BABERI MASJID : HIstorical Facts and Biased Controversies:
The destruction of Baberi Masjid was reported with a great importance by the medias (Political Importance) but most of them didn’t reported any follow ups or the findings by the #ArchaeologicalSurveyofIndia and those descriptions by the Historians like #Xuanzang (Hiuen Tsang), the Chinese monk who visited India in ancient times about Ayodhya.
Note: The Baberi Masjid issue was much used against Mr.Narendra Modi (current Prime minister of India and the previous Chief Minister of Gujarat where this place is situated) by the Congress party to stop him from winning the state and central election in India.
Some findings of the 2003 Archeological Survey of India from Controversial Rama Temple/Baberi Masjid Area:
Archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1970, 1992 and 2003 in and around the disputed site have indicated a large Hindu complex existed on the site.
The summary of the ASI report indicated definite proof of a temple under the mosque. In the words of ASI researchers, they discovered “distinctive features associated with temples of north India”.
The excavations yielded:
“ stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of a divine couple and carved architectural features, including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali, doorjamb with semi-circular shrine pilaster, broke octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranjala (watershute) in the north and 50 pillar bases in association with a huge structure.”
The excavation began on 12 March 2003 on the acquired land on the high court’s order and by 7 August 2003 when it ended, the ASI team had made 1360 discoveries. The report said there was archaeological evidence of “a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural activities from the 10th century onwards”. The ASI report said there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50×30 metres in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure. In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat foundation below calcrete blocks topped by sandstone blocks were found. The area below the disputed site remained a place for public use for a long time till the Mughal period when the disputed structure was built which was confined to a limited area and the population settled around it as evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material including pottery. The report said the human activity at the site dates back to 13th century BC on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of the site.
A round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of this level, according to the report. The report said the Sunga period (second-first century BC) comes next in order of the cultural occupation at the site followed by the Kushan period. During the early medieval period (11–12th century AD) a huge structure of nearly 50 metres north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived as only four of the 50 pillar bases exposed during the excavation belonged to this level with a brick crush floor. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it. The architectural members of the earlier short-lived massive structure with stencil-cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure which has a huge pillared hall different from residential structures providing sufficient evidence of construction of public usages which remained under existence for a long time during the period. The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century that the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.
Period 1000BC to 300BC:
The findings suggest that a Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) culture existed at the mosque site between 1000 BC and 300 BC. A round signet with a legend in Asokan Brahmi, terracotta figurines of female deities with archaic features, beads of terracotta and glass, wheels and fragments of votive tanks have been found.
Sunga Period. 200 BC:
Typical terracotta mother goddess, human and animal figurines, beads, hairpins, pottery (includes black slipped, red and grey wares), and stone and brick structures of the Sunga period have been found.
Kushan period. 100-300 AD:
Terracotta human and animal figurines, fragments of votive tanks, beads, bangle fragments, ceramics with red ware and large-sized structures running into twenty-two courses have been found from this level.
Gupta era (400-600 AD) and post-Gupta era:
Typical terracotta figurines, a copper coin with the legend Sri Chandra (Gupta), and illustrative potsherds of the Guptaperiod have been found. A circular brick shrine with an entrance from the east and a provision for a water-chute on the northern wall have also been found.
11th to 12th century:
A huge structure of almost fifty metres in north-south orientation have been found on this level. Only four of the fifty pillar bases belong to this level. Above this lay a structure with at least three structural phases which had a huge pillared hall.
In the January 2003, Canadian geophysicist Claude Robillard performed a search with a ground-penetrating radar. The survey concluded the following:
“There is some structure under the mosque. The structures were ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 meters in depth that could be associated with ancient and contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundation walls, slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the site”.
During the demolition of the Babri mosque in December 1992, three inscriptions on stone were found. The most important one is the Hari-Vishnu inscription inscribed on a 1.10 x .56 metre slab with 20 lines that was provisionally dated to ca. 1140. The inscription mentioned that the temple was dedicated to “Vishnu, slayer of Bali and of the ten-headed one” [Rama is an incarnation of Vishnu who is said to have defeated Bali and Ravana]. The inscription is written in the Nagari Lipi script, aSanskrit script of the 11th and 12th century. It was examined by world class epigraphists and Sanskrit scholars (among them Prof. A.M. Shastri).
