Talk:Babri Masjid/Archive 1

=Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhe Wassalam) and Babri Mosque

I've heard this claim about that the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) to preach to India, and they found traces of his hair from his head. This can be from an authentic source (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud etc.. ) or it can be a forgery hadith. I'm not too sure about this, can someone research this up? Is there any authentic source?

• • • Hi,The details of prophet's daily life are well recorded in history and there is no mention whatsoever of him visiting India at all.

• • • Thanks the gods for that. We never needed pedophiles anyway (Netaji 11:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

=SUBHASH BOSE Edits

User Boss has added following personal POV while at the same time deleting reference to Gujarat Riots in a previous edit saying it was unrelated and a Leftist propoganda.

.....). However, most enquiry reports in India fail to satisfy all the parties.In retaliation, Muslim mafia, principally the D-Gang operated by Dawood Ibrahim Khaskar, the Konkanni Muslim and acolyte of former Mafia don Haji Mastan, staged a simultaneous, multiple bomb attacks in Bombay using RDX and whose toll is also not finally set. See 1993 Mumbai bombings.

Admin should keep an eye on his changes please.He should be made to cite mainstream media as an authentic source and not the Sangh Parivar

Rushdie 10:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Regarding the version that 64.* and 128.* keep reverting to, here are my issues with it:

1. As far as I know, the clear identification of the structure beneath the Babri ruins has not been confirmed as a Hindu temple, and certainly not as a Rama Janmabhoomi temple. While I believe, and you might believe, that this structure was in fact a Rama Janmabhoomi temple destroyed by Babar, while definititive evidence is lacking it remains an allegation, and we must state it as such. Of course, you might know more than I about the matter - could you provide sources demonstrating that the structure is, in fact, a Rama janmabhoomi temple?
2. Regarding the appearance of idols, they did not "mysteriously appear", they were placed there by activists. I don't know why we should avoid saying this. Also, it certainly wasn't disused - there were Muslim prayer services being conducted there at the time, and quibbling by Koenraad Elst et al. about what qualifies it as a fully-functional mosque does not mitigate this fact.
3. I'd like to equivocate more on the actual destruction... I don't think there's definitive proof that it was pre-planned. However, the version presented, where you ascribe motives to the crowd (i.e., "anger at ... pandering to the Muslim vote bank") are wholly indefensible.
4. In general your presentation is highly partisan. If you wish to make the article -less- partisan, please do so - your changes are egregiously pro-Sangh and not appropriate. E.g., the last statement "These findings were promptly rejected by the Communists and other political parties which depend on the Muslim vote bank." is certainly clearly partisan.

Please let me know what you think of these points... I hope we can work together to make this a better article. Graft 18:58, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

On the points made by Graft

First of all, my view is not pro-Sangh or anti-Sangh or pro-Muslim or anything of that sort. I am interested in posting things in a scientific manner. On the points you made and some more new points:

1) The structure beneath the Babri ruins HAS been confirmed as a Hindu temple. Like it or not, it has happened. The excavations were overseen by all parties involved and once the confirmation happened, the same political parties which were eagerly supporting the excavations suddenly condemned the excavations.

2) "mysteriously appear" includes being placed there by activist/activists. Obviously, it had to be placed there. "mysteriously appear" means it was placed there. By whom we do not know. "mysteriously appear" also captures the fact that the discovery of placement came as a surprise.

Notice your biases here - going by your argument, we should add the word 'allegedly' before "placed by activists." Your points against Hindus are all assertions while the points which are grievances by Hindus are made as 'allegations.'

3) The mosque was disused. In fact, there was no one on the Muslim side who could claim ownership in a court of law. The only arguments made in court that it was not disused was a claim by a politician that he once saw one person praying there many years ago while going on a walk. Clearly, you do not understand the politics in India.

4) "However, the version presented, where you ascribe motives to the crowd (i.e., "anger at ... pandering to the Muslim vote bank") are wholly indefensible."

You point is well taken. I will delete it. I should not have added that part, but the crowd did go out of control and was angry at the police for barricading them. It was a motley crowd and you cannot say they were VHP activists.

5) "These findings were promptly rejected by the Communists and other political parties which depend on the Muslim vote bank." is certainly clearly partisan.

Come on, this is a fact. RSS itself originated as a reaction to pandering of Muslims (check out separate electorates for Muslims during British times.)

I am not sure how familiar you are with the politics of India, but BJP rode to power on these issues - scrapping of special status for the only Muslim majority state in India and treating all states as equal, scrapping of Shariat laws for Muslims (in particular, Muslim women are persecuted by Mullahs ruling in disputes, Shah Bano case was the flashpoint), Muslim educational institutions receiving subsidies while Hindus in India are banned from running educational institutions, all revenues from Hindu temples being appropriated by the Government which then subsidise Madrasas and of course the issue at Ayodhya.

