The Ayodhya dispute (Hindi: अयोध्या विवाद 'Ayōdhyā Vivād' , Urdu: مسئلۂ ایودھیا 'Masʾala-ē Ayōdhyā' ) is a political, historical and socio-religious debate in India, centred on a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya, located in Faizabad district, Uttar Pradesh. The main issues revolve around access to a site traditionally regarded among Hindus to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Rama, the history and location of the Babri Mosque at the site, and whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to create the mosque.
The Babri Mosque was destroyed by hardline Hindu activists during a political rally which turned into a riot on 6 December 1992. A subsequent land title case was lodged in the Allahabad High Court, the verdict of which was pronounced on 30 September 2010. In the landmark hearing, the three judges of The Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres (1.12 ha) of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with 1/3 going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, 1/3 going to the Islamic Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining 1/3 going to a Hindu religious denomination Nirmohi Akhara. While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site. The excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India were heavily used as evidence by the court that the predating structure was a massive Hindu religious building.
- 1 Religious background
- 2 Historical background
- 3 Beginnings of the dispute
- 4 Demolition of the Babri Mosque
- 5 Early historical surveys
- 6 Post-independence
- 7 Hindu Nationalism
- 8 Timeline
- 9 See also
- 10 References
- 11 Further reading
- 12 External links
The Ayodhya debate centres around the land known today as Ram Janmabhoomi, on which the Babri Mosque was built in 1528. In Hindu mythology, Ayodhya is the birthplace of the god-king Rama, the son of Dasharatha, the ruler of Ayodhya, and his queen Kausalya. He is worshiped by many Hindus as an Avatar, or incarnation, of Vishnu.
When the Mughal invader Babur came down from Kabul in 1525, he first defeated Ibrahim Lodi at the first battle of Panipat and then the Rajput King of Chittorgarh, Rana Sangram Singh at Khanwa, making pioneering use of cannon and light cavalry. After these triumphs, Babur took over a substantial part of northern India.
One of his generals, Mir Baqi came to Ayodhya in 1528 and after reportedly destroying a pre-existing temple of Rama at the site, built a mosque, which has come to be called masjid-i-janmasthan (mosque at the birthplace) as well as Babri Masjid (Babur's mosque). The Babri Mosque was one of the largest mosques in Uttar Pradesh, a state in India with considerable Muslim population. Both the Hindus and Muslims are said to have worshipped at the "mosque-temple," Muslims inside the mosque and Hindus outside the mosque but inside the compound. After the British took over the State, they put up a railing between the two areas to prevent disputes.
In Buddha's time (600 B.C.) the present day Ayodhya was called Saketa and it was one of the 6 largest cities of North India. During the Gupta times, either Kumaragupta or Skandagupta made it their capital, after which it came to be called Ayodhya. Kalidasa wrote Raghuvamsa here, and referred to Gopratara tirtha (Guptar Ghat), where Rama was believed to have entered the waters of Saryu in his ascent to heaven. According to a local tradition recorded by Francis Buchanan and Alexander Cunningham, Ayodhya became desolate after Rama's ascent to heaven and "Vikramaditya" revived it. (In Raghuvamsa, Rama's son Kusa revived it.) Prabhavatigupta, the daughter of Chandragupta II, was a Rama devotee. Her son, Pravarasena II wrote Sethubandha, in which Rama was regarded as identical to Vishnu. He also built a temple to Rama at Pravarapura (Paunar near Ramtek) in about 450 A.D.
After the Guptas, the capital of North India moved to Kannauj and Ayodhya fell into relative neglect. It was revived by the Gahadavalas, coming to power in the 11th century A.D. The Gahadavalas were Vaishnavas. They built several Vishnu temples in Ayodhya, five of which survived till the end of Aurangzeb's reign. Hans T. Bakker concludes that there might have been a temple at the supposed birth spot of Rama built by the Gahadavalas. In subsequent years, the cult of Rama developed within Vaishnavism, with Rama being regarded as the foremost avatar of Vishnu. Consequently, Ayodhya's importance as a pilgrimage centre grew. In particular, multiple versions of Ayodhya Mahatmya (magical powers of Ayodhya) prescribed the celebration of Ram Navami (the birthday of Rama).
In modern times, we find a mosque at the supposed birth spot of Rama, which is on a large mound in the centre of Ayodhya, called the Ramadurg or Ramkot (the fort of Rama). The mosque bore an inscription stating that it was built in 1528 A.D. by Mir Baqi on the orders of Babur. How this mosque came into being is discussed in these sources:
- Karim, Maulvi Abdul (1885). Tarikh-i Parnia Madinatul Awliya [Forgotten Events of Ayodhya] (in Persian). Lucknow.
- Ghaffar, Maulvi Abdul (1981) [first published prior to 1932]. Gumgamashtah Halat-i Ajodhya [Forgotten Events of Ayodhya] (in Urdu). Lucknow: Nami Press.
- Sita Ram, Avadh-vasi Lala (1932). Ayodhya ka Itihasa [History of Ayodhya] (in Hindi). Allahabad.
