RAMJANMABHOOMI

 

Preface The struggle for the liberation of Sri Ramjanmabhoomi 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 generation of Indian Muslims disassociate themselves from the medieval ideology of religious exclusivism, expansionism and iconoclasism, 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 of discord 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 Ram and Krishna, they are still trying to trace their history from foreign invaders like Muhammad-bin-Kashim, 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 out 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 representatives of the Government.  The VHP was represented by Sarva Shri V.H. Dalmia, B.P. Toshiniwal S.C. Dixit, Moropant Pingle, Acharya Giriraj Kishor, Kaushal Kishore, B.P. Shukla and Surya Krishna. According to the official minutes of the second meeting held on December 04, 1990, in the presence of the Minister of State for Home Affairs and the Chief Ministers 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 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 Barbar 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 Sekhawat "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 V.H.P. 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 all including the three Chief Ministers and the Minister of State for 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. v(b) The MOS(H) will make available photocopies of evidences to all concerned parties 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 the Minister of State for Home Affairs under the title "Synopsis of the 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 V.H.P. 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 the 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, for 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 a 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. Athor 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 evidence submitted by both the sides does establish that the present structure called Babri Masjid, 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 the historians and legal experts, who took great pains in digging out this valuable evidence, the VHP 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.   Surya Krishna Secretary, V.H.P. (CENTRAL) 1-2-1991

2.  Documentary evidence: Hindu testimony

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:

(Ramayana, Balakhanda, Canto 5, Sloka 5-7)

Many Puranas attest the fact that Ayodhya was considered one of the six holiest of the holy cities.  To quote one:

(Brahmanda Purana, 4/40/91)

In all Hindu scriptures since Valmiki, Ayodhya figures prominently and Lord Rama is referred to as an avatar of Vishnu.

Vyasa incorporated the story of Rama through the Ramopakhyan in the Vanparva of his epic Mahabharata.  The earliest sanskrit dramatist Bhasa who lived before the advent of Christ, wrote his dramas �Pratima� & �Abhishek� based on the life of Rama.  Identifying Rama with his archanavtar, he writes: 

Kalidas the greatest classical poet & dramatist devoted the 10th canto of his Raghuvansham, to the narrative of Vishnu�s incarnation on earth as Rama.  In the 13th Canto of his book, where the poet refers to the return of Rama and Sita to Ayodhya in the Pushpak-Viman, he speaks of Rama as Vishnu himself: 

There is not a single important poet or writer in classical Sanskrit literature who has not paid his best obeisence to Lord Rama 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:

(A) Classical Sanskrit Literature:
Poems

(1) Kalidasa (C. 400 A.d.): Raghuvamsa
(2) Pravarasena (550-600 A.D.): Ravanavaho or Setubandha
(3) Bhatti : (500-650 A.D.) : Ravanavadha
(4) Kumaradasa : (c: 800 A.d.) : Janakiharana
(5) Abhinanda (9th cent.) Ramacarita
(6) Ksemendra (11th cent.):
(a) Ramayanamanjari
(b) Dasavatara-carita
(7) Soacakalyamalla (12th cent.) : Udararaghava
(8) Cakra Kavi (17th cent.) : Janakiparinaya
(9) Advaita kavi (17th cent.) Ramalingamrta
(10) Mohana svami : (1608 A.d.  Roac(a,)marahasya or Roac(a,)ma Carita (India Office MS.  of 1970 A.D.)

Drama

(1) Bhasa, (2nd cent.  A.d.) (a) Pratima (b) Abhiseka
(2) Bhavabhuti (8th cent.) (a) mahaviracarita (b) Uttararamacarita
(3) Dinnaga (9th cent.) Kundamala
(4) Murari (900 A.D.) Anargharaghava
(5) Rajesekhara : (10th cent.) Balaramayana
(6) Hanuman: Hanumannataka or Mahanataka
(7) Saktibhadra (9th cent.) Ascaryacudamani
(8) Yasovarman : Ramabhudaya (8th cent.)
(9) Mayuraja : Udattaraghava
(10) Anonymous : (a) Chalit RM (b) Krtya RM (c) Mayapuspaka (d) Svapnadarsana
(11) Ksirasvami : Abhinavaraghava
(12) Ramachandra (a) Raghuvilasa
(12 cent.) (b) Raghavabhyudaya
(13)Jayadeva : Prasanna-Raghava (12 cent.)
(14) Hastimalla : Maithikalyana (1290 A.D.)
(15) Subhata : Dutangada (13 cent.)
(16) Bhaskara Bhatta : Unmattaraghava (14 cent.)
(17) Tryasamisradeva : Ramabhyudaya (15 cent.)
(18) Mahadeva : Adbhutaramayana (17 cent.)
(19) Ramabhadra Diksita : Janakiparinaya

Miscellaneous Poems (i) Slesakavyas

(1) Dharnanjaya : Raghavapandaviya (12 cent.)
(2) Madhava Bhatta : Raghavapandaviya
(3) haradatta Suri : Radhava-Naisadhiya
(4) Cidambara : Radhavapandaviya-Yadaviya (1600 A.D.)
(5) Gangadhara Mahadevakavi : (18 cent.) Sankatanasanastotra 

(ii) Vilomakavyas:

(1) Suryadevi : Ramakrshna-viloma-Kavya (1540 A.D.) 

(iii) Citrakavyas:

(1) Krsna Mohana: Ramalilamrta
(2) Venkatesa : Citrabandha RM 

(iv) Amorous Khandakavyas:

(1) Venkatadesika : Hamsasandesa or Hamsaduta
(2) Rudra Vacaspati : Bhramaraaduta
(3) Vasudeva : Bhramara-sandesa
(4) Anonymous : Kapiduta
(5) Venkatacarya : Kokilasandesa
(6) Jayadeva Ramagita-Govinda
(7) Krsnacandra : Candraduta
(8) Harisankara : Gitaraghava
(9) Prabhakara : Gitaraghava
(10) Haryacarya : Janakigita
(11) Harinatha : Ramavilasa
(12) Visvanathasimha Sangita Raghunandana
(13) Visvanatha : Raghavavilasa
(14) Somesvara : Ramasataka

Prose Romance and Campus

(1) Ksemendra : Brhatkathamanjari
(2) Somadeva : Kathasaritasagara
(3) Bhoja : Campu RM (Many other campus such as Uttararamayana Campu, etc.  based on Uttarakhanda of RM)
(4) Vasudeva : Ramakatha

(B) Hindu Scriptures Ramayanas

(1) Valmiki Ramayana
(2) Ramopakhyana in the Mahabharata (Vana Parva)
(3) The Yoga Vasishtha or the Vasishtha Ramayana
(4) Adhyatma Ramayana
(5) Adbhuta Ramayana
(6) Ananda Ramayana
(7) Bhushundi Ramayana
(8) Maha Ramayana
(9) Mantra Ramayana
(10) Vedanta Ramayana