6) Of the above, everyone of them is a legitimate issue except Ayodhya. I explain Ayodhya below in point number 7. Anyone with common sense will see that political parties indulge in unequal treatment only for getting votes. Anyone familiar with India will know that Muslims voting en-masse on the orders of the Mullah in the mosque is a reality and that is why Muslims were appeased.

7) Ayodhya was not a legitimate issue because it should not be legislated by politicians. It should be treated purely as a legal dispute and evidence should be seen in a scientific manner. Politicians should have kept off completely. However, no political party in India thought on these lines. I don't blame them for it. They are not highly educated people to figure out that it was a legal issue to begin with.

8) The part about LK Advani pleading in city after city that Hindus and Muslims should jointly shift the structure brick by brick and he will get the Hindus to fund for it is a fact.

You should stop stringing together allegations and writing up an article. That is the hallmark of a poor journalist. That is an indirect way of sneaking in POVs. Please don't be biased. It is bad enough that India has been devastated repeatedly by all the known forms of unlibertarian groups - Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Socialists, Colonialists and indirectly by Pax Americana advocates who supported Osama bin Laden and Mujahideen.

OTOH, it has been unique in not seeing any anti-semitism and has welcomed people of all religions into its fold. When Parsis were persecuted, they came to India. When Jews were persecuted, they came to India and settled down. Syrian Christians found a home in India and when Tibetans were beaten out by Communists, they came to India too.

Choosing Communist sources and giving them prominence is unacceptable. Please desist from it.

9) I suggest you do proper research and you will see that the first recorded flareup was in the 19th century, and so was the first case filed in court. The British judge actually ruled that a temple had been destroyed but he felt helpless and could not restore it as it would upset the public order.

10) Your point on posting references is well taken. I'll do that too in addition to deleting the reference to the reason for anger by the crowd as pandering to Muslim votes. I read your comment after posting it. That is why you don't find it already in place.

Forgot to add in my previous comment

I forgot to add one point. Notice the way you describe Rama as a mythical figure. That was an assertion. Would you make the same assertion regarding Jesus, Mohammed flying on a horse etc? I don't see you making such corrections there in an assertive tone. Clearly that shows your prejudices.

Observing Hindus around the world, I see that they do not strap themselves with explosives and blast themselves in public places, do not hijack planes and slam them into buildings and do not wage religious wars. I can only conclude that the allegations against Hindus being the most evil people on earth is fiction.

Okay, I thank you for engaging me, and having done so I'm far more willing to tolerate your alterations. Some points:

I have two main sources of information on Ayodhya: one is the books and literature of the Sangh and Hindutva crowd, and the other is the Internet and Indian newspapers. Both of these have their biases, and not residing in India I must admit I have a hard time distilling out the truth. So please forgive me if I attribute something that you feel is clearly untrue, because it's probably simply a mistake or ignorance on my part.

As to actual points: "mysteriously appeared" I dislike because it plays into the stories that this was a God-ordained event or some sort of miracle. I've read that there was a police report confirming the identity of the man who placed the idols, and Anand Patwardhan in one of his (admittedly biased) documentaries interviews a man who claims to be the placer (i forget if he had the same name)... at any rate, I'd at least like to include "probably placed by Hindu activists" or, as you say, "allegedly placed".

I found an article on the latest excavations in Organiser, which I find fairly compelling, but I'd be interested in reading objections to it just to know what they were.

Regarding use of the mosque, I've read arguments saying that it was disused, but I think these arguments mostly hinge on what "disused" means. I've only really read one side of this argument, but on the other side, there's testimony that namaaz was conducted until 1949 and an imam responsible for the site until the placing of the statue. Not sure about how reliable either is.

Regarding the Communist/pandering - I really don't know whether Muslims vote on the word of mullahs or if that's just a myth, not really having any way to verify that, but in any event I think the juxtaposition is there just to discredit the communists, et al, which I think should be avoided.

Regarding Advani - I'd like to be careful about describing him. He's a politician and a slippery one, and he certainly says a lot of things in public, but there are just as many reports of things he did and said not-so-publicly that belie his noble intentions, and I can certainly believe it. I don't think we should be drawing him as some guy who was just trying to do the right thing by everyone... his motives were most definitely cynical.

As to non-article-related stuff... I don't agree that Ayodhya is a legal issue - first of all, who are the parties? And secondly, it's about a historical site, and a major, significant one (obviously) - the government has to take a hand.

Also, I describe Rama as a mythical figure because he's a mythical figure, like Oddysseus or Moses. His importance is more in his symbolic meaning and actions than in his historical context, which is dubious at best.

Anyway, thanks again for responding to my points. Graft 06:58, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Agree about mythical figure but...

I agree about the mythical figure part. My theory about all of these figures is that there must have been someone somewhere with some small following and the followers built up fiction about these figures. My point is the unequal treatment of various religions - Christianity and Judaism is usually treated as history while assertions about the "mythical" nature of other religions is made. I have heard the term "Hindu mythology" but never "Christian mythology."

