Babri Masjid

File:Babri rearview.jpg

A view of the Babri Mosque, pre-1992.

The Babri Mosque (Urdu: بابری مسجد, Hindi: बाबरी मस्जिद), or Mosque of Babur was a mosque constructed by order of the first Mughal emperor of India, Babur, in Ayodhya in the 16th century. Before the 1940s, the mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan ("mosque of the birthplace"). The mosque stood on the Ramkot ("Rama's fort") hill (also called Janamsthan ("birthplace"). It was destroyed by Hindu fundamentalists in a riot on December 6, 1992.

It was alleged that Babur's commander-in-chief Mir Baki destroyed an existing temple at the site, which many Hindus believe was the temple built to commemorate the birthplace of Rama, an incarnation of Vishnu and ruler of Ayodhya (See Ram Janmabhoomi.). Interestingly there is a Rama Temple next to the mosque which shares a wall with the mosque. The Babri Mosque was one of the largest mosques in Uttar Pradesh, a state in India with 31 million Muslims. Although there were several older mosques in the city of Ayodhya, with a substantial Muslim population, including the Hazrat Bal Mosque constructed by the Shariqi kings, the Babri Mosque became the largest.

Architecture of the Mosque

File:Babri-mosque-interior.jpg

Interior View under the right dome, with the octagonal fountain used for ablutions in the foreground. Under the Central dome (where the mihrab used to be) was placed an idol of Lord Rama separated from this area by a large canvas screen, for several years, before the mosque was sealed by the UP Government, both Muslims and Hindus offered prayers here.

The rulers of the Sultanate of Delhi and its successor Mugal Empire were great patrons of art and architecture and constructed many fine tombs, mosques and madrasas. These have a distinctive style which bears influences of later Tughlaq architecture. Mosques all over India were built in different styles; the most elegant styles developed in areas where indigenous art traditions were strong and local artisans were highly skilled. Thus regional or provincial styles of mosques grew out of local temple or domestic styles, which were conditioned in their turn by climate, terrain, materials, hence the enormous difference between the mosques of Bengal, Kashmir and Gujarat. The Babri Mosque followed the architectural school of Jaunpur.

Babri is an important mosque of a distinct style, preserved mainly in architecture, developed after the Delhi Sultanate was established (1192). The square CharMinar of Hyderabad (1591) with large arches, arcades, and minarets is typical. This art made extensive use of stone and reflected Indian adaptation to Muslim rule, until Mughals art replaced it in the 17th century, as typified by structures like the Taj Mahal.

The traditional hypostyle plan with an enclosed courtyard, imported from Western Asia was generally associated with the introduction of Islam in new areas, but was abandoned in favour of schemes more suited to local climate and needs. The Babri Masjid was a mixture of the local influence and the Western Asian style and examples of this type of mosque are common in India.

The Babri Mosque was a large imposing structure with three domes, one central and two secondary. It is surrounded by two high walls, running parallel to each other and enclosing a large central courtyard with a deep well, which was known for its cold and sweet water. On the high entrance of the domed structure are fixed two stone tablets which bear two inscriptions in Persian declaring that this structure was built by one Mir Baqi on the orders of Babur. The walls of the Babri Mosque are made of coarse-grained whitish sandstone blocks, rectangular in shape, while the domes are made of thin and small burnt bricks. Both these structural ingredients are plastered with thick chunam paste mixed with coarse sand.

File:Babri-mosque-column.jpg

One of the columns of the Babri Mosque. Some Hindus say it came from a Temple under the site, particularly noting the two flowers (far top of photo) which they say are Hindu-associated lotus motifs, however this motif is common in mosques of that period.