Puranas

(11) Vishnu Purana (4th C.) (IV,4,5)
(12) Brahmanda Purana (4th C.) (2.21)
(13) Vayu Purana (5th C.) (II,26)
(14) Bhagvata Purana (6/7th C.) (IX,10-11)
(15) Kurma Purana (7th C.) (I.19,21: II.34)
(16) Agni Purana (8th C.) (Ch.  5.12)
(17) Narada Purana (10th C.) (I.79, II.75)
(18) Brahma Purana (Ch.  213, 70-175)
(19) Garuda Purana (10th C. (I.143)
(20) Skanda Purana (11/12th C.) (II.30)
(21) Padma Purana (12/15th C.) (Para 116, Uttara 24,43-48)
(22) Vishnu Dharmottara Purana
(23) Narasimha Purana
(24) Vahni Purana
(25) Shiva Mahapurana
(26) Devi Bhagvata Mahapurana
(27) Brihaddharmapurana

Upanishads

(28) Rama-Purvatapaniya Upanishad
(29) Ramottaratapaniya Upanishad
(30) Rama-Rahasyopanishad

Pancharatra Works

(31) Agastya Samhita
(32) Kaliraghava
(33) Brihad-raghava
(34) Raghaviya Samhita

(C) Other Religious Literature

(1) Jaiminiya Ashvamedha
(2) Mailravana Carita or Hanumanad-Vijaya
(3) Sahashramukha-ravanacharitam
(4) Satyopakhyana
(5) Hanumat-Samhita
(6) Brihat-Koshalakhanda

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

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

Iconometric evidence proves 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-utpal & Al-Beruni.

Not only the Padmapurana 1.2.3.  Haribans 1.41, Brahmapurana, ch 180, Garudapurana 1.202, Varahpurana ch.  IV, 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 Kshmendra, Gitagobindam of Jaidev, Naisarhcharit of Sri Harsha & the Ram Charitam of Sandhyakarnandin adulate Rama as Vishnu�s avatar.

Even the ancient Jain writers such as Amitagati (11th century) spoke of Rama as the all-knowing & 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), Ambhamata temple at Osion near Jodhpur, (11th century) containing images of Rama-Janaki & Hanuman, Rajivlochan temple (12th century) at Rajim in Raipur disctrict 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.

(1) Harismriti (or Guptahari) at the Gopratar (goptar) ghat,
(2) Chandrahari on the west side of the Swargadwar ghat,
(3) Vishnuhari at the Chakratirtha ghat,
(4) Dharmahari on the east side of Swargadwar ghat, and
(5) Vishnu (Rama) temple on the Janmabhoomi.

The last three of these have been replaced on all accounts by mosques built by Mughal emperors.

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 worshipping 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:

(That is, when an image of Rama is installed independently in the Sanctum for the sake of worship, it should have four arms).

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 images 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 A.D.) 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 A.D. testifies to the installation by a devotee of the image of Chitrakutsavami-Anantashayi" referring to both Rama & Vishnu.

An inscription of 467 A.D.  testifies to the installation by a devotee of the image of Chitrakutsavami-Anantashayi" referring to both Rama & Vishnu.  The same practice is indicated by an inscription found at Ayodhya which says that the Gahadval king, Chandradeva 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.

The long tradition of Rama worship as evidenced lay the numerous literary, scriptural and archaeological sources culminate in the 12trh/13th century in the Ayodhya-Mahatmya forming part of the Skandapurana which describes the various holy spots in Ayodhya, and extols the pilgrimaage to the city as the best means to salvation.  Along with various other holy sites associated with Ram 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 ( ) on the Ramanavami day to the Janmasthana has been described in Ayodhya-Mahatmya in the following words:

"A man who has seen the Janmasthana 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 bondage 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." (see Annexure 1 for relevant extract of Sanskrit text)



  3. Documentary evidence: Muslim testimony

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 A.D. 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 granddaughter of Moghul emperor Aurangzeb. Many of these Muslim writers were residents of Awadh and some were eye-witness to or participants in the Hindu-Muslim clashes or the dispute in 1855.

Let us now see what the Muslim writers have said:

1) Abul Fazl (1598 AD)

Abul 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 Ramnavami festival, marking the birthday of Rama 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.

2) Safiha-i Chahal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, written by the daughter of Bahadur Shah Alamgir during the late 17th century/early 18th century.

Out of the above Chahal Nasaih ("Forty Advices"), twenty-five instructions were copied and incorporated in the manuscript entitled Nasihat-i Bist-o-Panjam Az Chahal Nisaih Bahadur Shahi in 1816 AD, which 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 pp.4-7 of his book. The text runs as follows:

"... the mosques built on the basis of the king's orders (ba farman-i Badshahi) have not been exempted from the offering of the namaz and the reading of the Khutba [therein]. The places of worship of the Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh, etc., in which the Hindus (kufar) have great faith - the place of the birthplace of Kanhaiya, the place of Rasoi Sita, the place of Hanuman, who, according to the Hindus, was seated 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. These mosques have not been exempted from juma and jamiat (Friday prayers). Rather it is obligatory that no idol worship should be performed over there and the sound of the conch shell should not reach the ear of the Muslims ..." (see Annexure 2)

3) Hadiqa-i-Shahada by Mirza Jan (1856), pages 4-7.

The author was an eye-witness 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 Ahah and His Regime"), we find his account of construction of the Babri mosque.

Mirza Jan who claims to have gone through various old sources 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 Ram, adjacent to which is Sita Ki Rasoi, Sita being the name of his wife. Hence at that site, a lofty (sarbaland) mosque has been built by Babar Badshah under the guidance of Musa Ashikan... That mosque is till date popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi..." (see Annexure 3)

4) Muhammad Asghar's petition (1858)

Muhammad Asghar, khatib and muazzan of the Babri 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, wrotethe name of Rama all over the walls and so on. The muazzin also observes that in the outer space of the constructedBabri 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 eventhough the site of Janmasthan had been covered by the Babri 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. (see Annexure 4)

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]. And then, open prayers were henceforth offered [by the Bairagis] 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 1816, as the source from which his observations could be verified by anybody interested. (see Annexure 5)

6) Tarikh-i Awadh or Muraqqa-i Khusrawi by Sheikh Mohammed Azmat Ali Kakorawi Nami (1869).

Kakorawi (1811-1893) wrote this book in 1869, but it did not see the light of day for more than a century. When dr. Zaki 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 Lachhman 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 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 mitigated by the Hindus." (see Annexure 6)

7) Zia-i Akhtar by Haji Muhammed Hasan (Lucknow 1878), p.38-39.

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 have 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..." (see Annexure 7)

8) Gumgashte Halat-i Ajudhya 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 Babri Masjid, while giving a description of the dargah of Hazrat 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 premises 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. (see Annexure 8)

9) Kaisar-ul-Tawarikh ya Tawarikh-i-Awadh by Kamaluddin Haidar Hosni al Hussaini al Mashahadi (Lucknow 1896), vol.II, p.100-112.