BTW, Organiser is a mouthpiece of RSS and Anand Patwardhan is a known Communist sympathiser. However, the piece about the evidence at Ayodhya must have been a good one because the facts are on their side.

Unfortunately, India's media as well as academics were controlled by the Communists until the 1990s when the stranglehold on the academia was broken. That is why everything is very contentious in India - Aryan Invasion Theory was made up by Max Mueller, a missionary who fitted it into the claim that Biblical creation occured around 3987 BCE, treatment of all events as class struggles (Hindu vs Muslim fits into this), hiding of Muslim atrocities - travel across North India and not a single temple which is undamaged is older than 150 years though the civilization is 1000s of years old while South India which escaped Islamic rule has very old temples in all their splendour, branding Hindus as evil - evidence shows the contrary, indians are peaceful people who welcomed people of other religions over the ages while they themselves never fought back when they were evicted by Idi Amin, by the dictators in Burma and even puny Fiji.

To let you know where I'm coming from, I am an agnost and a libertarian. I've created a new id - LibertarianAnarchist for convenience. I am still learning the format to make an entry. So pardon me if you find anything incomplete. I'll post the references you suggested.

That is a whole heap of hippy gibberish. Indians most certainly did stike back, and first at times. I'm not ecven going to get into this. You appear to have been tainted by BJP VHP propaganda.

Temple evidence

OneGuy, are you being deliberately obtuse? The previous paragraph contains text that clearly states that the Archaeological Survey of India found evidence of a temple structure. It's inappropriate for you to insert a paragraph that says "no evidence has been found", in direct contradiction of the previous paragraph. Edit it so it is in line with the above text, fine, but the way it's written is absurd. Graft 19:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, you are being obtuse. You implied in the article that only Muslims dispute the finding of this Archaeological Survey. That's not the case. The ASI report was published in 2003. This quote from a non-Muslim historian is dated at May 2004, so clearly "Muslim groups" are not the only ones who dispute the claim. And here is another review of ASI report by Dr Sushil Shrivastava, a Professor at Allahabad University, the author of the book The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry[1]. Clearly some experts think ASI report doesn't show evidence of Temple structure OneGuy 00:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to you altering that sentence about "only Muslims"; I have no attachment to it, it's obviously inaccurate. But do so in a manner that isn't wholly at odds with the flow of the article. Having flatly contradictory sentences in subsequent paragraphs is just silly. Graft 07:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edits by User:81.1.123.238 and User:Lalitshastri

The edits done on 15 and 16 January deleted prior information and added POV material. We are all trying to be NPOV on wikipedia, so let's have a fair representation of both sides. This demands some effort and good will from both sides.

Furthermore, there are some severe inaccuracies. For example, there is the following instance: "Richard M Eaton, an American historian of medieval India, in his Essays on Islam and Indian History documents desecration of all Hindu temples between 1192 and 1760. The total adds up to 80."

This is ridiculous. First of all, Eaton in his controversial book does not claim that this list is exhaustive. And, if we look at the list of eighty cases, there is for example this instance: “1094: Benares, Ghurid army”. This doesn't mean the Ghurid Army destroyed just one temple, because if we take the time to look at the sources he used, we read the Ghurid royal army “destroyed nearly one thousand temples, and raised mosques on their foundations”. So this "eigthty" neeeds some zeros added.

Here are some links, for reference:

• The Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir
• Ayodhya
• The Ayodhya Debate
• article on Ayodhya
• Ayodhya and the Research on the Temple of Lord Rama
• FACTS ABOUT THE AYODHYA DISPUTE

--Kdlb 21:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you are Disputing this article then for Gods Sake tell us what you are disputing

None of the edits by Lalit Shastri quotes Richard M Eaton, so I don't know why you bring him into this discussion. Regarding a Personal Point of View, why do you bring that up here - Instead of using hackneyed cliques kindly give specific examples where we have violated our strict neutrality or shut up.

The edits made, represent a brief and factual account of the events at Ayhodya when the Mosque was destroyed the sources quoted are Time magazine journalists Jefferson Penberthy and Anita Pratap - These journalists are quoted by name as they are considered credible witnesses by the High Court of Allahabad where they gave evidence against LK Advani who faces crimnal charges.

Many other witnesses were present and amongst the journalists there. The BBC crew filmed the destruction and part of the narrative is from the BBC news team. We are grateful to Syed Naqi Editor of India's leading newspaper the Tribune for also describing the events. A personal friend of Lilit Shastri, Rahul Bajpai of Reuters was also assigned to cover Ahyodya and the mosque since 1990. The narrative is taken from these sources and you can contact them to confirm.

Also quoted on the myth of a Hindu temple being there are Professor Gopal head of Social Sciences & history at the Jawharlal Nehru University and son of Dr Radhakrisnan President of India, & Romilla Thapar Historian of Ancient India also from the JUNU. Romilla Thapar is advisor to the Govt of India on Ancient Indian history and is amongst a panel which overseas the content of textbooks in Indian Schools.