The Central Courtyard was surrounded by lavishly curved columns superimposed to increase the height of the ceilings. The plan and the architecture followed the Begumpur Friday mosque of Jahanpanah rather than the Moghul style where Hindu masons used their own trabeated structural and decorative traditions. The excellence of their craftsmanship is noticeable in their vegetal scrolls and lotus patterns. These motifs are also present in the Firuz Shah Mosque in Firuzabad (c.1354) now in a ruined state, Qila Kuhna Mosque (c.1540, The Darasbari Mosque in the Southern suburb of the walled city of Gaur, and the Jamali Kamili Mosque built by Sher Shah Suri this was the forerunner of the Indo Islamic style adopted by Emperor Akbar.

The Babri Masjid with its bold and graceful style was universally praised and widely followed. Today only photographs remind us of its past glory and splendour.

Babri Masjid acoustic & cooling system

"A whisper from the Babri Masjid Mihrab could be heard clearly at the other end 200 feet [60 m] away and through the length and breadth of the central court" according to Graham Pickford architect to Lord William Bentinck (1828–1833) The Mosque's acoustics were mentioned by him in his book 'Historic Structures of Oudhe' he says “for a 16th century building the deployment and projection of voice from the pulpit is considerably advanced, the unique deployment of sound in this structure will astonish the visitor”.

Modern Architects have attributed this intriguing acoustic feature to a large recess in the wall of the Mihrab and several recesses in the surroundings walls which functioned as resonators, and gave our sounds back to the worshippers, this design helped everyone to hear the speaker at the Mihrab. The sandstone used in building the Babri Mosque also had resonant qualities which contributed to the unique acoustics.

File:Babri grill.jpg

Pictured is a six foot (2 m) window grill of the Babri mosque, These were six in number and so positioned to allow cool air, to sweep through the mosque the grills were a fine example of Islamic two-dimensional geometry. These together with the thick walls and high roof kept the interior cool. A large number smaller Roshandans were installed only for light with intricate geometrical patterns

The Babri mosque’s Tughluquid style integrates other indigenous design components and techniques (air cooling systems) disguised as recognizably Islamic design elements (arches, vaults and domes) In the Babri Masjid the high ceiling, domes, and six large grill windows (see picture) all served as a passive environmental control system that brought down the temperature and also allowed in natural ventilation as well as daylight.

Legend of the Babri Mosque’s miraculous well

The reported medicinal properties of the deep well in the central courtyard have been featured in various news reports such as the BBC report of December 1989 and in various newspapers. The earliest mention of the Babri water well was in a two line reference to the Mosque in the Gazette of Faizabad District 1918 which says “There are no significant historical buildings here, except for various Buddhist shrines, the Babri Mosque is an ancient structure with a well which both the Hindus and Mussalmans claim has Miraculous properties.”

Ayodhya, a pilgrimage site for Hindus has an annual fair attended by over 500,000 people of both faiths, many devotees came during the annual Ram festival to drink from the water well in the Babri Courtyard. It was believed drinking water from this well could cure a range of illnesses. Hindu pilgrims also believed that the Babri water well was the original well in the Ram Temple under the mosque. Ayodhya Muslims believed that the well was a gift from God. Local women regularly brought their new born babies to drink from the reputedly curative water.

The 125 foot (40 m) deep well in question was situated in the South Eastern Courtyard of the large rectangular courtyard of the Babri Mosque. There was a small Hindu shrine built in 1890 joining the well with a statute of Lord Rama. It was an artesian well and drew water from a considerable distance below the water table. Eleven feet (3 m) in radius the first 30 feet (10 m) from ground level were bricked. It drew water from a reservoir trapped in a bed of shale sand and gravel; this could explain the unusually cool temperature of the water. The water contained almost no sodium explaining its reputation that the water was ‘sweet.’ To access the well one had to climb on to a three foot (1 m) platform, the well was covered with planks of thick wood with an unhinged trapdoor. Water was drawn by means of a bucket and long lengths of rope and due to its claimed ‘spiritual properties’ used only for drinking.