This author gives the same account of the construction of the Babri mosque as given in Muraqqah-i Khusrawi.

10) Tarikh-i Awadh by Alama Muhammad Najamulghani Khan Rampuri (1909).

Dr. Zaki Kakorawi has brought out an abridged edition of this book. An excerpt from vol.II (pp.570-575) of this edition runs as follows :

a) "Babar built a magnificent mosque at the spot where the temple of Janmasthan of Ramchandra was situated in 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 that temple. It is said that at the time of the conquest of Islam there were still three 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."

b) "...in short, the turbulence [of 1855] reached such a stage that apart from the mitigated mosque at Hanuman Garhi, the Hindus built a temple in the courtyard 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. (see Annexure 9)

11) Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein by Maulana Hakim Sayid Abdul Hai.

Maulana 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, alias Ali Mian, by the Nadwatul-Ulama, Lucknow 1973. An English translation was published in 1977.

The book contained a chapter on "The Mosques of Hindusthan" (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 Ajodhya 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..." (see Annexure 10)

12) Asrar-i Haqiqat by Lachmi Narain Sadr Qanungo, assisted by Munshi Maulvi Hashmi (Lucknow 1923).

The author, L.N.S. Qanungo, says that the book has been written with the active help of an in consultation with Munshi Maulvi Hashim, 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 Halat-i Ayodhya on the demolition of Janmasthan and the construction of the Babri mosque.

4.  Documentary evidence: European accounts

We now present a brief summary of all the post-Babar accounts of Ayodhya recorded by European travellers, archaeologists and scholars.

1) Travel report by William Finch, the European traveller (1608-11).

Finch, who visited Ayodhya, confirms the existence of the ruins of Ramkot, the castle of Ram where Hindus believed he had incarnated thousands of years ago.  (see Annexure 11 for the relevant extract from William Foster, ed.: Early Travels in India, 1583-1619, London 1921 p.176)

2) History and Geography of India, by Joseph Tieffenthaler, (published in French by Bernoulli in 1785).

Tieffenthaler, the Austrian Jesuit priest who stayed in Awadh in 1766-71, reports that Babar destroyed the birth-place temple of Ram and constructed a mosque by using its pillars.  However, Hindus refused to give up the place and in spite of the Moghuls' 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.  (see Annexure 12, containing pp.253-254 of Tieffenthaler's Description Historique et Geographique de l'Inde, along with an English translation)

3) Report by Montgomery Martin, British Surveryor (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).  (see Annexure 13 for pp.335-336 of Martin : History, Antiquities, Topography and Statistics of Eastern India, vol.II)

4) East India Company Gazetteer, by Edward Thornton (1854).

This mentiones that 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.  (see Annexure 14 for pp.730-740 of Thornton : Gazetteer of the Territories under the Government of the East India Company)

5) Encyclopaedia of India by Surgeon General Edward Balfour (1858).

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.  (see Annexure 15 for p.56 of Balfour : Encyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia)

6) Historical Sketch of Faizabad by P. Carnegy (1870).

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 touch-stone) 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.  (see Annexure 16 for Carnegy : Historical Sketck of Tehsil Fyzabad, Zilla Fyzabad, with the old capitals Ajudhia and Fyzabad, Lucknow 1970, p.5-7, 19-21 and a photograph taken by Carnegy)

7) Gazetteer of the Province Oudh (1877).

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.  (see Annexure 17 : Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh, vol.I, 1877, pp.6-7).

8) Faizabad Settlement Report (1880).

The report confirms that Babar built the Babri mosque in 1528 on the site of Janmasthan temple marking the birthplace of Ram.  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 Gazetteer 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.  (see Annexure 18 : Imperial Gazetteer of India, Provincial Series.  United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, vol.II, pp.338-9)

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

In delivering his judgment 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." (see Annexure 19 : extract reproduced in Muslim India, March 1986, p. 107)

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.  (see Annexure 20 : Fuhrer : The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-West Provinces and Oudh, ASI Report 1891, pp.296-297)

12) Barabanki District Gazetteer by H.R. Neville (1902).

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".  (see Annexure 21 : Neville: Barabanki District Gazetteer, Lucknow 1902, p.168-169)

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.  (see Annexure 22 : Neville : Fyzabad District Gazetteer, Lucknow 1905, pp.172-177)

14) Babur Nama 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 Mohammed, Babar regarded the substitution of the temple by a mosque as dutiful and worthy.  (see Annexure 23 : Beveridge : Babur Nama in English, vol II., 1922, appendix on "The inscriptions on Babur's Mosque in Ajodhya (Oudh)", p.xxvii-xxix)

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 sign posts in stone to mark the sites.  The Babri mosque was identified as the Ram Janmabhoomi and a sign post was embedded there saying :"Site no. 1 : Janmabhoomi".

16) Revised Faizabad District Gazetteer by Smt.  E.V. Joshi (1960).

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.  (see Annexure 24 : U.P.  District Gazetteers - Faizabad, Lucknow 1960, pp.  46-47, 352-354)

17) Encyclopaedia Brittanica (1978, 15th edition, vol.I).

This most authentic Encyclopaedia records that Ram'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.  Earlier editions of the Encyclopaedia also contained this information.  (see Annexure 25 : E.B. vol.I, p.693)

18) Ayodhya by Hans Bakker (1984).

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 Ram 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 constructtion 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 door-jamb 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 Janmabhoomi 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 II, pp.118-121, 143-149, 173-175)

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

The Belgian scholar Elst has 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 vs. Babri Masjid, a Case Study in Hindu-Muslim Conflict, Voice of India, Delhi 1990)

  5. Evidence from the revenue records

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 anywhere 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, sub-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, viz. 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.

Eventhough the amended khasra records of the Nazul Department (1931) under No. 580 put both the structure 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 muazzans of the Babri Mosque were in fact the 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.