We have also taken the point of view of the VHP, RSS and the BJP all complicit destroying the Temple and have described the behavior of their leaders Uma Bharati and LK Advani who encouraged the mob from a podium constructed by the VHP so that their leadershp could witness the destruction.

However if there are those who disagree it goes without saying you can bring your points to this discussion but remember there are highly intelligent academics who lurk watching these pages - So please do not bring rubbish - But pearls of wisdom and knowledge are always welcome by almost everybody

Also It must be remembered this is not a Hindu - Muslim thing - We at Wikipedia are more enlightened than that - Racism, Bigotry, Obscurantism, ignorance and superstition are to be shunned by all men of wisdom

We do not care if it was a mosque or Temple although the historians who have any credibility Internationally say that there was no Temple.

We do care about the people slaughtered by the actions of those in India who try and spread communal strife, It is worth remembering during the rule of the RSS and its political wing the BJP twice more people died of communal violence in India then those that died in the Twin Towers.

User:81.1.123.238

This article you have written is clearly written to advance a specific point of view; that is, that the BJP, VHP, etc., are violent thugs, historical evidence is not on their side, and so on. The article avoids mentioning facts that contradict this thesis - for example, it neglects to mention the use of police violence by the UK government in defending the site. It neglects to mention (even dismissively) evidence contradicting the idea that there was no temple beneath the mosque (e.g. the Archaeological Survey of India findings). It uses phrases like "murderous gangs" to describe kar sevaks, which is highly POV. Etc., etc.

Gentlemen, you MUST acknowledge your own point of view. It is obvious you are writing this because you wish to present a certain picture of events, and that is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. If you would like to create a neutral, balanced article, then we have a starting point from which to work. Your version of the article is not that. No matter how sympathetic I or other editors may be to the substance of what you wish to say, the manner in which you have constructed this article is terribly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Graft 20:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As this is the Talk page, let me express my opinion about the destruction of the mosque and the associated politics. I remember watching the BBC and other sources on the day of the demolition. I think it is extremely regrettable that major places of worship in India can be demolished by mob action, with a complacent, even complicit government. I was happily surprised that matters did not deteriorate to full anarchy when the BJP took power, the first non-secular government since independance. Without secular government in India, I fear the nation is doomed to a bloodbath of communal violence. I believe the BJP and it's allies instigated and exploited the entire disgraceful affair, but then backed off a radical Hindu agenda after achieving political ascendancy, because it knew that result of not backing off would be civil war. Now, regarding the history of the site: Although not proven beyond all doubt, I think it is possible that Babur demolished a Temple and then built the Mosque on top of it. It was in fact unusual for Muslim conquerers to leave untouched any non-Abrahamic temple or related institution, which they considered idolatrous and blasphemous, especially in the early years of the Mogul conquest. This, if true, in no way justifies the destruction, which was a cultural catastrophe for all Indians regardless of their background, as many prominent secular Hindus have pointed out. Furthermore, this is an article about the Mosque itself. I don't think we should get too bogged down with the politics and the controversy surrounding the origins of the site. That is why I added pictures and started the section dealing with architecture and style, and was very pleased to see it expanded. A brief description of opposing points of view, along with a narrative of relevant Indian judicial proceedings and the current status quo, ought to be a sufficient and neutral companion to the more central content that actually deals with the building itself. --A. S. A. 11:15, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hello AladdinSE, Thanks for your good edits. Personally, until recently I didn't know very much about this debate, and I am still rather an outsider to this topic, that's why I won't contribute much to the article itself.

I think, the whole topic could have been solved more peacefully, if both parties had talked together, but unfortunately the whole thing was exploited by politicians on both sides.

As a sidenote, not all Muslims seem to adher to the views of the two "rivaling Masjid Committees", for example: Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said: "It is the duty of every nationalist Indian to protect the birthplace of Lord Rama to save India's honour, prestige and cultural heritage.... Anti-national and communal activities of Muslim fundamentalists are a blot on the entire community... It is the duty of all nationalist Muslims to expose such designs and accept the truth." Ahmed Zakaria is quoted by Farzana Versey as saying : "There is absolutely no question of our identity being submerged. The Babri Masjid committee does not represent all Muslims. How can two or three people decide ?"

Some of the problems in the article are: 1) Political debate. Still biased. Should also show the efforts that were made to solve the whole thing peacefully, and how this was undone by politicians. 2) Archaeological evidence. This is still biased and incomplete. 3) Literary evidence. The literary evidence should be discussed and/or criticised 4) The article has a lenghty discussion with pictures of the destruction of the mosque, but doesn't discuss the destruction of this and other temples by Babar and others. According to some sources, there were two destructions of this temple, one in the 12-13 century (the temple was after rebuilt) and one by Babar.