File:Babri-mosque-arcade.jpg

The Babri Mosque Arcade. Following the traditional hypostyle plan imported from Western Asia, this opened to a large walled courtyard with a deep drinking water well.

Even though the medicinal properties of artesian wells can be explained by the high amount of calcium and mineral content in the water it, is significant that Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya considered the Babri Mosque Complex a haven of peace and spiritual tranquillity. Many people in the area, of both faiths, had a profound belief in the miraculous properties of its cold and pure underground water. Folklore is said to contribute much to the legends of the healing waters.

History

History as cited by the Hindu parties of the dispute

In the year 1527 the Emperor Babar came down from Ferghana in Central Asia and attacked Chittodgad kingdom at Sikri and with the help of cannons and advanced artillery (used in India for the first time) defeated a vast army.

After this spectacular victory, Babar despatched his general general, Mir Baqi to secure the Hindu places of congregation to put down revolt. Mir Baqi came to Ayodhya in 1528 and destroyed the many temples that were there. He gave special attention to the main and biggest temple in the town. This was the temple which was built on the place where Samrat Shri Ramachandra, an ancient King of India was born. Samrat Shri Ramachandra was revered by the devout as a god, also referred to as Rama, believed by Hindus to be an avatar of Vishnu. Mir Baqi built a mosque at the site of the destroyed temple. This was called the Babri Masjid (Mosque).

The advocates say that many Indians - and even many of the educated Indians - are unaware of this truth. Indian History books at School and College do not tell the story in detail.Advocates also allege that the excessive sypmathy for muslims in this issue is due to a zeitgeist of Pseudo-secularism in Indian society brought about by communist thinking, where struggles between Hindus and Muslims are viewed as a "class struggle" rather than a communal one. This identification of muslims as an "opressed underclass" are viewed as fallacious, since many Indian muslims are quite wealthy and well-represented in many walks of life.

They claim that the muslims claims to the region are unfounded, in violation of common law and based on the beliefs and practices of Islamic Fundamentalism. They allege that this is part of a malicious agenda of hate against Hindus and is an attempt to delegitimize the Hindu ethos in India.

Until 1989 there had been no question about the site’s history [1]. All the written sources, whether Hindu, Muslim or European, were in agreement about the pre-existence of a Rama temple at the site. “Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple”, according to the 1989 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry “Ayodhya”. Neither was there any document contradicting this scenario: no account of a forest chopped down to make way for the mosque (already unlikely in the centre of an ancient town), no sales contract of real estate to the mosque’s builder, nothing of the kind. By contrast, there were testimonies of Hindus bewailing and Muslims boasting of the replacement of the temple with a mosque; and of Hindus under Muslim rule coming as close as possible to the site in order to celebrate Rama’s birthday every year in April, in continuation of the practice at the time when the temple stood.

In case authors of testimonies may be unreliable, there was also the archaeological evidence: in the 1970s, a team of the Archaeological Survey of India led by Prof. B.B. Lal dug out some trenches just outside the mosque and found rows of pillar-bases which must have supported a larger building predating the mosque. Moreover, in the mosque itself, small black pillars with Hindu sculptures had been incorporated, a traditional practice in mosques built in forcible replacement of infidel temples to flaunt the victory of Islam over Paganism.