There is no record of the Babri Masjid as a Waqf in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act of 1936 or its re-enacted version of 1960.(see Annexures 26, 27, A, B, C, D, E)

6. Archaeological evidence 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 exingencies.  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.  (see Annexure 28) 7. Untenability of the alternative hypothesis 7.1 No second Janmasthan 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 and north of the Babri structure is itself the original Janmasthan shrine.  On many grounds, this proposition is untenable : 1) This is a 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 sites 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 new Babri Masjid in detail as being the site of the original Ram Janmabhoomi, while he also mentions the new Janmasthan temple (Site 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 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-ul-Mulk Saadat Ali Khan, the first Nawab of Oudh (1707-1736) over the possession of this mosque.  (NAI, Foreign, Political Proceedings, 28th December, 1855, No.355 (Enclosure No.5)). Maratha documents show that one of the main objectives of 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 23rd 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 of those places alongwith Prayag.  (Cf. Sarkar J.N.: Fall of the Moghul Empire, Vol.II, Calcutta, 1934 ff 231-233). Historians Dr. A.L. Srivastava, Sir J.N. Sarkar, G.S. Sardesai and Dr. Hari Ram Gupta who have studied 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 Hindus 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 the 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 Ram 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 as virtuous act of proclaiming the victory of Islam over Hinduism, there are definite indications that in recent years (especially since the Hindus strengthened their claim over the site) attempts have been made to suppress evidence and manipulate records.  The following cases will show this. 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 this 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 thebook, were not willing to recall it.  The book was also missing in the libraries of famed Muslim institutes, including the 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 passages in the descriptions of seven mosques built on temples, including the 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 Tagor 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 the 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 10 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 91893 AD) and the Revised Khasra records of Nazul department of 1931 AD. 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. 7.4 Total lack of counter-evidence The thesis recently advanced by some persons that the Babri Masjid did not replace any extant Ram temple goes against common sense in many ways.  The well-attested fact that the Hindus offered Ram Puja in the mosque courtyard even under Muslim rule, the rows of 11th century pillar-bases aligned 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 a little more than that 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 the 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 touch-stone pillars, but at that other place where the material was readily available, he did not build a mosque (for no second mosque with such pillars is known). 3) The tradition associating the site with Rama 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, eventhough 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 those coming up with such a string of far-fetched hyptheses to contradict a well-established hypothesis attested to by a long list of uncontroverted independent testimonies by local Muslim as well as European writers spanning 4 centuries.  More so because the Mandir hypothesis is not only supported by the evidence which we have presented, but is coherent with well-attested behaviour patterns: 1) Muslim conquerors destroyed many temples and replaced them with mosques. 2) In a few cases, they left the whole building standing (Kaaba, Aya Sophia); but far more often they left the earlier building only partly standing, or razed it completely, but visibly used parts of the destroyed temple, to flaunt the victory of Islam over paganism: e.g., the Jama Masjid of Damascus (Syria), the Gyanvapi mosque (Varanasi), Jami Masjid of Rajamundri (Andhra), Quwwat-ul-Islam Masjid (Delhi), Adhayi-Din-ka-Jhonpra mosque (Ajmer), Jami Masjid of Kannauj (U.P.), Jami Masjid of Sambhal (U.P.). 3) As N.  Manucci (17th century) and A.  Cunningham (19th century) have testified, Hindus often kept returning to places on which a mosque had been imposed, and this more so to the extent that the place itself, rather than the erstwhile temple, was sacred to them. A simple test whether the anti-Mandir hypothesis deserves any consideration at all, is the element for which evidence should be most easy to find: the British concoction hypothesis.  In the plentiful and well-kept archives which the British have left us, it should not be too difficult for genuine historians to find some piece of evidence.  But so far, no proof whatsoever has been given either for such an actual course of events or even for similar British tactics at another time and place.  If the anti-Mandir polemists cannot even come up with that, their whole hypothesis stands exposed as a highly implausible and purely theoretical construction. 7.5 Conclusion The choice is between two hypotheses.  Actually, the hypothesis that a Mandir stood on the Ram Janmabhoomi site until Babar's troops destroyed it and replaced it with the Babri Masjid, has only recently been made into a "hypothesis" and forced to compete with the alternative anti-Mandir hypothesis.  Until recently, the pre-existence of a Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir at the Babri Masjid site was a matter of established consensus.  It was confirmed by a large number of Hindu, Muslim and European sources from the 17th century onwards, and never once put in doubt.  And it explains all the relevant facts and observations mentioned in all the sources, and all the iconographical and archaeological findings at the site. By contrast, the alternative hypothesis is a recent invention of armchair theorizers under political compulsions.  Formally, it does no more than put into question a number of the sources which confirm the Mandir hypothesis.  It does not offer a coherent scenario that would explain all the available facts.  It goes against general historical knowledge in a number of respects, and fails to justify its extraordinary assumptions.  Materially, it does not come up with any proof : no proof that any of the pro-Mandir documents is telling lies, much less any proof of the events that would make up an alternative non-Mandir scenario. The choice is between a hypothesis firmly rooted in reality, and a hypothesis constructed in the air and totally out of tune with general knowledge and particular evidence.  Faced with this choice, any sincere scholar, and indeed any citizen with common sense, will not find it difficult to make up his mind.   RAM JANMBHOOMI/BABRI MASJID AT AYODHYA AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ART-HISTORICAL EXAMINATION INTRODUCTION As we approach the 'Babri Mosque', located at the site popularly called 'Ram Janmabhoomi' we see a simple and modest structure with three domes, the central one bigger than the two side ones, It is surrounded by two high-rising walls, running parallel to each other with large open space in between. I.2- On the high entrance of the domed structure are fixed two stone tablets, side by side, which bear two inscriptions in Persian informing us that this structure was built by one Mir Baqi on the orders os Babur. I.3- There are 14 pillars of black stone fixed in this domed structural complex-two are located at the small entrance in the outer boundary wall on the east, while four are located in the main door opening into the central part of the domed building; four each are located in the two walls which separate the central domed area from the southern and northern domed areas. I.4- The walls of the Babri Mosque are made of coars-grained whitish sandstone blocks, rectangular in shape, while the domes are made of thin and small burnt bricks, Both these structural items are plastered with thick chunam paste mixed with coarse sand. I.5- The 14 pillars, on the other hand, have been carved out of dark schistose stone with fine silica grains.  