Ajay Mitra Shastri, Chairman of the Epigraphical Society of India and a specialist in epigraphy and numismatics, examined the Hari-Vishnu inscription and stated:
“The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a small portion in prose, and is engraved in the chaste and classical Nagari- script of the eleventh-twelfth century AD. It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed on it. Line 15 of this inscription, for example, clearly tells us that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stone (sila-samhati-grahais) and beautified with a golden spire (hiranya-kalasa-srisundaram) unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings (purvvair-apy-akrtam krtam nrpatibhir) was constructed. This wonderful temple (aty-adbhutam) was built in the temple- city (vibudh-alaayni) of Ayodhya situated in the Saketamandala (district, line 17) (…). Line 19 describes god Vishnu as destroying king Bali (apparently in the Vamana manifestation) and the ten-headed personage (Dasanana, i.e., Ravana).
Archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India in and around the disputed site in 1970, 1992 and 2003 have indicated a large ancient complex existed there prior to the Babri structure.
Joseph Tieffenthaler :-
The Austrian Jesuit Joseph Tieffenthaler wrote in 1768: “Emperor Aurangzeb demolished the fortress called Ramcot, and erected on the same place a Mohammedan temple with three cupolas. Others believe that it was constructed by Babor. Tieffenthaler also writes that Hindus celebrated Ram Navami (Rama’s birth festival) in front of the mosque, and that the mosque was built on a temple. He wrote: “The reason is that here existed formerly a house in which Beschan (Vishnu) took birth in the form of Rama and where it is said his three brothers were also born. Subsequently Aurangzeb and some say Babur destroyed the place in order to prevent the heathens from practising their ceremonies. However, they have continued to practice their religious ceremonies in both the places knowing this to have been the birth place of Rama by going around it three times and prostrating on the ground.
The earliest suggestion that the Babri Mosque is in proximity to the birthplace of Ram was made by the Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, whose work in French was published in Berlin in 1788. It says:
“Emperor Aurangzeb got demolished the fortress called Ramkot, and erected on the same place a Mahometan temple with three cuppolas. Others believe that it was constructed by Babur. We see 14 columns of black stone 5 spans high that occupy places within the fortress. Twelve of these columns now bear the interior arcades of the Masjid; two (of the 12) make up the entrance of the cloister. Two others form part of the tomb of a certain Moor. It is related that these columns, or rather the debris of these columns, were brought from Lanka (called Ceylon by the Europeans) by Hanuman, chief of the monkeys.” which in French reads as
l’empereur Aurungzeb détruisit la forteresse appelée Ramkot et construisit sur le même emplacement un temple musulman avec 3 dômes. D’autres pensent qu’il a été construit par Babur. On peut voir 14 colonnes faites en pierre noire qui soutiennent des découpages …
… Plus tard Aurungzeb, ou, selon certains, Babur, détruisit l’endroit afin d’empêcher des païens de pratiquer leurs cérémonies. Toutefois ils continuèrent à pratiquer leurs cérémonies religieuses dans ce lieu, le connaisant comme celui de la naissance de Rama, en en faisant 3 fois le tour et en se prosternant à terre..
We see on the left a square platform 5 inches above ground, 5 inches long and 4 inches wide, constructed of mud and covered with lime. The Hindus call it bedi, that is to say, the birthplace. The reason is that here there was a house in which Beschan, (Bishan-Vishnu) took the form of Rama, and his three brothers are also said to have been born. Subsequently, Aurangzeb, or according to others, Babur razed this place down, in order not to give the Gentiles (Hindus) occasion to practice their worship. However, they continued to follow their practices in both places, believing it to be the birthplace of Rama.”
This record reveals that Aurengzeb demolished the Ramkot fortress; that either he, or Babur constructed a Mosque there; the 12 columns of black stone pillars were brought from Lanka; and when veneration of Rama became prevalent after the 17th century, a small rectangular mud platform was built to mark the birthplace of Rama.
Shykh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorawi Nami]
Shykh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorawi Nami (1811–1893) wrote: ‘According to old records, it has been a rule with the Muslim rulers from the first to build mosques, monasteries, and inns, spread Islam, and put (a stop to) non-Islamic practices, wherever they found prominence (of kufr). Accordingly, even as they cleared up Mathura, Bindraban, etc., from the rubbish of non-Islamic practices, the Babari mosque was built up in 923(?) A.H. under the patronage of Sayyid Musa Ashiqan in the Janmasthan temple in Faizabad-Avadh, which was a great place of (worship) and capital of Rama’s father’ (p. 9). ‘Among the Hindus it was known as Sita ki Rasoi’ (p. 10). Zak Kakorawi, in his publication of the work of Shykh Azamat Ali Kakorawi Nami, also includes an excerpt written by Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur. Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur (1787–1867) wrote in Fasanah-i Ibrat that ‘a great mosque was built on the spot where Sita ki Rasoi is situated. During the regime of Babar, The mosque was built in 923(?) A.H. under the patronage of Sayyid Mir Ashiqan… Aurangzeb built a mosque on the Hanuman Garhi… The Bairagis raised the mosque and erected a temple in its place. Then idols began to be worshipped openly in the Babari mosque where the Sita ki Rasoi is situated,’ (pp. 71–72).