The only remaining question about the site was its status in the period 1192-1528. In 1192 and the subsequent years, practically all the Hindu temples and Buddhist monasteries in North India were demolished by Mohammed Ghori and his Turkish invaders. It is impossible that the medieval temple at the site could have survived until 1528. The most likely scenario is the one well-attested at another famous temple site: the Somnath temple in Gujarat. No less than nine times did Hindus reclaim it as a temple, until Muslims retook it and turned it into a mosque again. Since Ayodhya was a provincial capital of the Delhi Sultanate, opportunities for wresting the site from Muslim control were certainly more limited than in the case of the outlying Somnath temple. Then again, the frequent infighting among the Muslim elite may have given rebellious Hindus some opportunities too. From peculiarities in the architecture of the Babri Masjid, art historians on both sides of the debate (Sushil Srivastava, R. Nath) have deduced that the main part of the structure had been built well before the Moghul invasion, probably in the 14th century. In that case, the tradition that it was built by Mir Baqi may be based on the following scenario: towards the end of the Sultanate period, Hindus may have managed to recapture the site and to turn it into a functioning temple, until Babar and his lieutenant Mir Baqi firmly imposed Muslim control again and gave some finishing touches to the mosque architecture in replacement of any Hindu elements that had come to adorn it. But this must for now be kept inside speculative brackets. What is certain is that a major Hindu temple at the site was demolished by Islamic iconoclasm and replaced with a mosque symbolizing the victory of Islam over Infidelism. Of that, evidence is plentiful and of many types.

History as cited by the Muslim parties of the dispute

Muslims claim that neither history nor fact can come to prove the Hindu case as claimed above. They believe that Hindu motives are not confined to Babri Masjid. They rightly claim that if Hindus 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 in India.

They claim that 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 Islamophobic.

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."

Some 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 Hindus came to an end.

During the anti-Muslim 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 brought into the Masjid and were planted illegally. This was reported by constable, Mata Prasad, the next morning and recorded at the Ayodhya police station.

The following morning (Dec. 23, 1949), a large Hindu crowd made a "frantic attempt" to enter the Masjid on in order to offer puja to the stones. 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)."

On hearing this news Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru directed UP Chief Minister Govind Ballabh Pant, to see that the stones 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 stones. However, K.K. Nair feared that the Hindus would retaliate and pleaded inability to carry out the orders.

Muslims rightly claim that Hindus have been hypocritical in the issue of the Babri Masjid, claiming adherence to common judicial law while breaking it during the demolition.

Date of Construction

The date of the construction of the Babri Mosque is disputed. Before the 1940s, the Mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan. It is presumed that Babur built the mosque, based on an inscription. Although we have a detailed account of the life of Babur in the form of his diary, the pages of the relevant period are missing in the diary. But it is possible that the mosque already existed before Babur, who may only have renovated the building. However, the construction of the mosque must have been between 1194 and 1528.

1528

Emperor Babur may have built the mosque in 1528.

1767

Joseph Tieffenthaler records that Hindus are worshipping and celebrating Ramanavami at the site of the mosque. 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.

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 Aurengzeb 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.

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

19th century

Some Hindus of Ayodhya retained the tradition to worship Rama on the Ramkot hill, and always returned to the site. According to British sources, Hindus and Muslims used to worship 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 [viz. the Hindu-Muslim clashes in the 1850s] the Hindus and Mohamedans alike used to worship in the mosque. 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."

1854

Edward Thornton records that Hindus are worshipping Ramanavami at the site of the mosque.

1855

Anti-Muslim clashes over the mosque-temple occurred (Hadiqai-Shahada by Mirza Jan, 1856, pp. 4-7).

1858

The Muazzin of the Babri mosque says in a petition to the British government, that the courtyard had been used by Hindus for hundreds of years.

1886

On 18th March 1886 the Faizabad District 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 Babar stands on the border of Ayodhya, that is to say, to the west and south. It is clear of habitants. 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."

20th century

The Hindus claim that the Babri Mosque was not used by Muslims since 1936, and that the Hindus took over the unused mosque in 1949. A court ruling on March 3, 1951 by the Civil Judge of Faizabad states: “it further appears from a number of affidavits of certain Muslim residents of Ayodhya that at least from 1936 onwards the Muslims have neither used the site as a mosque nor offered prayers there... Nothing has been pointed to discredit these affidavits.”