According to them, the young Babur came from Kabul to Awadh (Ayodhya) in disguise, dressed as a Qalandar (sufi ascetic), probably as part of a fact-finding mission. Here he met the sufi saints Shah Jalal and Sayyid Musa Ashiqan and took a pledge in return for their blessings for conquering Hindustan. The pledge is not spelled out in the 1981 edition of Ghaffar's book, but it is made clear that it is in pursuance of this pledge that he got the Babri mosque constructed aftering conquering Hindustan. The original book was written in Persian by Maulvi Abdul Karim, a spiritual descendant of Ashiqan, and it was translated into Urdu by his grandson Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar with additional commentary. The older editions of Ghaffar's book contain more detail which seems to have been excised in the 1981 edition. Lala Sita Ram, who had access to the older edition in 1932 wrote, "The faqirs answered that they would bless him if he promised to build a mosque after demolishing the Janmasthan temple. Babur accepted the faqirs' offer and returned to his homeland."
The fact that Babur came in the guise of a Qalandar is corroborated in Abdullah's Tarikh-i Dawudi, where it is detailed that he met the Sultan Sikandar Lodhi in Delhi in the same disguise. The inscription on the Babri mosque itself names him as Babur Qalandar. Musa Ashiqan's grave is situated close to the Babri mosque site, whose shrine uses two of the black basalt columns with Hindu carvings used in the Babri mosque, indicative of his role in the destruction of the prior temple.
While we have had a mosque bearing an inscription to the effect that it was built on orders of Babur in 1528, there are no other records of the mosque from this period. The Babarnama (Chronicles of Babur) does not mention either the mosque or the destruction of a temple. Tulsidas, who began writing the Ramcharit Manas in Ayodhya on Rama's birthday in 1574 (coming there from his normal residence in Varanasi) mentioned the "great birthday festival" in Ayodhya but made no mention of a mosque at Rama's birthplace. Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak, who wrote Akbarnama, completing the third volume Ain-i Akbari in 1598, described the birthday festival in Ayodhya, the "residence of Rama" and the "holiest place of antiquity," but made no mention of a mosque. William Finch, the English traveller that visited Ayodhya around 1611, and wrote about the "ruins of the Ranichand [Ramachand] castle and houses" where Hindus believed the great God "took flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world." He found pandas (Brahmin priests) in the ruins of the fort, who were recording the names of the pilgrims, a practice that was said to go back to antiquity.
Late Mughal period
The first known report of a mosque appears in a book Sahifa-I-Chihil Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, said to have been written by a daughter of the emperor Bahadur Shah I (and granddaughter of Aurangzeb) in the early 18th century. It mentioned mosques having been constructed after demolishing the "temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh etc." Hindus are said to have called these demolished temples in Awadh "Sita Rasoi" (Sita's kitchen) and "Hanuman's abode."  It should be borne in mind that the mosques at Mathura and Banaras were built by Aurangzeb, not Babur.
Jai Singh II (popularly called "Sawai Jai Singh", 1688-1743) purchased land and established Jaisinghpuras in all Hindu religious centres in North India, including Mathura, Vrindavan, Banaras, Allahabad, Ujjain and Ayodhya. The documents of these activities have been preserved in the Kapad-Dwar collection in the City Palace Museum in Jaipur. Professor R. Nath, who has examined these records, concludes that Jai Singh had acquired the land of Rama Janmasthan in 1717. The ownership of the land was vested in the deity. The hereditary title of the ownership was recognized and enforced by the Mugal State from 1717. He also found a letter from a gumastha Trilokchand, dated 1723, stating that, while under the Muslim administration people had been prevented from taking a ritual bath in the Saryu river, the establishment of the Jaisinghpura has removed all impediments.
The Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, who visited Awadh in 1766-1771, wrote, "Emperor Aurangzebe got the fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that it was constructed by 'Babor'. Fourteen black stone pillars of 5 span high, which had existed at the site of the fortress, are seen there. Twelve of these pillars now support the interior arcades of the mosque." This ambiguity between Aurangzeb and Babur could be significant. Tieffenthaler also wrote that Hindus worshipped a square box raised 5 inches above the ground, which was said to be called the "Bedi, i.e., the cradle." "The reason for this is that once upon a time, here was a house where Beschan [Vishnu] was born in the form of Ram." Rama's birthday was said to be celebrated every year, with a big gathering of people, which was "so famous in the entire India."
It can be seen from the historical outline that Ayodhya became a pilgrimage centre devoted to Rama in the 16th century, if not earlier. The site of the Babri Masjid continued to be called "Rama's fort," and was said to be in ruins for at least some of the time. It nevertheless continued to attract Hindu pilgrims. In the 18th century, a belief took shape that this site contained Rama's birth spot as well as Sita's kitchen.
