, Shunga and Gupta periods — something even Bhan and Mandal had admitted to. These, she said, “could well have been part of palaces, Buddhist structure, Jain structure, Islamic structure [sic]â€. There were also suggestions, never proven or pressed, that the ASI had falsified and suppressed data.
The court was not amused. Dismissing the unsubstantiated allegations “we find on the contrary, pre-determined attitude of the witness (Suraj Bhan) against ASI which he has admitted. Even before submission of ASI report and its having been seen by the witness, he formed (an) opinion and expressed his views…†The judge, Agarwal, was “surprised to see in the zeal of helping… the parties in whose favour they were appearing, these witnesses went ahead… and wrote a totally new story†of a mosque under a mosque.
The judge was unaware of what constitutes “scientific†history in India. In her deposition as an expert in ancient history, Suvira Jaiswal made an important clarification: “I am giving statement on oath regarding Babri Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge; rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion.â€
…She was articulating the prevailing philosophy of history writing in contemporary India.…
****
Need anything more remains to be said?
The sort of falsehoods these Waqf board historians have indulged in would have seen them dismissed from posts in Western universities. This is just one more nail in the falsehoods perpetuated by the left wing dominated universities of the misinformation that they have indulged in. The day will come when they will be held to account.
2 relevant excerpts/ placing them here for the record:
From Vol 7 -http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment RJB-BM Vol-07.pdf
Page 1674
1569. As an invader Babar entered the Indian subcontinent, conquered it and did what he could or found necessary to claim victory which nobody can comment atleast today. What had been done several hundreds years back by a king invading a country or between war of two kings is obviously beyond the pale of judicial review of this Court and of any Court functioning in independent India after the promulgation of our Constitution on 26.01.1950. We have not been shown of any authority by any learned counsels that we can examine the legality, correctness or genuinity of an action of a Ruler prior to the enforcement of British enactments in the subcontinent. 1570.
However, the attempt by some of the authors to glorify or justify brutal massacre or action of some of the invaders or Rulers even if they might have conquered the subcontinent, by providing justification, explanation etc. is not understandable for the reason that the things which are evident and straight cannot be clothed with a velvet cover and would not provide a shell to give it a different colour. It shall only mislead the public at large and in particular the students of history. In our view, the historical events must be placed straight without any distortion, without any addition of words and without providing any explanation or justification in the words of the author as the same would be nothing but a sheer conjecture and surmise. If we claim that Babar felt happy having seen the mound of human heads and still we tell somebody that he was a kind hearted religious man, had no love for violence it would a blatant lie. This kind of attitude on the part of some of authors whose work has been placed before us for our consideration shows that these authors can go to the extent of glorification of any kind of misdeed which in the present day’s civilised society can never appreciate or swallow……
Though the present days activities may not have any comparison with the wars and battles fought hundreds and thousands years back but to find out a positive character in such activities of the the Ruler/Kings under whom the army had done all these kind of brutalities would be a thought of abnormal minds. The lack of respect of Emperor Babar to idols meant for worship has already been demonstrated above and is fortified from what has been mentioned at page 611 of the Book “Baburnama†by Beveridge stating that he did not hesitate in destroying the idols on 28.09.1528 at Uruwa (Gwalior) where he found three sites occupied by a solid rock wherein the people had cut out idols statue large and small and he ordered for destruction thereof.
Courtesy Nishka Krishna
**********
and Excerpt from REMEMBERING RIGHT by Swapan Dasgupta
The troubling feature of India is the growing chasm between popular historical memory and the officially endorsed ‘nation-building’ history. In the popular perception, there was widespread medieval vandalism and India is dotted with physical evidence of a shrine that was either destroyed or whose denominational character was changed. Yet, since the early 1970s, historians whose works are deemed ‘respectable’ have wilfully glossed over themes that apparently run counter to an idyllic syncretic or composite culture. In schools and universities, narrative history has been junked in favour of a crude economism. It is somehow felt that ‘nation-building’ will be better served by focussing on the economic intricacies of feudal societies rather than the bigoted excesses of Aurangzeb. Outright denial or obfuscation has become the hallmark of a country with a rich history and poor historians.
Unfortunately, the experiments with disingenuity have not really worked. Academic historians constituted themselves into a cosy club during the Ayodhya agitation claiming that the whole Ram Janmabhoomi belief was an elaborate hoax and, most likely, a sinister colonial creation. No shrine, they insisted, had been destroyed to make way for a mosque in 1528. Far from neutralizing the Ram bhakts, this negationism actually drove the devout into greater bouts of frenzy, culminating in the demolition of the 16th-century shrine. Had the more pertinent question — Must India spend its energies overturning medieval wrongs? — been asked, it is entirely possible that society would not have been so damagingly polarized. The battle to set back the clock of history was actually a crusade to right the wrongs of historians.