Prof. B.P. Sinha stated: “As early as 1936-37, a bill was introduced in the legislative council of U.P. to transfer the site to the Hindus (... ) the bill was withdrawn on an unwritten understanding that no namaz [be] performed.” (in annexure 29 to the VHP evidence bundle). Of the 26 mosques in the region, only half of them were used for offering namaz in the early 1990s. It is also noted that there are about 40 different temples in Ayodhya where the worshippers believe that Lord Rama was born. However, Abdul Ghaffar the Imam of the mosque asserted that Muslims prayed in that mosque until 1949 when some miscehevous elements placed the idols of Ram after breaking into the mosque.

November 2, 1989

On November 2, 1989 the first stone for the planned new temple was laid. Many hundreds of Muslims were shot directly on their heads in the rioting that followed in Maharshtra by the state police.

1990

Lal Krishna Advani, a high-ranking member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) began a campaign tour (a rathayatra, or "chariot-journey") in 1990, to build support for a Rama temple at the mosque site.

November 2, 1990

During demonstrations by Kar-Sevaks, many Kar-Sevaks and other demonstrators were arrested and killed by the police. The official death toll is 45, although this is disputed. The BJP estimated that 168 were killed. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) alone cremated 76 bodies.

In connection with the Ayodhya debate, at least forty temples were demolished in November 1990.

January 24, 1991

A government-sponsored discussion platform for the two parties (VHP and Babri Masjid Action Committee/BMAC) was organized for January, 24 1991. The BMAC then demanded that their historians would get special privileges and be recognized as independent scholars who could pass a verdict on the case (this demand was rejected). The BMAC team didn't show up on the day of the meeting and claimed that they weren't prepared for the discussion, although shortly before that day they signed a public statement that stated that there would be absolutely no evidence for an ancient temple on the mosque site.

However , other accounts said that they met first on December 1, 1990, presented the 'evidence' of their sides to the Indian government on December 23, obtained copies of the 'evidence' of the other side from the government, and met again on January 10, 1991. In that meeting they decided to set up four committees of experts nominated by both parties to examine the historical and archaeological evidence and revenue and legal records collected as evidence. The VHP released the summary of 'evidence' to the public, turned down the demand of the other side for more time to study and evaluate the evidence, and made it known that they were not interested in an amicable solution.(28)VHP's actions were taken by the Muslim parties to mean aggressive postures and unnecessary public arousal made to shore up vocal support from the illiterate hindu masses.

1992

On December 6 1992, over a million Hindutva activists brought in by the Hindu nationalist Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP, "World Hindu Council") and BJP, razed the three domes of this 16th century Muslim mosque, sparking nationwide riots between Hindus and Muslims that killed more than 2,000 Muslims in one of the worst spates of sectarian violence in contemporary Indian history.

The demolition of the Babri Masjid set off a round of riots, especially in Bombay, that lasted two months (December 1992 & January 1993), and where the actual toll of lives is far less than the official one (See also Justice Sreekrishna Commission of Inquiry). 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.

December 6, 1992: the destruction of the Babri Masjid

The mosque was destroyed on December 6, 1992, by a crowd of 75,000 people [2](karsevaks) of the VHP and other associated groups. However, some estimates put the number at 200,000 (Growth & Change, Spring 2000). The destruction occurred at the end of Advani's rathayatra, and there is overwhelming evidence that it was pre-planned by nationalist groups.

LK Advani was present at the rostrum constructed opposite the Mosque on the day of its destruction and was the guest of honour. Witnesses report that many of the speeches on loudspeakers on that day praised Advani for mobilizing opinion for the destruction of the mosque. It is thought that the demolition was further incited via microphone by Uma Bharati of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), along with two top associates, Sadhvi Ritambhara and Achraya Dharmendra. Bharati in her several turns at the microphone articulated two slogans to the crowds, 'Ram nam satya hai, Babri Masjid dhvasth hai,' (True is the name of Ram; the Babri Masjid has been demolished) and 'Ek dhakka aur do, Babri masjid tod do' (Give one more push, and raze the Babri Masjid).