Beginnings of the dispute
The first recorded instances of religious violence in Ayodhya occurred in the 1850s over a nearby mosque at Hanuman Garhi. The Babri mosque was attacked by Hindus in the process. Since then, local Hindu groups have made occasional demands that they should have the possession of the site and that they should be allowed to build a temple on the site, all of which were denied by the colonial government. In 1946, an off shoot of the Hindu Mahasabha called Akhil Bharatiya Ramayana Mahasabha (ABRM) started an agitation for the possession of the site. In 1949, Sant Digvijay Nath of Gorakhnath Math joined the ABRM and organised a 9-day continuous recitation of Ramcharit Manas, at the end of which the Hindu nationalists broke into the mosque and placed idols of Rama inside. People were led to believe that the idols had `miraculously' appeared inside the mosque. The date of the event was 22 December 1949.
Jawaharlal Nehru insisted that the idols should be removed. However, the local official K. K. K. Nair refused to carry out orders claiming that it would lead to communal riots. The police locked the gates so that the public (neither Hindus nor Muslims) could not enter. However, the idols remained inside and priests were allowed entry to perform daily worship. So, the mosque had been converted into a de facto temple. Both the Sunni Wakf Board and the ABRM filed civil suits staking their respective claims to the site. The land was declared to be under dispute, and the gates remained locked.
Christophe Jaffrelot has called the Gorakhnath wing of Hindu nationalism `the other saffron', which has maintained its existence separately from the mainstream Hindu nationalism of the Sangh Parivar. After the Vishva Hindu Parishad was formed in 1964 and started agitating for the Babri Masjid site, the two strands of `saffron politics' came together. The district magistrate K. K. K. Nair, who refused to carry out orders, was eventually dismissed, but he became a local hero.
Demolition of the Babri Mosque
In the 1980s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), belonging to the mainstream Hindu nationalist family Sangh Parivar, launched a new movement to "reclaim" the site for Hindus and to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ramlala) at this spot. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), formed in 1980 from the remnants of the Jana Sangh, became the political face of the campaign. In 1986, a district judge ruled that the gates would be reopened and Hindus permitted to worship inside, providing a major boost to the movement. In September 1990, BJP leader L. K. Advani began a "rath yatra" to Ayodhya in order to generate support for the movement. The yatra resulted in communal riots in many cities it passed through, prompting the government of Bihar to arrest Advani. In spite of this, a large number of 'kar sevaks' or Sangh Parivar activists reached Ayodhya and tried to attack the mosque. They were stopped by the police and the paramilitary forces, resulting in a pitched battle in which several kar sevaks were killed. Accusing the central government of V.P Singh of being weak, the BJP withdrew its support, necessitating fresh elections. In these elections, the BJP won a majority in the Uttar Pradesh assembly, and also increased its share in the Lok Sabha.
On 6 December 1992, the VHP and its associates, including the BJP, organised a rally involving 150,000 VHP and BJP kar sevaks at the site of the mosque. The ceremonies included speeches by BJP leaders such as Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti. The mob grew restive through the duration of the speeches, and stormed the mosque shortly after noon. A police cordon placed there to protect the mosque was heavily outnumbered. The mosque was attacked with a number of improvised tools, and brought to the ground in a few hours. This occurred despite a commitment from the state government to the Indian Supreme Court that the mosque would not be harmed. More than 2000 people were killed in the riots following the demolition. Riots broke out in many major Indian cities including Mumbai, Delhi and Hyderabad.
On 16 December 1992, the Liberhan Commission was set up by the Government of India to probe the circumstances that led to the demolition of the Babri Mosque. It was the longest running commission in India's history with several extensions granted by various governments. The report found a number of people to be culpable in the demolition, including BJP leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Lal Krishna Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh, Pramod Mahajan, Uma Bharti and Vijayraje Scindia, as well as VHP leaders like Giriraj Kishore and Ashok Singhal. Other prominent political leaders indicted by the commission include late Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray and former RSS leader K Govindacharya. Relying on the testimonies of several eyewitnesses, the report stated that many of these leaders had made provocative speeches at the rally that provoked the demolition. It also stated that they could have stopped the demolition if they had so wished.
Many Muslim organisations have continued to express outrage at the destruction of the disputed structure. In July 2005, terrorists attacked the makeshift temple at the site of the destroyed mosque. In 2007, M. N. Gopal Das, the then head of the Ram temple, received phone calls making threats against his life. Many terror attacks by banned jihadi outfits like IM cited demolition of Babri Mosque as an excuse for terrorist attacks.
Early historical surveys
In 1767, Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler recorded Hindus worshiping and celebrating Ramanavami at the site of the mosque. In 1788, Tieffenthaler's French works were published in Paris, the first to suggest that the Babri Mosque was on the birthplace of Rama, saying that "Emperor Aurangzeb got demolished the fortress called Ramkot, and erected on the same place a Mahometan temple with three cuppolas" reclaimed by Hindus through numerous wars after death of Aurangzeb in 1707 A.D like they earlier fortified it during Jahangir's rule as Ramkot.