The surface is now blackish with bright sheen, as if polished. I.6- While the coarse sand and the bricks used in the mosque are generally of local origin, found nearly regions, the dark stone, called locally 'Kasauti' or 'touch stone', is found in far off places only, such as the Himalayan foothills or 'terai' in U.P. and Nepal. I.7- It may be mentioned here that while apparently the mosque does not bear any decoration with figures of Gods and Godesses, the dark stone pillars have several of them, besides other sacred motifs. I.8- It may also be mentioned that under a national archaeological project, called 'Archaeology of the Ramayana sites', a team of archaeologists headed by Prof. B.B.Lal, former Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, excavated this site from 1975 through 1980 on the immediate south and west of this monument. We, are, therefore, faced here with a peculiar situation while the domed structure shows some architectural features which are peculiar to Muslim architecture, the pillars show features which are peculiar to Hindu architecture. In order to understand this apparently odd situation, archaeologists undertook a detailed examination of the domed structure as well as the black stone pillars, They have then supplemented this study with the examination of the material remains which have been unearthed in the trenches laid in an area which is adjoining the southern boundary wall of the mosque. II.  THE PILLARS II.1.  In the so-called 'Babri Mosque', built in the 16th centure (1528 A.D.-1530 A.D.), there are at least 14 stone pillars of a pre-existing structure.  The pillars support the super-structure of some vital parts of the mosque, such as the arches of the entrances.  These pillars are of dark schistose stone which is of the slate variety.  Locally it is called 'Kasauti' stone or 'touch stone' because, as the tradition goes, against this the purity of gold could be tested.  This stone is found in nature as rock formations in the lower Himalayas; in the Nepal Terai and the Terai of Uttar Pradesh.  Out of this stone, temple images alone were carved in the early times.  Many of them are still found in the temples of these very regions, and many others are housed in Museums such as Lucknow and Allahabad.  These images of the so-called Kasauti stone are dated from the 9th through the 12th century A.D.  In other words, till the 11th century no temple was ever built in the around Uttar Pradesh where this stone was used for pillars of any monument, religious or secular, and Hindu or Buddhist, or even Jain.  Muslims, of course, did not at all use it here.  It is significant to note that this stone is entirely different from the black basalt stone, generally used for one kind of Pala sculptures in eastern India, which is an igneous rock. II.2- There are two more similar pillars of the black schistose stone.  These are found placed upside down by the side of the grave of one Muslim saint, Fazle Abbas alias Musa Ashikhan.  In the local tradition, he is generally blaimed for inciting the then authorities, headed by one Mir Baqi, to demolish the temple at Janmasthan and build a mosque there.  It has been mentioned by different authors, including Hans Bakker, the writer of the famous book entitled Ayodhya. II.3- In addition, there is a door-jamb, resting against a wall in the courtyard of the modern Janmasthan temple built in the late 18th century,across a road that separated the 'Janmabhumi' from 'Janmasthan'. II.4- There are also nearly half-a-dozen Vaishnav images located at various places in the cities of Ayodhya and Faizabad, besides a number of other images. II.5- The pillars are carved at the base with a sacred water-pitcher,called purnaghata or kalash.  It has overhanging creepers with rich foliage, arranged in a highly stylised form.  From this, in one example, a devkanya is seen emerging and standing on a lotus flower.  In another example, at the place of the devkanya, there is a picture of hamsa with elaborate tail.  From this Kalash, sometimes a decorative lotus rises up on one of the octagonal facets of a pillar a female figure, standing in tribhanga mudra, is still visible, although it is found heavily mutilated by the iconoclasts. II.6- These columns have sixteen facets, passing into a square at the bases.  On all the four corners of the base of a column we see load-carrying or bharavahaka Yakshas, sitting with hands down.  These are semi-divine beings in human form shown supporting the kumbhas or vessels out of which the shaft of the pillar is shown rising. II.7- The door-jamb is of the same stone as of the columns, i.e., schistose.  It is 115 cms.  long and is decorated with scultured figures from top to bottom.  At the base, there is a small arch recess in which one can see a standing male figure.  The image is wearing a Karanda mukuta (or tiara) on the head, and a vanamala on the bare front body.  While the right hand is in vyakhyana mudra, the left hand is carrying a weapon, trishula.  Above the niche are the two vertical bands of decoration, the rightone shows the rising creeper motif, divided into two vertically runnign friezes.  The left one contains three figures of devkanyas or apsaras, i.e., nymphs off heavenly female beings, alternating on the top with gana i.e., demi-divine male in the dancing pose.  These are arranged one above the other, the uppermost figure is in fact of a salabhanjika i.e.a female(bymph) figure holding and bending the brach of a blossoming tree.  The other apsaras are also shown standing in simple niches. II.8- These columns or pillars can easily be dated on the basis of what we call the science of Art style, if we carefully look at the forms of various elements of the above mentioned decorations and also other decorations on them.  We will date them in the early 11th century.  Floral and geometrical motifs such as inter-secting garlands and creepers (the leaves and flowers), and diamonds and triangles, the globular form of the water pitchers with moulded mouths, the long hanging garlands, the female figure (body,eyes,nose,and face) and the architectural features, such as the form of the arch and the pilasters as well as thin transparent dhotis, conclusively prove that these pillars were definitely carved in the early 11th centure.  These forms belong to what we sometimes call in art-history 'Late Pratihar' or 'Gahadval' style.  We have several examples of similar forms occurring in temple decorations from different ancient temple-sites in northern India such as Jamsot. Evidently, these black stone pillars or columns belong to an old Hindu temple, these could not belong to any other religion including Buddhism, since no Buddhist temple has been built anywhere in India during the 11th century in which Buddha or a Bodhisattva or Tara or some other God is not present.   III.  ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION III.1- Besides the excavations conducted by Alexander Cunningham in the 19th century at some Buddhist places in Ayodhya, other than Janmabhoomi, Prof. A.K.Narain of the Banaras Hindu University excavated Ayodhya in 1969 by laying three trenches at three different places in the city, considerably away from Janmabhoomi.  From 1975 through 1980, Prof. B.B.Lal, Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, also laid trenches at 14 different places at Ayodhya, but including one at Janmabhoomi.  Some trenches were taken just behind the Babri Mosque in the west, and some by the south side of th mosque for detailed archaeological survey of India.  The scheme was a part of a large national project leunched by the Central Government, when Prof. Burul Hasan was the Minister of Education and Culture.  It was called 'Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites'.  These 17 trenches yielded the following select data which have direct bearing on the problem. III.2- Firstly, the earliest habitational layer in these trenches, laid directly above the natural soil, yielded the most beautiful pottery of Indian material culture, called Northern Black Polished Ware(early period) with silvery and golden hues.  It is fired uniformally at a very high temperature, more than 1000 degree C, which produced not only unique polish, but also unique metallic sound.  It is a dated pottery and it belongs to the 7th century B.C. III.3- Secondly, there has been almost continuous human habitation in the Janambhoomi-Masjid area from the 7th century B.C. upto the 3rd century A.D.  