I think the article still needs some editing before it can be called npov, and believe someone will remove it from the npov disputes after this is done. A look at the viewpoints from both sides will confirm that the article still isn't npov. Regards, --Kdlb 09:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Kdlb, I think your Eaton book edit was necessary and well placed. As far as the further discussion of alleged destruction of temples by Babur and others, that you want included, naturally there is going to be no where near as much material, much less pictures, as is available for the Babri destruction. We're talking 1992 versus the 16th century. Also, that the archeological evidence is incomplete and disputed is clearly noted in the article. Further discussion of literary evidence would be fine, if more contributors would site such work. When I did that last exhaustive edit, I deliberately left the Disputed Neutrality tag, because I believed that there was still bias and emotionalism evident, and was hoping new contributors with a fresh outlook would help remedy that. Perhaps I will revisit the article later. I have become too involved with all these extensive rewrites, and I need to regain an outside perspective.--A. S. A. 12:06, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to put a hold on more pictures, the article cannot hold any more, al least not gracefully. I removed the recent addition of the mobs at the gate, since kar sevaks are shown in abundance already. I have reverted a number of Levy's edits because they added an emotional POV taint to the article, and belabored existing points. Others I agreed with, and simply reorganized them to better incorporate the new information with the flow of the article.--A. S. A. 18:30, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I see that anonymous user 81.1.118.31 had profound objections to my last revision, but has since withdrawn his/her Talk comments, I was only able to read them via History tracking. I'll tell you what I told Levy. I am not here to champion a cause, I am here to help create a proper encyclopedic article, free from emotional POV baggage. I have already clearly stated for the record that I believe the demolition was a disgrace. That does not mean I will allow the article to be a monotonous breast-beating Muslim-dominated propaganda bulletin. And I'll have you know I was the first contributor to introduce a picture of the Mosque, and the first to introduce a section on architecture and style [see history], so I am not only an editor of other people's submissions. Furthermore, you harm your cause by being so blatantly repetitious and one-sided. The general public reading the heavily POV versions of this article will more likely than not give small credence to Muslim viewpoints when they are so relentlessly thrust in their faces without proper recourse to other viewpoints. Balance and brevity should be our guiding principles.--A. S. A. 21:23, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Picture sizes

Pictures of this mosque should not be resized a large part of the article is on the architecture of the mosque The present pictures support and complement the article. I have recverted them back to their original size. I also wish to point out 5that Kaal feels uncomfortable with these pictures as I can see no other reason why he should try to make them so tiny.

• It is really unfair on your part to talk about what i feel like, bcos you will never be able to tell unless you know me in person, and i am fairly sure you dont. About the pictures i only resized them as the article looks really ugly and is difficult to read. If anyone wants to look at the picture indetail they can always click on it to see the full image. I have been doing image resizing for a number of articles just to make them easy to read and for no other reason. Its always good to have images on one side of the article as this makes it look good and easy to follow. kaal 04:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture resolutions can be reduced and made into thumbnails in the main articles for the purpose of organizational optimization. Those pictures really were too big. Don't forget that readers can easily click on the thumbnails to see the full size. What's more, please assume good faith regarding fellow editors. The attack against Kaal was unecessary. Also, please sign your posts in the talk page, so other editors can properly track and respond to posts, thanks. --A. S. A. 07:18, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's Picture Tutorial for guidelines on picture layout and format.--A. S. A. 03:05, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Organisation of the article

I made some expansions to the article and some reorganisations. I moved all matter relevant to the archaeology of the temple to the Ram Janmabhoomi article, because it discusses the existence or non-existence of the temple. Most of the history of the mosque after 1528 (or after 1194) is now in the Babri Mosque article. The Ayodhya article itself should of course only discuss the city, not the debate. I also expanded the archaeology and literature and other sections. In fact, a lot of important information was missing in the article and may still be missing. Hopefully other editors (like User:AladdinSE who has been one of the best editors to this article, as far as I can see) take a look at it and write something from their perspective. --Kyuss 14:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Beware the Original Article was sabotaged by user Kyuss

As a original contributor to this article along with J Levy and Richard Charlesworth of Cambridge University and the mosque photographs by R Bajpai of Reuters, I feel entitled to point out. User Kyuss seems to be a rabid member of the RSS, I wish to point out that his self proclaimed well meaning edits are simply a hidden agenda, the destruction of an article put together many months ago, and then constantly editeds to render it almost meaningless. It is clear user Kyuss fancies himself an historian and editor – However his facts are wrong and his edits clumsy. But this is wikipedia and he is most welcome to contribute even though we waste a lot of time having to point out the errors of his ways and cleaning up his mess. However his work on the article may not be the innocence of the ignorant and uninformed. He might be a paid up member of a communal organization called the RSS as he has expressed a similar type of bigotry and follows the RSS party line and version of Indian history. This version has been proved a fiction by all leading Indian and International historians. We know he has very little knowledge of history from his work – but sometimes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. His edits do not enlighten, spread darkness hate and misinformation. User Kyuss’s dirty hand is everywhere trying to distort history. If he wishes to write about a temple let him set up his own Ram temple article. The Babri was one of India's leading mosques and an important archeological and historic monument. The mosque was part of India's heritage and history. After all the Muslims did rule India for 800 years. The article is about a mosque which existed as the photographs will testify. If there was a temple at the site then all means start an article elsewhere giving details of the temple and say it existed before the mosque But please do not distort history. And also abuse the intelligence of wiki readers. You are teaching newcomers, the evil sectarian and hate spreading ideology of the RSS This way of thinking has caused the deaths of thousands of Indians via riots

SO folks BEWARE USER KYUSS an ignorant man can also be a dangerous man.