During the 19th century, the Hindus in Ayodhya were recorded as continuing a tradition of worshiping Rama on the Ramkot hill. According to British sources, Hindus and Muslims from the Faizabad area worshiped together in the Babri Mosque complex in the 19th century until about 1855. P. Carnegy wrote in 1870:
It is said that up to that time, the Hindus and Mohamedans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since the British rule a railing has been put up to prevent dispute, within which, in the mosque the Mohamedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.—
This platform was outside the disputed structure but within its precincts.
In 1858, the Muazzin of the Babri Mosque said in a petition to the British government that the courtyard had been used by Hindus for hundreds of years.
The British recognized the religious and political tension between the Muslims and Hindus. An early census, taken in 1869, found the Hindu people to comprise 66.4 percent of the total population in Ayodhya, and a little over 60 percent in nearby Faizabad. The British contended that the Ayodhya area was primarily Hindu, not in regards to this census, but to the chief spiritual significance for the birthplace of Rama.
Mahant Ram case
In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Ram moved the courts for permission to erect a temple just outside the Babri Mosque premises. Despite validating the claim of the petitioner, the Faizabad District Judge dismissed the case, citing the passage of time. On 18 March 1886, the judge passed an order in which he wrote:
I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the Masjid built by Emperor Babur stands on the border of Ayodhya, that is to say, to the west and south it is clear of habitations. 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 agree with the grievances. (Court verdict by Col. F.E.A. Chamier, District Judge, Faizabad (1886)
||This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Inline external links. (June 2012)|
Several later mosques were built in Faizabad district, in which the pilgrim city of Ayodhya falls. Ayodhya itself has a small Muslim population, though there are substantial numbers of Muslims 7 km away at District Headquarters – Faizabad. Since 1949, by Indian Government order, Muslims were not permitted to be closer than 200 yards away to the site; the main gate remained locked, though Hindu pilgrims were allowed to enter through a side door. The 1986 Allahabad High Court ordered the opening of the main gate and restored the site in full to the Hindus. Hindu groups later requested modifications to the Babri Mosque, and drew up plans for a new grand Temple with Government permissions; riots between Hindu and Muslim groups took place as a result. Since, then the matter is sub-judice and this political, historical and socio-religious debate over the history and location of the Babri Mosque, is known as the Ayodhya dispute.
Archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1970, 1992 and 2003 in and around the disputed site have clearly found the evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site. In 2003, by the order of an Indian Court, The Archaeological Survey of India was asked to conduct a more indepth study and an excavation to ascertain the type of structure that was beneath the rubble indicated definite proof of a temple under the mosque. However, it could not be ascertained if it was a Rama temple as remnant had more resemblance to a Shiva temple. 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"—
Before the archaeological opinion was published, there were some differing viewpoints. In his Communal History and Rama's Ayodhya, written prior to the ASI researches, Professor Ram Sharan Sharma writes, "Ayodhya seems to have emerged as a place of religious pilgrimage in medieval times. Although chapter 85 of the Vishnu Smriti lists as many as fifty-two places of pilgrimage, including towns, lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., it does not include Ayodhya in this list. Sharma also notes that Tulsidas, who wrote the Ramcharitmanas in 1574 at Ayodhya, does not mention it as a place of pilgrimage. This suggests that there was no significant Hindu temple at the site of the Babri Mosque., or that it had ceased to be one, after the mosque was built. After the demolition of the mosque in 1992, Professor Ram Sharan Sharma along with historians Suraj Bhan, M. Athar Ali and Dwijendra Narayan Jha wrote the Historian's report to the nation saying that the assumption that there was a temple at the disputed site was mistaken, and that there was no valid reason to destroy the mosque. The 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement came down heavily on these "eminent" historians, with one of the judges remarking that he was "surprised to see in the zeal of helping… the parties in whose favour they were appearing, these witnesses went ahead… and wrote a totally new story".
In 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad filed a title suit with the Allahabad High Court seeking injunction to offer 'puja' (worship) at the disputed site. A similar suit was filed shortly after but later withdrawn by Paramhans Das of Ayodhya. In 1959, the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious institution, filed a third title suit seeking direction to hand over the charge of the disputed site, claiming to be its custodian. A fourth suit was filed by the Muslim Central Board of Wakf for declaration and possession of the site. The Allahabad high court bench began hearing the case in 2002, which was completed in 2010. However, the bench withheld its verdict till 24 September. After the Supreme Court dismissed a plea to defer the High Court verdict, the High Court set 30 September 2010 as the final date for pronouncing the judgement.
On 30 September 2010, the High Court of Allahabad, the three-member bench comprising justices S. U. Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D. V. Sharma, ruled that the disputed land be split into three parts. The site of the Ramlala idol would go to the party representing Ram Lalla Virajman (the installed Infant Ram deity), Nirmohi Akhara to get Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutara, and the Sunni Wakf Board to get the rest. The court also ruled that the status quo should be maintained for three months.
Reacting to the verdict, all the three parties announced that they would appeal against the division of disputed land in the Supreme Court of India. All the three parties, however, conceded that this judgment was an important step towards the resolution of a long standing dispute.