While the mosque was being destroyed some local Hindus from Ayodhya pleaded with Acharya Dharmendra of the VHP's Marg Darshak Mandal and BJP leader Uma Bharati to intervene and help stop the karsevaks, who were attacking Muslims in the town and burning and looting their houses and shops. In response, Acharya Dharmendra was quoted in the Times of India as having said, "Although the local Hindu residents did ask me to hold the crowds from burning Muslim homes I would have never stopped them. This is the only way in which Ayodhya could become like the Vatican." Journalists present were also attacked according to a letter by Time magazine journalists Jefferson Penberthy and Anita Pratap which they sent to the judicial Liberhan commission established in the wake of the violence. This was further corroborated by BBC correspondent Mark Tully in his radio commentary.

The rule of the Centre was imposed in UP at 6 p.m. on 6 December, although according to the BBC rioting did not begin in earnest until about 4 a.m. the following morning. However according to the BBC the violence and destruction continued for nearly 12 hours, with mobs several thousand-strong roaming the streets of the town. According to some reports, the mobs also targeted other mosques with the result that almost all the masjids and idgahs of Ayodhya were damaged or destroyed. Only two mosques survived the violence. In the aftermath of the riots, members of both Hindu and Muslim communities hold 'outsiders' responsible for the events in Ayodhya, and insisted that they would survive recurring waves of violence together.

Following the destruction of the mosque, communal riots broke out between Hindus and Muslims across India, including in Mumbai (Bombay), which was a largely secular and cosmopolitan city.

In 1994 The President of India sent an official inquiry to the Supreme Court to decide whether a temple existed below the mosque, which the High Court returned saying it was not competent to decide on matters of historical evidence, only matters of law and fact. It added that the question whether a temple existed beneath the mosque was " and superfluous" in the context of the legal dispute.

1993

The 1993 Mumbai bombings, which were connected to the Ayodhya debate, occurred. The official number of dead was 257 dead with 1,400 others injured (some news sources say 317 people died; this is due to a bomb which killed 60 in Calcutta on March 17). Several days later, unexploded car bombs were discovered at a railway station. Islamic terrorist groups based in Pakistan were suspected to be responsible for these bombings, and evidence uncovered pointed to the involvement of Dawood Ibrahim, leader of the muslim mafia of Mumbai.

2002

Since then, the AIBMAC and other Muslim groups have been campaigning to have the mosque rebuilt at the same site, while the VHP has been moving forward with plans to build a Rama temple there. In December 2002 the VHP announced that it would construct the temple in a year and a half (i.e., mid 2004). Prime Minister Vajpayee said in February 2003 during election campaigning in Himachal Pradesh that he firmly believed that the Babri Mosque existed on the site of a temple. The main opposition Congress Party took a cautious stance fearing it might alienate the Hindu vote by taking a position different from the Hindu hardliners'. Kapil Sibal, Congress Party spokesman, said the court order was part of judicial process for the final adjudication of the dispute.

2005

On July 5, 2005 five militants attacked the disputed Ram Janmabhumi site. Security forces killed all five militants while a pilgrim guide Ramesh Pandey, was killed in the blast triggered by the militantts to breach the cordon wall. The attack, suspected to be the work of Lashkar-e-Toiba, a designated organization fighting for Kashmir's secession from India, as well as the total islamization of the country, and the expulsion of the minority of Indian Jews, has once again put the town in the spotlight. [3] See 2005 attack on Ayodhya.

Babur

It is generally thought that the mosque was built by Emperor Babur, because an inscription on the mosque records his name. Although we have a detailed account of the life of Babur in the form of his diary (Babur Nama), the pages of the relevant period are missing in the diary. But it is alleged that the mosque already existed before Babur, who may only have renovated the building. The contemporary Tarikh-i-Babari records that Babar's troops "demolished many Hindu temples at Chanderi".

