September 19, 2010 by Post Team
Kuk Bed, Was there a temple beneath the Babri mosque? Having regard to the record of the excavations carried out by Prof. BBLal, former Director General of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in the seventies at the site of Ayodhya, preserved in the office of the ASI Purana Qila, a team of four historians and archaeologists concluded that there was no proof. They explained their findings and conclusions in the press conference held at the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), New Delhi, October 23.1992. Experts: Prof. R.S. Sharma, former Chairman of the Commission, Professor M. Athar Ali (retired), Department of History, Aligarh University, Prof. Suraj Bhan (retired), Professor of History, Kurukshetra University, and Prof. DN Jha, professor of history at the University of Delhi. Ayodhya had been before and made field studies of the Ayodhya excavation.
The new material evidence refers to excavations by Prof. BB Lal for over 11 years in areas near the Babri Mosque. Prof. Lal has since published a series of papers on the results of their studies. He made an announcement recently that the brick base near the mosque could mean for the support of the pillars, suggesting the existence of a temple-like structure in the south of the Babri mosque. The BJP is what is the basis of the evidence of the existence of a temple where the mosque.
The experts reviewed the notebook and record the site of antiquities related to Ayodhya excavations, studied the drawings, plans, photographs and material excavated and found that the recent statement of Professor Lal on the existence of a similar structure lacked mandir foundation. The existence of a brick base abutments rather than evidence that could be of a temple. If there was a temple, at least some articles related to the temple could have been found during excavations. No evidence had been found by Professor Lal.
Even in his own report to the Archaeological Survey of India in 1976-77 and 1979-80, Professor Lal had stated “after several floors of medieval brick and lime kanker have been seen, but the end of any period had no special interest. “The later medieval centuries indicated 17 to l8. If remains of a structure of ages 17 to l8, are outside the mosque, how to prove the presence of a temple that was supposedly built in the 11th century and destroyed in the 16th century? asked the experts. They also note that the excavations did not reveal any pillars, or material of the roof of the temple is that the place where the base of the brick pillars standing. The mere presence of the bases of the pillars does not raise the issue of the existence of a temple.
Interestingly, glazed pottery were unearthed consumption of the trenches above the plants associated with the base structure of brick pillar and immediately below the general fund of the Babri mosque. It’s an accepted fact that the Muslim-glazed ceramic ware was never used in the Hindu temple. The presence of glazed ceramic sample, as in other parts of Ayodhya, site was also inhabited by Muslims around the thirteenth century, and the pillar structure could have been anything but a temple, had fallen down and has gone out of use prior to the Muslim inhabited.
Now onto the black basalt stone columns used in the four arches of the Mezquita. VHP claims that were part of the temple was destroyed. Similar pillars are also found in the nearby cemetery. All these differ in style and diameter and their total lack of stratigraphic association rules that can be an integral part of any single structure. These pillars are also found in other parts of Ayodhya in completely unrelated contexts. In addition, the bases of the existing pillars at a distance of about 60 meters south of the Babri Masjid structure are aligned with the pillars used in the Babri mosque. They could have been part of a terrace or a home or an animal shelter and have no importance as such structures can be found in the area, even now. Therefore, the archaeological evidence so far suggests the existence of Muslim settlements proximal to the mosque since the 13th century. [Courtesy, nation and world, New Delhi, November 16, 1992]
* There is no historical record indicates that the site was a temple that was destroyed to build a mosque. TOI.
* The first 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 is significant historical buildings here, except for various Buddhist shrines, the Babri mosque is a old structure with a well that both the Hindus and claim Mussalmans has miraculous properties. ”
* The Babri Mosque was a large imposing structure with three domes, one central and two secondary. It is surrounded by two high walls that run parallel to each other and enclosing a large central courtyard with a deep well, which was known for its cold and sweet.
* At the entrance of the high-domed structure are fixed two stone tablets which bear two inscriptions in Persian which states that this structure was built by one Mir Baqi on the orders of Babur.
* The walls of the Babri Mosque are made of blocks of coarse sandstone and white, rectangular in shape, while the domes are made of thin and small burnt bricks. These two structural factors are covered with thick paste mixed with coarse sand chunam.