The Ayodhya debate has grown along with a revival of Hindu Nationalism.
The issue of the disputed structure had remained inactive for four decades, until the mid-1980s. The Hindu Nationalist movement pressed for reclamation of three of its most holy sites which it claimed had suffered at the hands of Islam, at Ayodhya, Mathura and Varanasi. L K Advani, the leader of the BJP in his memoirs argued, "If Muslims are entitled to an Islamic atmosphere in Mecca, and if Christians are entitled to a Christian atmosphere in the Vatican, why is it wrong for the Hindus to expect a Hindu atmosphere in Ayodhya?"
The legal case continues regarding the title deed of the land tract which is a government controlled property. While the Muslim parties want the Babri Mosque to be reconstructed through a court order, the Hindu side wants a law in parliament to have a temple constructed, saying faith in the existence of Ram Janmabhoomi cannot be decided in a court of law.
|1527||During the reign of Babur, the first mughal emperor, some have claimed an old Hindu temple was demolished and a mosque constructed at the same place in Ayodhya and named after Babur. ('Fact' proved by archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1970, 1992 and 2003 in and around the disputed site — disputed by others).|
|1853||The first recorded communal clashes over the site date to this year.|
|1859||The colonial British administration put a fence around the site, denominating separate areas of worship for Hindus and Muslims. That is how it stood for about 90 years.|
|1949||In December of that year, idols were put inside the mosque. As told by lawyer of Ramlalla, the idol wasn't placed by anyone but is accepted by Hindus to have appeared. Both sides to the dispute filed civil suits. The government locked the gates, saying the matter was sub judice and declared the area “disputed”. The civil suits were filed for ownership of the Plot no 583 of the area.|
|1961||Case filed in Indian courts against forceful occupation of the Babri Mosque and placing of idols within it.|
|1984||The movement to build a temple at the site, which Hindus claimed was the birthplace of Lord Ram, gathered momentum when Hindu groups formed a committee to spearhead the construction of a temple at the Ramjanmabhoomi site.|
|1986||A district judge ordered the gates of the mosque to be opened after almost five decades and allowed Hindus to worship inside the “disputed structure.” A Babri Mosque Action Committee was formed as Muslims protested the move to allow Hindu prayers at the site. The gates were opened in less than an hour after the court decision. The process was publicized on TV, considered as a method of the Central Government to appease Hindus (since after the decision of the government in Shah Bano case, the government wanted to shed their Muslim-friendly image).|
|1989||The clamour for building a Ram temple was growing. In February, VHP proclaimed that a Shila or a stone will be established for construction of temple near the area. In November, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad laid foundations of a temple on land adjacent to the "disputed structure" in presence of Home Minister Sh Boota Singh and then Chief Minister Sh ND Tiwari. There were sporadic clashes in the country such as Bhagalpur in Bihar. Rajiv Gandhi took 'Soft Hindutva' in the upcoming elections.|
|1990||Sh V P Singh became the Prime Minister of India with support of BJP which had won 58 seats in the election, a massive improvement from its last tally of 2 seats. The then BJP president Lal Krishna Advani took out a cross-country rathyatra to garner support for the move to build a Ram temple at the site. On 23 October was arrested in Bihar during the yatra, following which BJP took back its support to the government. Sh Chandrashekhar became the Prime Minister of India with support of the congress. On October 30, many were gunned down by the police on orders of the then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav, when they gathered in Ayodhya as participants of the Rath-Yatra; their bodies were thrown in the river Saryu.|
|1991||Congress came to power at center after elections in 1991, while BJP became major opposition party in center and came to power in many states such as Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Kalyan Singh became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. State government acquired 2.77 acre land in the area and gave it on lease to RamJanmBhoomi Nyas Trust. The Allahbad High Court stopped any permanent construction activity in the area. Kalyan Singh publicly supported the movement while Central Government took no action to curb the increasing tensions. In spite of the High Court judgement, disputed area was leveled.|
|1992||Kalyan Singh took steps to support the movement such as making entry into area easier, promising no firing on Karsevaks, opposing decision of central government to send Central Police force in the area, etc. In July, several thousand Karsevaks assembled in the area and the work for maintenance of temple started. This activity was stopped after intervention of the prime minister. Meetings started between Babri Masjid Action Committee and VHP leaders in presence of the home minister. On 30 October, Dharam Sansad of VHP proclaimed in Delhi that the talks have failed and Karseva will presume from 6 December. Central Government was considering the deployment of central police forces in the area and dissolution of state government but in the end decided against it. The case was being heard in the Supreme Court which told that State Government is responsible for ensuring law and order in the area. The government was discussing it in Cabinet Committee meeting and Rashtriya Ekta Parishad. BJP boycotted the Parishad. The Allahbad High Court was hearing the matter of legality of structure of foundation laid in 1989.|