Excerpts from A Reality Check, by Subramanian Swamy on July 28:
…
People in India have been misled to believe that a temple and a masjid are both equally revered religious places.
This misconception is at the root of our failure so far to re-build and or restore the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, the Krishna Temple in Mathura, and Vishvanath Temple in Varanasi.
The fundamental reality is: A masjid is not, in Indian case law, or international case law, or even under the Sharia jurisprudence (which is the law for Muslims), held to be religiously sacred.
This is the position in Islamic law as propounded by scholars in Saudi Arabia, in which country the authorities demolish mosques to lay roads, build parks or multi-storied apart buildings. Even the mosque in Mecca where Prophet Mohammed used to read namaz, was demolished for a new building and road to pass through!
According to a judgment of the Constitution Bench of India’s Supreme Court in the famous Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India case reported in (1994) 6 SCC 376, a masjid is not held to be an essential part of the religion of Islam.
The Apex Court had posed a question as follows [Para 80]: “It has been contended that a mosque enjoys a particular position in Muslim law and once a mosque is established and prayers are offered in such a mosque, the same remains for all time to come a property of Allah…and any person professing Islamic faith can offer prayer in such a mosque, and even if the structure is demolished, the place remains the same where namaz can be offered.â€
On the other hand , in case law, a temple once constructed after prana prathistha puja is always a temple. This sacred status of a temple—even if it is in ruins or without worship—was decided in a case of a smuggled- out bronze Nataraja statue from a Thanjavur temple which temple was in disuse, and which statue was put up for sale in London by Bumper Corporation. The Government of India sued for its return to India.
The matter went to the House of Lords, our Supreme Court level. On February 13, 1991, when I was the Union Law Minister, the House of Lords upheld the Indian government’s position [see (1991) 4 All ER 638] a temple, whether in use, disuse or even demolished, is owned by the deity in perpetuity, in this case by Lord Shiva, and any Hindu can litigate on behalf of the deity as a defacto trustee.
The Bench consisting of Justices Purchas, Nourse and Leggatt concluded: “We therefore hold that the temple is acceptable as party to these proceedings and that it is as such entitled to sue for the recovery of the Nataraja.†[Page 648, Para (g)].
This is the precise position now held by the three judges Bench of the Allahabad High Court while deciding the so-called dispute in the Ramjanma-bhoomi-Babri Masjid case.
…
The Allahabad HC, thereafter in the dispute adjudication as directed by the 1994 Supreme Court judgment, concluded in 2011: “The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the pre-existing structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. The disputed Babri Masjid structure was constructed on the site of the old structure after demolition of the same.â€
This judgment binds the Government of India by virtue of a sworn commitment in 1994 given to the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court.
In the Affidavit filed by the Government of India before the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the above cited 1994 Farouqi case judgment, the re-building commitment of the Government of India was recorded by the said, Constitutional Bench in its judgment.
On page 383 of the said judgment, the Solicitor General is quoted by the Supreme Court Constitutional Bench as stating on affidavit filed on the direction of the Apex Court, as follows: “If a Hindu temple /structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished Babri Masjid structure, government action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu community.â€
This is also the similar commitment made in 1991 by the Muslim representatives of the Babri Masjid Action Committee to the Government when I as Union Law & Justice Minister was asked by Prime Minister Chandra-shekhar, in November 1990, find ways to make the VHP withdraw its Kar Seva call scheduled from December 9, 1990 and to negotiate a settlement.
…
Subsequently prominent Muslim leaders made the following commitment: “If these assertions were proved, the Muslims would voluntarily hand over the disputed shrine to the Hindu.†This commitment/assurance is recorded in Government of India’s White Paper [In paras 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3].
…

Adding this link here for the record: Book Review: A definitive chronicle on Ayodhyaby Koenraad Elst, 06 Dec 2014. from which..
There are very few publications giving a factual account of historical facts underlying the Ayodhya controversy. Yet this controversy has played a decisive role in recent Indian politics, giving the BJP the electoral breakthrough that ultimately brought it to power. Therefore, it ought to be a matter for surprise that the professional India-watchers and the academics concerned remain satisfied with the handful of very partial and highly partisan treatments available in print. But the prevailing poverty of information on at least the factual basis of the affair has now been remedied. This book Rama & Ayodhya by Dr. Meenakshi Jain (Aryan Books International, New Delhi 2013) will henceforth be required reading for anyone pronouncing on Ayodhya.