Lalit Shastri

Recent vandalism by User:81.1.126.243 (User:Lalitshastri)

In reply to Lalit Shastri's vandalism and to his love-letter from above:

• Vandalizing pages and making large-scale deletions to information you don't like is NOT the way wikipedia works. This kind of behaviour will get you NOWHERE on wikipedia.
• It is you that were and are trying to push a highly POV version of your version of the article and are deleting every information you don't like. I (unlike you) didnt' delete any information in the article, although a lot of your contributions was and is unsourced and pov if not factually false. (I moved however some information to the temple article.) I had nothing at all to do with your deleted pictures (I think they were deleted by admins because they were lacking copyrights).
• If however, you find a way to improve the article please do so in a civilized manner. And if you think that there is text that is pov, not wikified, lacking sources or disputable, then please improve it in a civilized manner.
• Claiming that I'm a "rabid member of the RSS" is as pointless and totally irrelevant to the article as me claiming that you were a member of the GNAA. Just for your information, I'm NOT a member of ANY political organisation.
• Some of Lalit Shastri's contributions to wikipedia can be found here. They may reveal more of his apparent bias (and are in fact quite entertaining). (I mean of course his Ayodhya and RSS related rants.)
• This article is still a work in progress. A lot of information may still be missing in the article.

--Kyuss 08:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This article has become so infested with ham fisted ignoramus from the RSS like user Kyuss Editing it is like descending into a snake pit

Firstly, can I ask who got rid of pictures of Uma Bharti and Advani standing in front of the mosque, as it was being destroyed and those of Kar Savaks wielding cutlasses. Secondly I wrote the upper third of the article on the architecture, thats still there, I am not defending my own work, there is no need to. But of other contributers which is not there. did you delete these????? I have reverted the article to its original and no doubt you Kyuss will immediately go for the revert button. Meanwhile user Kyuss that was not a "love letter" why should I love you, don't be silly. That was more of a whipping a chastisement. Maybe you are one those who LOVES being caned, some sort of repressed perverted gratification to go with your rabid fanaticism. I have contributed a section on homophobia and the SA of the Third Reich, those other brown shirts, only this time its Khaki short pants from Nagpaur. Keep editing articles that’s what wiki is for. You of the Bajrang monkey Brigade are entitled to express an opinion in this manner expose yourself, this time flashing another very small part of your anatomy your brains. After all Wiki is a democracy.

Lalit Shastri

Exactly, Wiki is a democracy, so please adhere to democratic principles. Can I ask you to read the pages on NPOV and Wikipedia:No personal attacks? And I already wrote that I didn't delete information or pictures, though I moved some text to the temple article. As for the rest, read my above reply. Your contributions to the homophobia of the SA is a very sympathetic contribution of yours. It is in fact sad that homophobics from the Christian Right and others are constantly alleging that the Nazis were gays, while in fact they were very anti-gay. I only wish you would show the same tolerance and open-minded spirit to the critical information in this article. The article may still be in need of improvement, but deleting all critical information from it will not make it any better. Peace, --Kyuss 11:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Two References Missing

• I had read once, during the 1992-1993 period, that the Muslims had conceded in 1857 the site to the Hindus in exchange for their support during the uprising against the English government, and that after the re-establishment of English rule, the English government negated that agreement. Is there any truth or reference for this agreement?

• Why is there no mention of the archaeological excavations at the site by the Archaeological Survey of India on the orders of the Indian Supreme Court, and the findings?

WikiSceptic 04:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Numbers

The article says that nearly a million karsevaks destroyed the mosque - i'm really not sure about this number. I've heard numbers like '200 000' before, but I know that was in dispute as well. Does anyone know of any accurate estimates? Willardo 03:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. I looked up various sources and I got various answers. Jul/Aug 2004 edition of Archaeology says 75,000 whereas Spring 2000 of Growth & Change (an academic journal) uses the 200,000 figure you mentioned.Pepsidrinka 05:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This article [2] (only the first four paragraphs are available for free and the number of participants is not available unless you pay) states the figure at 150,000. Pepsidrinka 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Hinduism