|1992||6 December||The Babri Mosque was demolished by a gathering of near 200,000 Karsevaks. Communal riots across India followed.|
|1992||16 December||Ten days after the demolition, the Congress government at the Centre, headed by PV Narasimha Rao, set up a commission of inquiry under Justice Liberhan.|
|1993||Three months after being constituted, the Liberhan Commission began investigations into who and what led to the demolition of the Babri Mosque.|
|2001||Tensions rose on the anniversary of the demolition of the mosque as the VHP reaffirmed its resolve to build a temple at the site.|
|2002||27 February||At least 58 people were killed in Godhra, Gujarat, in an attack on a train believed to be carrying Hindu volunteers from Ayodhya. Riots followed in the state and over 2000 people were unofficially reported to have died in these.|
|2003||The court ordered a survey to find out whether a temple to Lord Ram existed on the site. In August, the survey presented evidence of a temple under the mosque. Muslim groups disputed the findings.|
|2003||September||A court ruled that seven Hindu leaders, including some prominent BJP leaders, should stand trial for inciting the destruction of the Babri Mosque.|
|2004||November||An Uttar Pradesh court ruled that an earlier order which exonerated LK Advani for his role in the destruction of the mosque should be reviewed.|
|2007||The Supreme Court refused to admit a review petition on the Ayodhya dispute.|
|2009||The Liberhan Commission, which was instituted ten days after the demolition of the Babri Mosque in 1992, submitted its report on 30 June — almost 17 years after it began its inquiry. Its contents were not made public.|
|2010||30 September||The Allahabad High Court pronounces its verdict on four title suits relating to the Ayodhya dispute on 30 September 2010. Ayodhya land to be divided into three parts. 1/3 goes to Ram Lalla represented by Hindu Maha Sabha, 1/3 to Sunni Wakf Board, 1/3 goes to Nirmohi Akhara.|
|2010||December||The Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha and Sunni Waqf Board moved to the Supreme Court of India, challenging part of the Allahabad High Court’s verdict.|
|2011||9 May||Supreme Court of India stayed the high court order splitting the disputed site in three parts and said that status quo will remain. The two judge bench of Supreme Court remarked that the HC verdict was surprising as no party wanted a split of the site.|
- Ram ke Naam - a documentary film on Ayodhya dispute by Anand Patwardhan
- Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques
- Islam and other religions
- Temple Mount - similarly disputed location in Jerusalem
- [dead link]
- "Issues For Briefing" (PDF). Retrieved 11 June 2012.
- The Hindu temple, Volume 1 By Stella Kramrisch, Raymond Burnier. Google Books. p. 3. Retrieved 2 October 2010.
- "Subject matter of the decided cases" (PDF). Retrieved 11 June 2012.
- Sayyid Shahabuddin Abdur Rahman (1987). Babri Masjid (3rd print ed.). Azamgarh: Darul Musannifin Shibli Academy. pp. 29–30.
- "Baburnama translated by Annette Susannah Beveridge 1922, p. 656, footnote 3". Archive.org. 10 March 2001. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
- "Indian Census". Censusindia.gov.in. Archived from the original on 15 October 2010. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
- van der Veer 1992, pp. 97-98, footnote 25.
- Jain 2013, pp. 3-5.
- Bakker, Hans (1982). "The rise of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage". Indo-Iranian Journal 24 (2): 103–126. doi:10.1007/BF00209819.
- Paramasivan, Vasudha (2009). "Yah Ayodhya Vah Ayodhya: Earthly and Cosmic Journeys in the Anand-lahari". In Heidi R. M. Pauwels. Patronage and Popularisation, Pilgrimage and Procession. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. pp. 101–116. ISBN 3447057238.
- Ghaffar 1981, pp. 61-62 quoted in Narain 1993, pp. 31-32
- Sita Ram 1932, p. 151 quoted in Narain 1993, p. 33 and Allahabad High Court 2010, vol. 4, p. 281
- van der Veer 1987, p. 286.
- van der Veer 1989, pp. 20-21.
- Narain 1993, pp. 33-34.
- Narain 1993, p. 34.
- Jain 2013, pp. 165-166.
- Narain 1993, p. 17.
- Jain 2013, p. 166.
- Jain 2013, p. 9, 120, 164.
- Narain 1993, pp. 23-25.
- Layton & Thomas 2003, p. 8.
- Jain 2013, pp. 112-114.
- Jain 2013, pp. 120-121.
- Some scholars argue that whatever Babur constructed was abandoned and was in ruins by the time of Akbar, and Hindus continued to worship there. The mosque seen in present times must have been constructed by Aurangzeb.
- Jain 2013, p. 121.
- Layton & Thomas 2003, pp. 8-9.
- Bacchetta 2000.
- Jha & Jha 2012.
- "Timeline: Ayodhya holy site crisis". BBC News. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
- van der Veer 1992, pp. 98-99.
- Jaffrelot, Christophe (6 October 2014). "The other saffron". Indian Express. Retrieved 2014-10-06.
- van der Veer 1992, p. 99, footnote 28.
- Guha, Ramachandra (2007). India After Gandhi. MacMillan. pp. 633–659.