Then there occurred some break in the habitation in the Janmabhoomi area. III.4- Thirdly, in the 11th century some people constructed a series of rectangular 'bases' or short pillar- like structures of burnt-bricks, each about 3ft. tall.  This was done by cutting the debris of the earlier periods.  These 'bases' were meant for the pillars of a super-structure.  These 'bases' have been found arranged in parallel rows.  It is significant to note that the directional alignment of the 'bases' is the same as that of the several pillars of black stone found in the mosque. III.5- Fourthly, a well laid thick floor, made of pinkish white chundam or like and small kankars was found running over and across a 'base'.  It was found running even beyond the excavated area, towards the mosque.  It is conclusively proved by the floor material in the section of the trenches.  This is the original 'mosque floor' level. III.6- Fifthly, below this topmost floor a thick deposit was found which has yielded Islamic Glazed Ware sherds of various types and colours including blue, red and green, which may be dated between the 13th and 15th centuries.  It includes a White Glazed Ware with blue paintings which was prevalent in Persia in the 15th century, i.e. much before the date of the mosque which was built in the 16th century. III.7- Sixthly, there was a well-laid chunam and kankar floor below this layer, but it was found running against the 'bases'. III.8- Seventhly, there was one more similarly laid floor below this floor, also running against the 'base'. III.9- According to the science of 'Archaeological Stratigraphy', while the top-most floor belonged to the level and period of the mosque, the lower two floors belonged to the earlier pre-mosque structure.  The fact that instead of one, there are the remains of two floors of this pre-mosque structure is interesting since it shows that the floor of the structure was restored almost completely and at least once. III.10- Eighthly, at least in one example the 'base' records the fact of destruction upon the foundation.  It is the evidence of a rectangular pit without its 'brick' base.  It must have been done anciently by laying a 'robber's trench' by some one interested in demolishing it and removing its bricks for constructing some other structure. IV RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK These kinds of art and archaeological evidences establish two things: IV.1- one, the antiquity of the site of Ayodhya goes back at least to 700 B.C. IV.2- Second, in the 11th century a large structure on pillars was erected at the site now popularly called 'Janmabhoomi'.  At this very place, now a 16th century mosque stands.  It has 14 black stone pillars, decorated with beautiful floral, faunal and human carving, largely mutilated.  The carvings on them show that they were carved in the early 11th century.  When compared with similar carvings on the pillars of structures of the 11th century elsewhere in U.P. we find that these are used in temples made of other stones, generally buffish sandstone.  It is, thus, clear that the black stone pillars at Janmabhoomi also belonged to a temple.  No secular structure in and around Uttar Pradesh used this stone for pillars. IV.3- Further, most of the pillars of the 11th century temples were removed at a later date, in the early 16th century, although a few of them are still in their original placement, others are displaced.  Originally, there may have been 84 pillars and the area covered by them must have been around seven times more than that covered by the domed structure of the mosque.   ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCES OF RAM JANMABHOOMI  -By Dr. B.P. Sinha* The significance of archaeological evidence in the context of Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid controversy, is being keenly stressed by both the contending parties - VHP and BMCC.  Being one of the few having the first hand experience of both as a historian and a field archaeologist for many decades, I would like to point out the inadequacy of archaeology as the only or even a dominant source for the reconstruction of ancient Indian history.  Our knowledge about our past will be very poor if we ignore archaeology and it will be still poorer if we depend on archaeology alone as our most important source.  While archaeology is a young and growing science in India, other sources such as epigraphy, numismatics and literary evidences have for much longer time been analysed and collated to build a framework of ancient Indian history, and therefore, archaeology as a tool is useful for confirmatory evidence mainly. Archaeology, as a positive science gives us information about material life of periods as unfolded by different stratas exposed from it that what it has not exposed, never existed.  Momentous archaeological discoveries are like Archimedies 'Eureka' i.e.  chance discoveries, and the same chance goddess may bestow luck to other archaeologists disclosing from within the womb of the mother earth such knowledge missed by previous, may be well-versed, archaeologists.  So it is always safe and wise to qualify the results of archaeological discoveries as 'to-date' or 'so far.' This self-evident, but often ignores, virtue of caution can be demonstrated.  When we were excavating Chirand, luxurient chalcolithic ceramic culture eas noticed on the earliest exposed level in many trenches down to the virgin soil.  But in one of the trenches was discovered evidence of an earlier neolithic culture, a pleasant surprise to the excavator who was almost going to close the excavation, then underway for many years.  What a loss to knowledge it would have been! Again if R.D. Bannerji and Marshal had been excavating "Mohenjadaro" today under the present-day financial constraints and expensive archaeological technique of vertical digging, it was very likely that they would have stopped the digging after laying bare the so-called coolie quarters with elements of "Harappan" pottery & building activities; but then we would have missed the massive Harappan architecture and its special monuments for which the civilisation is most famous.  The point is that in view of lack of extensive horizontal excavations of all stratas of a site, its full history is not possible to be grasped.  Moreover, in the context of getting archaeological proof of our pre-historic past & personalities one should ask the question what sort of evidence will prove the historicity or non-historicity of the Epic or Vedic characters.  As no evidence of writing before Asoka (leaving out the Harappan script) has been available so far, no contemporary written material for the time of "Rama" or Krishna" should be expected.  The cultural sequence exposed in the various stratas could give only relative chronology but no absolute chronology.  Even when "C 14" (carbon-14 archaeological test) dates would give some approximate bracket in absolute dates to the excavated cultures, as there is no certainty or unanimity about the exact period of time when "Rama" or "Krishna" flourished, how far one would be right in assigning one or the other set of "dated cultures" unearthed in trenches as the culture of the time of Rama or Krishna.  This would be arguing from the unknown to the unknown, particularly when we are not sure whether cultures depicted in the "Ramayana" or the "Mahabharata" works which were definitely much later composed than the time of the heroses, must have contained elements of culture, more of their authors' times then of their pre-historic heroes.  Thus the inadequacy of archaeological evidence and literary works as well for the period of Rama or Krishnaparticularly, material culture-architecture should be self-evident.  In view of no evidence of use of stone as building material before "Ashoka" or of burnt brick before "Buddha" is available, the literary references to the luxurous buildings described in Epics and the "Puranas" will never be confirmed by archaeology.  Wood-construction must have perished under the bowels of earth down the millennia.  The difficulty of reconciling the literary evidence and the archaeological evidence "to date" is thus obvious.  The easiest way chosen by many is to reject wholesale the testimony of the ancient literature the Epics and the Puranas for the period before the time of the Buddha.  But this selective rejection is not beyond reproach.  The same scholars who reject the Puranic dynastic lists before the Buddhist period, have used the same Puranas for the political and dynastic history of the Buddhist period.  