I don't agree with putting this discussion / article in with the wikiproject on Hinduism. We have to remember that there is a significant and crucial difference between Hinduism as a religion, and Hindu nationalism, the significant force behind the Babri destruction. Putting them together is a dangerous political argument. Willardo 10:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Babri Mosque is an important event in the history of Hinduism. It was said to be the birth place of Lord Rama. The temple that commemorated his birth was torn down by islamic invaders and a mosque was built in its place. The Mosque was torn down by Hindus. Hindu nationalism orginates from Hinduism. --Dangerous-Boy 20:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

On your central point - that Hindu nationalism originates from Hinduism - I strongly disagree. We can say that (for example) glass originates from sand. Yet to ignore the very dramatic changes - and other ingredients - that are necessary to leap between sand and glass is to ignore the essence of the difference. Hinduism is not Hindu nationalism, and vice versa. If they were the same thing, why did the destruction occur when it did? Willardo 04:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You stated it yourself. Glass needs sands. Saying that Hindu Nationalism is not apart of Hinduism is incorrect. The idealogy originates from Hinduism. It were Hindus that torn down that mosque. It is the Hindus that make up Hindu Nationalism. It like saying Muslims do not make up or did not create the Taliban or Al Aqaeda. Like it or not, that's apart of Islamic history. The tearing of this mosque is apart of Hindu history. --Dangerous-Boy 11:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of my analogy. I am not doubting that Hindu nationalism draws on Hinduism. But saying that it is 'the Hindus' (as if it is all Hindus) that make up Hindu nationalism is simply not correct. To follow out the analogy, does sand automatically turn to glass? You will never get glass from sand simply by waiting. So what causes sand to turn in to glass? What is the agent that forces change? Please recognise that such difference and such causality is very important when trying to understand a phenomenon. Willardo 00:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

But glass still needs the sand to exist. Otherwise, it can't form. --Dangerous-Boy 09:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My Congrats to all who have contributed to this article

Let me first congratulate all those who contributed to this article. Its quite an accomplishment in itself. The part about the destruction of the mosque is not an easy topic to write about and it is even more difficult to keep it a Neutral Point Of View as this was anything but a neutral event. I hope that this article will be nominated to become a feature article so that more people will read it and understand how complex relations between different communities in India are.

hydkat 20:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi. Please note that images licensed "to Wikipedia only", "for non-commercial use", or "for educational use" are candidates for speedy deletion (I3). Wikipedia is an attempt to create a free, reusable encyclopedia, including commercial re-use, and such licenses are incompatible with this goal. Any such images may be deleted at any time, and I would like to very much encourage the editors here to remove such images from this article and find freely-licensed replacements. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 23:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Urdu instead of arabic?

Should it be urdu instead of arabic in the intro.--Dangerous-Boy 07:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

82.44.179.214 edits

The edits by 82.44.179.214 use pov language like "these Nazis", makes offtopic allegations and is unsourced. It needs to be npov'ed and sourced, if there is something valuable in it.

Muslims claim that neither history nor fact can come to prove the Hindu case. Hindu motives are not confined to Babri Masjid. If they succeed in snatching away Babri Masjid from Muslims, it will be made a precedent to extend the agitation to every other place of religious importance to the Muslims.

They claimthat is clear that the allegations, on which, the demands of RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad & Hindu Munnani are based for laying claim to Babri Masjid are rooted in hatred.

In India, several Buddhist and Jain temples were demolished and several Hindu temples constructed instead. If the Buddhists and Jain claim on historical demands for justice, then will the Hindu agree to demolish them and allow the Buddhists and Jain to erect their places of worship?

They further say that there is no limit to the Hindu fanatical imagination like of the theory that Taj Mahal is a Shiva Temple? A paper presented at the World Hindu Conference at Columbo in April 1982 claimed that "The Hajrul Aswad (Kaaba, the Black Stone) is only a form of Shivalinga."

According to the District Gazetteer Faizabad 1905, it is said that "up to this time (1855), both the Hindus and Muslims used to worship in the same building. But since the Mutiny (1857), an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the Masjid and the Hindus forbidden access to the inner yard, make the offerings on a platform (chabootra), which they have raised in the outer one."

Militant Hindus in 1883 wanted to construct a temple on this chabootra, but the Deputy Commissioner prohibited the same on Jan. 19, 1885. Raghubir Das, a mahant, filed a suit before the Faizabad Sub-Judge. Pandit Harikishan was seeking permission to construct a temple on this chabootra measuring 17 ft. x 21 ft. the suit was dismissed. An appeal was filed before the Faizabad District Judge, Colonel J.E.A. Chambiar who after an inspection of spot on March 17, 1886, dismissed the appeal.

A Second Appeal was filed on May 25, 1886, before the Judicial Commissioner of Awadh, W. Young, who also dismissed the appeal. With this, the first round of legal battle fought by the Hindu militants came to an end.

During the "communal riots" of 1934, walls around the Masjid and one of the domes of the Masjid were damaged. These were reconstructed by the British Government.

On mid-night of December 22, 1949, when the police guards were asleep, idols of Rama and Sita were quietly smuggled into the Masjid and were planted by a group of Hindu Nazis. This was reported by constable, Mata Prasad, the next morning and recorded at the Ayodhya police station.