- Tully, Mark (5 December 2002). "Tearing down the Babri Masjid". BBC News. Retrieved 29 September 2010.
- Guha, Ramachandra (2007). India After Gandhi. MacMillan. pp. 582–598.
- "Report: Sequence of events on December 6". Ndtv.com. Retrieved 20 June 2012.
- Tearing down the Babri Masjid – Eye Witness BBC's Mark Tully BBC – Thursday, 5 December 2002, 19:05 GMT
- "Babri Masjid demolition was planned 10 months in advance – PTI". Newindpress.com. Archived from the original on 7 October 2010. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
- "Article – Untitled Article". London: Archive.guardian.co.uk. 8 December 1992. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
- "Timeline: Ayodhya holy site crisis". BBC News. 30 September 2010.
- Nelson, Dean (29 September 2010). "India braced for violence ahead of Muslim v Hindu Ayodhya verdict". The Telegraph (London). Retrieved 7 July 2012.
- Six more months for Liberhan Commission The Hindu – 12 March 2004
- "Vajpayee, Advani severely indicted by Liberhan Commission – India – DNA". Dnaindia.com. 24 November 2009. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
- PTI, 22 November 2007, 06.53 pm IST (22 November 2007). "Ram Janambhoomi trust chief threatened – The Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
- "The Latest 'Indian Mujahideen Mail' | B. Raman". Outlookindia.com. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
- "Blast a revenge for Babri: mail". The Indian Express. 14 September 2008. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
- "Refworld | Chronology for Hindus in Bangladesh". UNHCR. 16 October 1993. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
- "Refworld | World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples – Bangladesh : Hindus". UNHCR. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
- Sharma, Dharam Veer, Ram JanmBhoomi Babri Masjid Judgement – Annexure IV – Page 129 to 162 (PDF), pp. 129–162, retrieved 15 April 2011
- P. Carnegy: A Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad, Lucknow 1870, cited by Harsh Narain The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, 1993, New Delhi, Penman Publications. ISBN 81-85504-16-4 pp. 8-9, and by Peter Van der Veer Religious Nationalism, p. 153.
- The Truth of Babri Mosque. IUniverse.com. 2012. p. 184. ISBN 1475942893.
- Islam, Arshad. "Babri Mosque: A Historic Bone Of Contention." Muslim World 97.2 (2007): 259-286. Academic Search Elite. Web. 23 September 2012.
- Gumaste, Vivek (17 September 2010). "Can court verdict resolve Ayodhya dispute?". Rediff News. Archived from the original on 20 September 2010. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
- Anatomy of a confrontation: the rise ... Google Books. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
- "Ancient Temple Found Beneath Disputed Mosque". About.com. Retrieved 20 December 2012.
- R. Prasannan (7 September 2003). "Layers of truth". The Week. Archived from the original on 2005-03-23. Retrieved 20 December 2012.
- "Evidence of temple found:ASI". The Triubune. 2003-08-25. Retrieved 20 December 2012.
- Sikand, Yoginder (5 August 2006). "Ayodhya's Forgotten Muslim Past". Counter Currents. Archived from the original on 21 December 2007. Retrieved 12 January 2008.
- Ali, M.Athar (2008). Mughal India. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-569661-5.
- "How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause". The Times Of India. 9 October 2010. Retrieved 3 July 2013.
- Das, Anil (28 September 2010). "Chronolgy of Ayodhya's Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit issue". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 1 October 2010. Retrieved 29 September 2010.
- Muralidharan, Sukumar (12 April 2002). "Temple Interrupted". Frontline. Archived from the original on 30 September 2010. Retrieved 29 September 2010.
- PTI (28 September 2010). "Time-line of Ayodhya dispute and slew of legal suits". DNA India. Archived from the original on 2 October 2010. Retrieved 29 September 2010.Venkatesan, J. (28 September 2010). "Ayodhya verdict tomorrow". The Hindu (Chennai, India). Archived from the original on 1 October 2010. Retrieved 29 September 2010.
- "India holy site 'split between Hindus and Muslims'". BBC News. 30 September 2010. Archived from the original on 1 October 2010. Retrieved 30 September 2010.
- S. U. Khan, S. Agarwal, D. V. Sharma, S. U. "Decision of the hon'ble special full bench hearing Ayodhya matters".
- PTI (30 September 2010). "Court orders 3-way division of disputed Ayodhya land". The Hindu (Chennai, India). Archived from the original on 3 October 2010. Retrieved 30 September 2010.
- "India Seeks Harmony Amid Diversity". The Christian Science Monitor. 3 February 1993. Retrieved 7 May 2009.
- Obeying court orders only course open: Muslim board, Times of India
- 'Timeline: Ayodhya crisis', BBC News, 17 October 2003.
- "Pradhanmantri - Episode 9: Split in Congress - Indira Gandhi and Morarji Desai". YouTube. 2013-09-07. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
- "1990 decision to order firing on ‘kar sevaks' painful, Mulayam Singh Yadav says - The Times of India". The Times Of India. 16 July 2013.