But, it is hardly fair then, giving allowances for emendation, glosses, imagination to reject the entire pre-Buddha dynastic list as sheer figment of imagination, particularly when some kings, priests and peoples mentiones in the Vedic literature are mentioned in the Epics and the Puranas. Now, according to Pargiter's reconstruction of the Dynastic synchronisms of the Puranas, Rama-Dasarathi is about 30 generations or so, earlier than Krishna of the Mahabharata.  But, according to archaeological evidence to date Ayodhya, the traditional homecity of Rama is not earlier 8th century B.C., while in Hastinapur and other Mahabharata sites, PGW culture equated with the Mahabharata pottery by Mr. B.B. Lal is dated between 110-800 B.C., & the Mahabharata war was fought according to Lal in 836 B.C., according to Pargiter in 950 B.C.  So, Rama who was not the founder of Ayodhya must have come much after 800 B.C., and should be nearer Buddha than Krishna; especially when many archaeologists place PGW later than Lal has put it.  But, the excavator of Dwarka and the pioneer of marine archaeology, Mr. S.R. Rao has found evidence of the submerged city of Dwarka of Krishna, which he would place not later than 1500 B.C. Dwarka was later than Hastinapur which was founded by Kuru, while the former was founded by Krishna himself.  All this discussion just points to the insufficiency of the available archaeological date and lack of consensus among archaeologists about the period of the Epic-Puranic heroes.  Would it therefore be wise today to fix the chronology, and even relative chronology of Rama and Krishna with any degree of certainty.  More extensive diggings may shed some more light on the vexed problem.  It would be sheer bravado, therefore on this evidence to deny the historicity of Rama and Krishna so richly portrayed in ancient historical traditional accounts.  Even the archaeological excavations do not confirm the history of Ayodhya in the past, post NBP or Post-Maurya period.  The Sunga, Kuhana and Gupta stratas have been rather bare, but epigraphy, coins and literature speak of flourishing Ayodhya in these and earlier periods.  Archaeology has not revealed anything of the prakars, pratolis, devapatha referred to by Patanjali in the Mahabhashya.  Neither we have found in the excavation evidence of Buddha's and Adinathas' association with Ayodhya.  Should we reject Buddhist and Jain evidence as imaginary as the Epic? We should particularly remember that the Jaina tradition of line of Tirthankars is consistent and quite reasonably reliable.  1st, 2nd, Ikshavaku dynasty of Ayodhya, which this certainly antedated 8th century B.C. Dhanadeva's inscription, the coins of Mitra-kings of Ayodhya, and the fortification of Ayodhya, its capital city-architecture of the time of Gupta Kings, Vikramaditya & Baladitya of the 5th-6th century A.D., are all unknown to archaeology of Ayodhya.  Would we be justified to reject the epigraphic, numismatic and literary evidence? And where are the Samgharamas described by Hsuan Tsang and associated with Vasubandhu and Asanga? It is not only the "Epic Ayodhya" but even "Gupta Ayodhya" that is uncorroborated from archaeology.  But, both traditions and other historical sources vouchsafe for an active and living Ayodhya-Mahatamaya appended to the Skanda-purana should be dated not later than 9th century A.D.  It refers to "Sir Ram Janmabhoomi" and other sacred places.  According to Vikramankadeva charita, Bilhana came to Ayodhya on pilgrimage.  Therefore, to think of Ayodhya as an important place for Hindus only from the 14th century onwards is all hogwash.  Sculptural representations of Ramayana scenes in temples have been found in different parts of India from the 3rd century onwards.  Sri Krishnadeva has drawn our attention to senes from Ramayana sculptured at the Ikshavaku art centre of Nagarjunikonda in Andhra pradesh dated in the 3rd Century A.D.  The sculptured stucco panels at Aphasad in Bihar, depicting as many as eight scenes from the Ramayana were introduced to the scholarly world by the present author, and they are dated in the 7th century A.D.  The depiction of redemption of Ahalya by Rama is vividly depicted in the Gupta temple at Deogadh dated in 6th Century A.D.  Similar scene depicted on a terracotta and belonging to the Gupta period has been found at Sravasti.  In a stone niche from Nachna (4th-5th Century A.D.) earlier than Deogadh example, Surpanekha's episode has been beautifully engraved.  Numerous Ramayana scenes on Angkorvat (Vishnu temple) in Cambodia are testimony to the spread of Ramayana fame in the S.E Asia.  Ramayanic scenes at Ellora (8th century) are well-known.  Sculptures representing Ramayana scenes are found in Karnatak.  The scene depicting Meghanada dragging Hanuman to Ravana's court was first noticed as Nachna (M.P.) and is found at the Varahi temple at Chaurasi (dt. Puri, Orissa) of the 10th Century A.D.  From the Chinese sources it has been shown that the Ramayana was a well-known and popular story in the time of Vasubandu.  The public recitation of the Ramayana is referred to the manuscript of kalpanamanditika of the 2nd century A.D. found in Central Asia.  The Paumacarita of Vimalasuri dated in the 1st Century A.D. is a recast of the Ramayana story.  The Khotanese and the Tibetan version of the Ramayana further prove the antiquity and widespread of the Epic story.  A distinguished scholar (B. N. Puri) held that on the basis of available evidence the Ramayana was known in Central Asia from the 2nd century A.D. may be still earlier, as Asvaghosha who wrote Buddha charita was indebted to Valmiki and is said to have lived in Ayodhya.  The recitation of the Ramayana is referred to in a Kambuja inscription of the 6th century A.D. Recitation of only secret texts is reasonable.  The above very bried summary of Rama in art and literature from the 1st century A.D. down to the 12th Century A.D., makes it clear that Rama was held in great reverence not only in almost all parts of India, but also in South-East Asia, and Central Asia.  The worship or deification of Rama is also as ancient.  Even if we exclude the evidence of the Balakanda and the Uttarkanda or the Ramayana showing Rama to be an incarnation of Vishnu, believed to be no part of the original Ramayana of Valmiki, they are certainly not as late as Ramanand or Kabir.  But Kalidasa in the Raghuvansa (4th-5th Century A.D.) refers to Rama as a divine figure. However, while archaeology has so far failed to prove or disprove the hoary antiquity of Ayodhya going back to 2nd millennium B.C., or that of the historicity of Rama, it has certainly clearly indicated that the Babri Maszid stands on the ruins of a pre-Islamic structure of the 10th-11th centuries.  That brick-pillar bases placed at uniform distances going into section of the excavated trenches are extending into the Babri Maszid complex cannot be doubted.  About a dozen pillars used in the mosque are standing testimony to the fact that parts of a damaged Hindu structure have been appropriated in the construction of the mosque.  It is now contended by some leading motivated historians that the structure was a Buddhist one, may be one of which Husan Tsang refered to in his account of Ayodhya.  But, the distinguished historians failed to mention rather may be as a deliberate move to spread disinformation that the Chinese pilgrim has mentioned no less than 10 'deva' temples, which would be Brahmanical only.  What is wrong to ascribe one of these Brahmanical templese lying ruined under the Maszid? And should we forgive the Muslims for destroying the Buddhist structure? One is reminded of Goldsmiths' famous schoolteacher who went on arguing though vanquished still.  However, the most crucial point in the archaeological evidence has been missed.  The structure belongs to the 10th-11th centuries A.D.  So it was constructed more than a couple of hundred years after the Chinese pilgrim.  The chances of the structure being Buddhist are dim.  We all know that as a result of Shankaracharya's digvijaya and other causes Buddhism suffered mortal injuries and soon disappeared from the land of its birth.  We know that under the patronage of the Buddhist Pala kings, it survived in Bihar and Bengal only.  One would like to know if Buddhist monuments of substantial dimensions were erected in the 10th century and later, east of Banaras.  It is, therefore, a valid point to hold that Babri Maszid stands on the destroyed Hindu temple of the Pratihara or sahadavala times, who were all Hindus by faith.  