According to a pre-conceived plan, the following morning (Dec. 23, 1949), a large "Hindu" crowd made a "frantic attempt" to enter the Masjid on the pretext of offering puja to the idols illegally planted. The District Magistrate K.K. Nair has recorded that "The crowd made a most determined attempt to force entry. The lock was broken and policemen were rushed off their feet. All of us, officers and men, somehow pushed the crowd back and held the gate. The sadhus recklessly hurled themselves against men and arms and it was with great difficulty that we managed to hold the gate. The gate was secured and locked with a powerful lock brought from outside and police force was strengthened (5:00 pm)." Thus, the fight of fanatics became frustrated.

On hearing this shocking news Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru became very furious and directed UP Chief Minister Govind Ballabh Pant, to see that the idols were removed. Under Pant's orders, Chief Secretary Bhagwan Sahay and Inspector-General of Police V.N. Lahiri sent immediate instructions to Faizabad to remove the idols. However, K.K. Nair feared that the Hindu mob would cause "bloodshed and manslaughter" and pleaded inability to carry out the orders. Since then, the Hindu extremists came to believe that "disorder and violence" alone would pay.

They say that it prove that the Hindu militants believe in "bloodshed and manslaughter" as a means to achieve their goals. On Jan. 5, 1950 the chairman of the Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya Municipal Board was appointed Receiver to take charge of the Masjid under Sec. 145 of the Cr.P.C. The Civil suit (No. 2 of 1950) filed by Gopal Singh Visharad on Jan. 16, 1950 before the Civil Judge Faizabad seeking permission to worship these idols (which had been illegally planted in the Masjid), is still pending and the matter is now before the High Court. There are eight defendants including five Muslims and the Govt. of UP. The statement of the Deputy Commissioner, J.N. Ugra, filed before the court, said: "on the night of Dec. 22, 1949, the idols of Ramachandraji were surreptitiously and wrongly put inside the Masjid."

On Jan. 25, 1986, a 28-year old Umesh Chandra Pandey who was not even born when the suit was filed, went to court seeking permission for himself and his co-religionists to worship these idols in the Masjid. The District Judge, K.M. Pandey recorded a statement of the District magistrate (i.e., the Revenue Officer) T.K. Pandey and without even giving an opportunity to the others who were parties to the dispute, passed an interim order related to a dispute whose file was at the High Court. At the time of passing the orders, the main file was not before the said District Judge!

Within minutes of passing the order the locks that had been put 37 years ago (on Dec. 23, 1949) were broken and "idol worship" started. It is very clear that V.C. Pandey, K.M. Pandey and T.K. Pandey all belong to a subsect of a sub-caste, as their very names indicate.

The state TV lost no time to telecast the opening of the locks, the worship and the mob fanfare on that very day. Muslims claim that this goes to show the TV officials might have had prior knowledge of the court's orders. Evidently the media was under the influence of high-caste Brahmins.

The upper Hindu caste-controlled "national press" has hidden the above mentioned facts while highlighting the events related to the Baht Masjid / Ram-Janam-Bhoomi issue. The media is projecting only the Nazi view-point.

Lately, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other like minded militant Brahmins are holding meetings where pledges are being taken that the Babri Masjid shall not be released to Muslims irrespective of the final judicial verdict. And these Nazis are the very people who often boast that "judiciary is the only hope of India". Those who advocate the rule of law are breaking the law on Babri Masjid. The tradition of treating the mosque site as the birthplace of Rama appears to have begun in early l8th century. The earliest suggestion that the Babri Masjid 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 Babar. 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 a détruit la forteresse appelée Ramkot et construit à la même chose placer un temple musulman avec 3 dômes. D'autres indiquent qu'il a été construit par Babar. On peut voir 14 colonnes faites en pierre noire qui soutiennent des découpages. Plus tard Aurungzeb, et certains indiquent que Babar a détruit l'endroit afin d'empêcher des heathens de pratiquer leurs cérémonies.Toutefois ils ont continué à pratiquer leurs cérémonies religieuses dans le places, sachant ceci pour avoir été endroit de naissance de Rama, en le circulant 3 fois et en se prosternant sur la 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 birth-place. 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, Babar razed this place down, in order not to give the Gentiles (Hindus) occasion to practice their superstition. However, they continued to follow their superstitious practices in both places, believing it to be the birthplace of Rama."Questions of history

This record reveals that Aurangzeb demolished the Ramkot fortress; that either he, or Babar constructed a Masjid 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.(History and Geography of India, by Joseph Tieffenthaler, (published in French by Bernoulli in 1785))

However, this account does not explicitly mention the existence of a temple but a mud platform.

Mosque of Babur

In Urdu the name of the Masjid is بابري and the name of Emperor Babur is بابر

Therefore we can derive that Babri Masjid = Babur's Masjid or Masjid (Mosque) of Babur in english. Mustaqbal 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)