- The author has posted comments on this article. "Mulayam warns rioters, recalls order to shoot kar sevaks - The Times of India". Articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
- Monday, August 18, 2014 (2013-07-16). "Mulayam indulging in votebank politics through Ayodhya Kar Sevak firing comment: JD (U) | Business Standard News". Business-standard.com. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
- "Taming of the VHP". Frontline.in. 2003-10-22. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
- Venkatesan, J. (28 September 2010). "Ayodhya verdict tomorrow". The Hindu (Chennai, India). Archived from the original on 1 October 2010. Retrieved 29 September 2010.
- "Hindu Mahasabha moves SC against part of Ayodhya verdict". The Indian Express. 29 December 2010. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
- "Sunni Waqf Board moves Supreme Court against high court’s Ayodhya order". Dnaindia.com. 15 December 2010. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
- Allahabad High Court (30 August 2010). "Decision of Hon'ble Special Full Bench hearing Ayodhya Matters". Retrieved 2014-12-27.
- Bacchetta, Paola (2000). "Sacred Space in Conflict in India: The Babri Masjid Affair". Growth and Change 31 (2): 255–284. doi:10.1111/0017-4815.00128.
- Jain, Meenakshi (2013). Rama and Aydhya. New Delhi: Aryan Books. ISBN 8173054517.
- Jha, Krishna; Jha, Dhirendra K. (2012). Ayodhya: The Dark Night. HarperCollins India. ISBN 978-93-5029-600-4.
- Lal, B. B. (2003). "A note on the excavations at Ayodhya with reference to the Mandir-Masjid issue". In Layton, R.; Stone, P.; Thomas, J. Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 117–126. ISBN 1134604971.
- Layton, R.; Thomas, P. (2003). "Introduction". In Layton, R.; Stone, P.; Thomas, J. Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 1–21. ISBN 1134604971.
- Narain, Harsh (1993). The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers.
- Ratnagar, Shereen (2004). "Archaeology at the Heart of a Political Confrontation: The Case of Ayodhya". Current Anthropology 45 (2). pp. 239–259. JSTOR 381044.
- Sharma, Ram Sharan (2003). "The Ayodhya issue". In R. Layton; P. Stone; J. Thomas. Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 127–138. ISBN 1134604971.
- van der Veer, Peter (1987). "`God must be Liberated!' A Hindu Liberation Movement in Ayodhya". Modern Asian Studies 21 (2): 283–301. JSTOR 312648.
- van der Veer, Peter (1989). Gods on Earth: The Management of Religious Experience and Identity in a North Indian Pilgrimage Centre. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0485195100.
- van der Veer, Peter (1992). "Ayodhya and Somnath: Eternal Shrines, Contested Histories". Social Research 59 (1): 85–109. JSTOR 40970685.
- Aswathy (6 December 2013). "Babri Masjid demolition: A timeline". One India. Retrieved 2014-12-06.
- Bajaj, Jitendra, ed. (1993). Ayodhya and the Future of India. Madras: Centre for Policy Studies.
- Elst, Koenraad (1990). Ram Janmabhoomi Vs Babri Masjid. New Delhi: Voice of India.
- Elst, Koenraad (2002). Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple. ISBN 81-85990-75-1.
- Emmanuel, Dominic (27 August 2003). The Mumbai bomb blasts and the Ayodhya tangle. National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved 2014-12-07.
- Engineer, Asghar Ali, ed. (1990). Babri Masjid Ramjanambhumi Controversy. Delhi: Ajanta Publications.
- Hassner, Ron E. (2009). War on Sacred Grounds. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
- Nath, R. (1990). Babari Masjid of Ayodhya. Jaipur: The Historical Research Documentation program.
- Nandy, A.; Trivedy, S.; Mayaram, S.; Yagnik, Achyut (1998). Creating a Nationality: The Ramjanmabhumi Movement and Fear of the Self. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-564271-6.
- Rajaram, N. S. (2000). Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New Delhi: Voice of India.
- Sharma, Ram Sharan, ed. (1999). Communal History and Rama's Ayodhya (2nd ed.). Delhi: People's Publishing House.
- Srivastava, Sushil (1991). Disputed Mosque, A historical inquiry. New Delhi: Vistaar Publication.
- Thacktson, Wheeler M., ed. (1996). Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
- Thapar, Romila (2000). "A Historical Perspective on the Story of Rama". In Thapar, Romila. Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-564050-0.
- Varma, Thakur Prasad; Gupta, Swarajya Prakash. Ayodhya ka Itihas evam Puratattva — Rigveda kal se ab tak (History and Archaeology of Ayodhya— From the Time of the Rigveda to the Present) (in Hindi). New Delhi: Bharatiya Itihasa evam Samskrit Parishad and DK Printworld.
- Nirmohi Akhara ready for out-of-court settlement – TCN News
- Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid – Ayodhya Bench: Gist of Judgments at Allahabad High Court[dead link]