- Führer wrote that: ‘Mir Khan built a masjid in A.H. 930 during the reign of Babur, which still bears his name. This old temple must have been a fine one, for many of its columns have been utilised by the Musalmans in the construction of Babur’s Masjid.
H.R. Neville wrote that the Janmasthan temple “was destroyed by Babur and replaced by a mosque.” He also wrote “The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babur came to Ayodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babur’s mosque. The materials of the old structure [i.e., the temple] were largely employed, and many of the columns were in good preservation.”
The British merchant William Finch, who travelled in India during AD 1608–11, recorded a detailed description of Ayodhya and the castle of Ramchand (Ramkot), “extensive enough to undertake a search for gold.” Though he does not mention the birthplace of Rama, he gives a detailed account of the place where the ashes of Ram are kept. “Some two miles on the further side of the river in a cave of his with a narrow entrance, but so spacious and full of turnings within that a man may well loose himself there if he taketh not better heed; where it is thought his ashes were buried. Hither resort many from all parts of India, which carry from thence in remembrance certain grains of rice as black as gunpowder which they say have been preserved ever since.”
King Ayudh is mentioned in Hindu scriptures as a forefather of Lord Rama. His name comes from the Sanskrit root yudh, meaning “fight” or “wage war,” and it translates to either “not to be fought” or, less literally, “unconquerable.” During the time of Gautama Buddha, the city was called Ayojjhā in Pali, and Ayodhyā in Sanskrit, although this city in scripture has been said to be on the River Ganges.
In the first centuries of the common era, it was called Saketa. Śāketa or 沙奇 (Pinyin: Shāqí) was conquered by theKushan/Yuezhi Emperor Kanishka c. 127 CE, who made it administrative center of his eastern territories. The name occurs again in Faxian as 沙祗 (Pinyin: Shāzhī) in the early 5th century. It is not clear when the name changed, but by the time of the visit of the Chinese pilgrim monk, Xuanzang, c. 636 CE, it was known as Ayodhya.
Kim clan and Princess Heo Hwang-ok
The Atharva Veda called Ayodhya “a city built by gods and being as prosperous as paradise itself”.
According to the 11th-century Korean chronicle the Samguk Yusa, the wife of King Suro of the ancient Korean kingdom of Geumgwan Gaya was a princess who traveled by boat from a faraway land called Ayuta to Korea in 48 AD. It is commonly thought that Ayodhya is the foreign land referred to in the Korean chronicles, but some scholars believe that the foreign land may have been Ayutthaya of Thailand.
The local government of Ayodhya and South Korea acknowledged the connection and held a ceremony to raise a statue of the princess on the banks of the Sarayu River. The adopted Korean name of the princess is Heo Hwang-ok, the first queen of Geumgwan Gaya Dynasty and the ancestor of the Korean Kim family of Kimhae and Heo. Two millennia prior, a princess of Ayodhya had been shipped off as a bride to Suro. They had ten children, of whom nine became Buddhist monks. His descendants now form the 10 million-strong Kim Kimhae clan and Heo Gimhae clan.
In the 7th century CE, Xuanzang (Hiuen Tsang), the Chinese monk, recorded many Hindu temples in Ayodhya. In the epic Ramayana, the city of Ayodhya is cited as the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama, a Hindu deity who was worshipped as Lord Vishnu’s seventh incarnation. Ayodhya became a famous pilgrimage destination in the 15th century when Ramananda, the Hindu mystic, established a devotional sect of Sri Rama.
The Thai kingdom and city of Ayutthaya, and the Indonesian sultanate of Yogyakarta, are named after Ayodhya.
The 16th century witnessed a shift in power with Ayodhya coming under the rule of the Mughal Empire.
Conclusion : Many proofs are pointing that Baberi Masjid is just a ‘Modified preexisting Hindu Temple’ which was built up by the wicked minded Baber, for the Spreading of Islamic beliefs in that area.