The Ayodhya Debate

Most Western, Indian Secular, and Muslim observers see the controversy surrunding this mosque within the framework of Hindu Fundamentalism and Hindu Revisionism.It was commonly believed by Hindus until about 1990 that the mosque stood on an ancient Hindu temple, though some commentators disagree and say that although the judiciary has been debating on the dispute of Babri Masjid (mosque) in Ayodhya for more than 40 years, it had remained a nonissue until the mid-1980s [4]. The Encyclopædia Britannica of 1989 reported that the Babri Mosque stood "on a site traditionally identified" as an earlier temple dedicated to Rama's birthplace. According to their view, the ancient temple could have been destroyed on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur. This view is challenged by the Muslims, Indian secular, Marxist and mainstream Indian historians since the early 1990s.

Muslim claims over the site are largely represented by the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee, demanding the restoration of the site and the mosque. It also holds that the case should be decided by the courts and if it is proved that a Hindu Temple existed at the spot the same will be handed over to the Hindu party; while the Hindu parties have been asking the minority Muslims to show magnanimity by handing over the land for the construction of the temple.

Some Muslim members of the Hindu nationalist party BJP do not share the views of the Babri Masjid Action Committee like Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, president of the so called Muslim Youth Conference, an organisation known for its cooperation with the Hindu parties but equally unpopular with the Muslims who believe he is not Muslim, he 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.”

Hindu parties have also cited that a Muslim scholar Asghar Ali Engineer wrote: "The Muslims, in my opinion, should show magnanimity and [make] a noble gesture of gifting away the mosque... (“Communalism and Communal Violence in India. However, a majority of Muslims question this idea saying as minority community and thereby deprived - they should themselves be shown magnanimity.

One option discussed was also to build the temple next to the mosque or to relocate the mosque to another site (many mosques in Islamic countries have been relocated for reasons such as road expansion). However, Indian Muslim parties claim that the place of prayer is what is constituted by the mosque and not the structure.

A large number of prominent people, many of them Hindus, particularly those who are sympathisers of the Communist/Congress party oppose the destruction of the Babri Mosque e.g. Anand Patwardhan, Gyanendra Pandey, Pujari Laldas etc. But it is claimed by some other Hindus associated with the BJP led movement that at the time the structure was felled, it did touch a chord with millions of Hindus who looked to this incident as a fountainhead of Hindu religious nationalism in India. Muslims on the other hand regarded this as a black day for the Indian nationhood and Indian secularism. While Muslims observe December 6 , when this historic mosque and monument was felled as a Black day, Extremist Hindus observe this as the Shourya Divas - Victory Day.

Some Hindu observers claim that a large number of Hindu religious leaders do not subscribe to the policies of the BJP and the VHP. These seers and religious leaders are opposed to the politicizing of the Ram Mandir issue and want to construct the new temple in a civilized manner. The Akharha Parishad, which is the supreme body of the sadhus of different Hindu sects, has not only boycotted BJP meetings but has also sharply criticized the RSS-BJP-VHP troika for politicizing and inflaming the issue. The All India Akharha Parishad and Bharat Sadhu Samaj have made it clear that they have refused any affiliation with the Dharama Sansad, which is a religious council set up by the VHP.

Muslims on the other hand have claimed that this issue is just the crest of an iceberg.The Hindu parties whether shunning violence or doing it are just waiting for another moment to destroy other Muslim places of worship. They cite many places where actions by the right wing Hindu party BJP and its affiliate religious and militant organisations have either led to the closure of these places of worship to the Muslims or partial curtailment of the prayers to a few days in a week or limiting the number of people who could perform the prayers.

The situation regarding the RamJanmabhoomi has been compared to the Temple Mount controversies and claims in Israel by Jewish Scholar and Islam critic Daniel Pipes [5]. In particular, Pipes writes:

"Ayodhya prompts several thoughts relating to the Temple Mount. It shows that the Temple Mount dispute is far from unique. Moslems have habitually asserted the supremacy of Islam through architecture, building on top of the monuments of other faiths (as in Jerusalem and Ayodhya) or appropriating them (e.g. the Ka'ba in Mecca and the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople)."