We are not aware of any ruling dynasty of 9th-10th centuries in this part of the country claiming to be Buddhist by faith, and it is well established that Buddhism largely flourished on royal munificance.  Unfortunately, the details of the so-called Salabhanjika figure found in the Babri Maszid have not been given.  But, granting the presence of the motif, it is hardly fair to rule the ruined structure, whose parts were appropriated in the Maszid, on this ground alone as Buddhist.  It has been well-argued and documents elsewhere that in the post-Gupta periodthe motif was adapted by Hindu sculptors & salabhanjika model was modified to represent Lakshmi, Ganga and Yamuna.  In the Harshacarita Lakshmi has been compared to a salabhanjikaadorning the arm of a great hero like a victory-stand.  From the same book it has been inferred that columns engraved with salabhanjika motifs were found in royal apartments.  The word salabhanjika occurs in Aryasaptasat of Goverdhanacharya, a court poet of Lakshamanaursena (12th century A.D.) a Hindu by faith.  The Allahabad Museum houses many salabhausika figures in dancing poses under mango tree.  They are representatives of Jamsat-art.  So the motif was not exclusively Buddhist in the post-Gupta period.  It is really strange that while the obvious conclusion is that the structure was Hindu, the obduracy to ignore Hindu religion and art has made a particular brand of historians to look for a very unlikely explanation instead of the obvious one. There should be no valid reason, now to hold that the structure over which the Babri Maszid stands was not Hindu in character.  Then who destroyed the temple? It is possible that Mahmud Ghazni or more probably Muhammad Ghori plundered Ayodhya as well, but as traditions persist that the maszid was built in the time of Babar, and it is natural to hold that the temple was destroyed in his time as well.  Since the time of the prophet Muhammed, the Muslim conquerors or invaders have been destroying un-Islamic structure and idols from China to Spain including Arabia, Iran and India.  And Babar could very well emulate the persistent tradition.  Meer Baqi's inscription in the mosque clearly states that it was built at the command of Babar in 1528.  And if not Babar, Mohmud Ghazni or Muhammad Ghori.  How does it weaken the Hindu standpoint? Unfortunately, the pages containing the events between April 2 and 18 September have been long lost irretrievably.  Babar believed in and led jihad against Hindu rivals, and he did smash jain idols and mutilated many jain temples in 1925 such as in Urwah Valley near Gwalior as is admitted in his autobiography.  In 1927 after his victory over Ranasanga in jihad against non-muslims, Babar took the title of Ghazi, as he himself claims in Babarnama.  Before the battle, on the eve of his jihad against the Rana, he broke his drinking cups into pieces in a manner, in which if Allah wills, the idols of the idolators will be smashed." So where remains the case that Babar, a tolerant ruler, could not destroy the Hindu temple at Ayodhya.  He certainly demolished many Hindu temples at Chanderi when he occupied it and Babar was in for a jihad covering a dar-ul-hab into dar-ul-Islam.  There is a persistent evidence coming from Muslim sources since 1858 that the controversial site was known as Janmabhumi site on the basis of earlier medieval sources certainly not on British detail. In our opinion the Hindus were never reconciled to the loss of this sacred place and it may be due to opposition that the mosque was not completed - it is without minarets and a pond for ablution (wazu) of namazis in the mosque by the faiithful doen the centuries.  In was probably in recognition of the strength of the Hindu opposition (in vast majority in the city) and in deference to his policy of toleration that according to local tradition Akbar is said to have built the Chabutara on which Hindu idols were installed for worship and the adjacent spot known as Sita-ki-Rasoi was called Sitapak.  The Muslim rulers dared not destroy the sacred site of architecture.  But Hindu sense of grief and loss continued and often violent clashes over the issue of Ram Chabutara or the Janmabhoomi continued in the time of the great Mughals like Jehangir and Aurangzeb, and of the nawabs which must have caused consideratable loss of life.  Long before the British occupied Ayodhya, the European traveller Tieffenthaler who visited the place in 1767, wrote about the Hindu worship being reguylarly conducted in the Maszid and mentions the tradition of the Janmabhoomi temple having been destroyed to make way for the existing mosque.  It is sheer blindfoldness to assert that the dispute was concocted by the British for divide and rule.  One cannot expect the great muslim divine and scholar Maulana Abdul Hai to be writing under British inspiration.  He categorically writes that the Babri Maszid was constructed by Babar on the site of birth place of Sri Ramchandraji. So there should be no doubt in any reasonable unprejudiced mind that the Babri maszid was built after destroying a Hindu temple.  It is sheer obduracy to argue that Mir Baqi got the Hindu pillars from a few kilometers away to instal in the mosque.  Why was he so much in love with the pillars? It is obvious that he used the pillars which he found after destruction of the temple on the site and a similar evidence has been found in Kutubminar complex.  And it is beyond dispute that for hundreds of years if not thousands, the Hindus have believed this site to be the birth place of their divine Lord Rama.  You cannot whisk away such long held pious belief of millions with even tons of weighty polemics.  Who could dare dispute that the hair in Hazratbal mosque in Srinagar does belong to the Prophet Muhammad? It is absolutely desirable for the Muslim community in the interest of peace and goodwill of the vast majority of their co-nationals to respect the aroused sentiments of the Hindus to agree to relocate the mosque and co-operate with the Hindus in construction of Rama's temple on the site.  Mosques have been and are being relocated on much minor grounds even in muslim countries.  And particularly when the mosque has not been in constant use by the namazis for decades.  I have been a regular visitor of Ayodhya since 1926, and I have seen the continuous worship of 'Rama's idols on the "chabutara" and except for the some Muslims at prayer in the mosque compound.  As has been said above, the mosque without facilities for essential ablution (wazu) for namaz was never very popular with namazis.  And the Hindu worship and also struggle for the repossession of the site continued unabated.  As early as in 1936-37, a bill was introduced in the legislature council of U.P. to transfer the site to the Hindus.  Sri G.B.  Pant, the Chief Minister tried to assuage the roused feelings of both the communities, and it is said that the bill was withdrawn on the unwritten understanding that no namaz was performed; the caretaker and his family could be the only namazis.  And in 1949, the idols were discovered and installed in the garbhagriha, and till 1986, the continuous worship of Sri Ramalala has been on in the maszid with no entry of muslims there.  The Hindu devotees received parshads, had darshan of the deity through iron-grilled window, protected by police.  Since 1987, the Hindus have been worshipping the deities installed in the mosque without any hindrance.  So the Babri Maszid does represent the humiliating experience of the Hindus and the militancy of Islam, and the Hindus throughout centuries have not accepted the fait accompli.  This is not that much true of Mathura or Dwarka sites.  The maszid on the otherhand has never been a very prominent and popular place of worship for the Muslims who congregated in Faizabad with splendid mosques.  The maszid has not been in use since 1936.  In view of all this, is it too much for the Hindus now to build a temple on the site which is traditionally the most pious site for the Hindus, after carefully and piously relocating the mosque at some distance from the site! The muslims may be assured that if they show the necessary grace, wisdom and sense of realism, no aggressive mass Hindu movement against other mosques could be again built up.  Should not the Babari Maszid Co-ordination Committee, and the VHP and BJP think on such a course of action to assure communal amity and peace, the bedrock on which the stability and prosperity of the nation depends.  (Dr. B.P. Sinha) *(Professor & Head of the Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology (Retired)