Such harangue have earned Pipes an Anti Muslim image.

References

• Communal Politics: myths versus facts. by RAM PUNIYANI. Sage Publications, 2003.
• Bacchetta, Paola. "Sacred Space in Conflict in India: The Babri Masjid Affair." Growth & Change. Spring2000, Vol. 31, Issue 2.
• Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor. 1996. Edited, translated and annotated by Wheeler M. Thacktson. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
• Swapan Dasgupta et al.: The Ayodhya Reference: Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries. 1995. New Delhi: Voice of India. ISBN 8185990301
• Ayodhya and the Future of India. 1993. Edited by Jitendra Bajaj. Madras: Centre for Policy Studies. ISBN 81-86041-02-8 hb ISBN 81-86041-03-6 pb
• Elst, Koenraad. 1991. Ayodhya and After: Issues before Hindu Society. 1991. New Delhi: Voice of India. [6]
• Emmanuel, Dominic. 'The Mumbai bomb blasts and the Ayodhya tangle', National Catholic Reporter (Kansas City, August 27 2003).
• S.R. Goel: Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them, Voice of India, Delhi 1991. [7] [8]
• Harsh Narain. 1993. The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers.
• A.G. Noorani. 2003. The Babri Masjid Question, 1528-2003: 'A Matter of National Honour'. New Delhi: Tulika Books.
• Rajaram, N.S. (2000). Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New Delhi: Voice of India
• Romey, Kristin M., "Flashpoint Ayodhya." Archaeology Jul/Aug2004, Vol. 57, Issue 4.
• Thapar, Romila. 'A Historical Perspective on the Story of Rama' in Thapar (2000).
• Thapar, Romila. Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History (New Delhi: Oxford University, 2000) ISBN 0195640500.
• Ayodhya ka Itihas evam Puratattva— Rigveda kal se ab tak (‘History and Archaeology of Ayodhya— From the Time of the Rigveda to the Present’) by Thakur Prasad Varma and Swarajya Prakash Gupta. Bharatiya Itihasa evam Samskrit Parishad and DK Printworld. New Delhi.
• History versus Casuistry: Evidence of the Ramajanmabhoomi Mandir presented by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to the Government of India in December-January 1990-91. New Delhi: Voice of India.

The Ayodhya Debate in fiction

• The Babri riots are depicted in the 1995 film Bombay.
• Nasrin, Taslima: Lajja

See also

• Ram Janmabhoomi
• All India Babri Masjid Action Committee
• Ayodhya
• Babur
• Vishwa Hindu Parishad
• Indian secularism

Research Papers

• Ayodhya and Politics of Indian Secularism
• Political Implications of Babri Masjid Demolition
• Found and Lost: the Ayodhya Evidence
• [9]The Ayodhya Debate: Focus on the ‘No Temple’ Evidence; Two sides to the story
• Suppressing Indian History
• Above article in HTML

External links

• Holy work destrys peace in India - Time Magazine
• "The wrath of Rama - Time Magazine
• 'In the Name Of God, Ram Ke Naam', Film by Anand Patwardhan on Ayodhya issue(December 16 2005) Retrieved Friday, December 16, 2005 11:19:08 PM
• Ayodhya: Question of History -By K.P. Prakasam
• Critique of the archaeology at the site
• The Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir [10]
• White paper on Ayodhya
• Ayodhya
• Articles on the Ayodhya Debate
• Ayodhya and the Research on the Temple of Lord Rama
• An extract from the Diary of Babur (Babur Nama)
• 'Timeline: Ayodhya crisis', BBC News (October 17 2003). Retrieved June 21 2005
• 'Q&A: The Ayodhya dispute', BBC News (November 15 2004). Retrieved June 21 2005
• CNN Article search on Babri Mosque