When was the Ayodhya dispute erupt?
According to history, Babri Masjid was built in 1528 by the Bank Mir Babur was viceroy in the region. No historical record indicates the site was a temple that was destroyed to build a mosque. The mosque was known by several names, including Janmasthan Masjid-i Jami Masjid, Masjid Sita Rasoi and so on. The List of Faizabad district documents that the mosque was a place of worship for both religions. The incidents of communal violence over ownership of the site started from 1853 and the British government in 1859 tried to solve by building a fence that divides the mosque to indoor and outdoor patio. The Hindus were allowed to build a raised platform (chabutra) in the atrium, while the courtyard was to be used only Muslims.
He made the theory of the two nations have an impact on the mosque?
It is well known the theory of two nations, he worked as a great divide between two communities in most parts of the country. The mosque was not exempt, since the site began witnessing communal riots since early 1910. A major riot broke out in 1934, when police had to be called to control the situation.
What was the controversy over 1949?
In December 1949, the controversy reached new heights when mahants decided to recite the Ramayana in front of the mosque. It was reported later by the devotees who had gathered for the recitation that the image of Lord Ram appeared in the mosque. But the administration and the Muslim community was not impressed as it was claimed that the idols were placed inside the Hindus who entered the mosque to break their locks. Because of the controversy, the place was locked.
Who sued the first title?
The first lawsuit was filed in 1950 by Visharad Gopal Singh, a shopkeeper in Ayodhya. The lawsuit was filed in Faizabad civil court, seeking a resolution to grant permission to perform puja on the site. The second suit was brought by Tamchandra Paramhans Das, again in 1950, and the injunction itself. This suit was withdrawn. In 1959, Nirmohi Akhara filed a title claim ownership of the site. This led to the Ce-ntral UP Sunni Waqf Board to file the complaint quarter in 1961. The lawsuit was filed in the fifth, 1989. With one of these suits have been withdrawn, four suits were pending in the title of Faizabad civil court. In 1989, these claims were transferred to Allahabad HC. TOI
Old documents in Sanskrit
It is surprising that the VHP has failed to provide even a single ancient Sanskrit documents in support of its assertion that there had been an ancient belief in Ram-Janmasthan in Ayodhya. On the contrary, evidence suggests that the reverence of Ayodhya as the birthplace of Ram did not begin until l8 century. The only document in support of his claim is the Skanda Purana, which abounds in the interpolations. At best, the core of the above was not drafted in the 16th century. This Purana has a chapter extolling the greatness of Ayodhya (Ayodhya Mahatmya), which appears toward the end of the work and is clearly a later addition. Even if we accept the location of the birthplace of Rama, as shown in Ayodhya Mahatmya not coincide with that of the Babri mosque. According to the Skanda Purana, the birthplace of Rama is 500 Dha**s (910 meters) west of Laumash and 1009 Dha**s (1835 meters) east of Vighneshvara. Laumash is identical to the current Rinamochana Ghat. Therefore, if we follow the instructions Skanda Purana, the birthplace of Rama should be located somewhere west, near the Brahmakunda near the bed of the Saryu. So even taking into account the Skanda Purana the birthplace of Rama can not be found at the site of the Babri mosque stood.
Mughal Records, AD 1528
A genuine piece of history recorded information is the Persian inscription Masjid place in the Masjid immediately after its construction in 1528-1529. In this inscription have nowhere said that the mosque was built after the destruction of a temple or the site of a temple. If Mir Baqi built a mosque that had destroyed the temple would have been considered a meritorious act and would have mentioned in the inscriptions.
Tulsidas, AD 1575
In fifty years of the construction of the Babri mosque, the celebrated poet Tulsidas composed the Ram Charit Manas (1575-1576), written in Avadhi. Is it possible to believe that Tulsidas would not have given vent to her grief the very birth place of Lord Rama had been devastated, its temple razed to the ground and a mosque built in its place? If Ayodhya was sacred to Hindus, it should have been included among the places of pilgrimage. Prayag Tulsidas suggested as one of the main places of pilgrimage and not Ayodhya. In other words, even in the second half of the 16th century Ayodhya was not considered one of the holy places.
Ain-i-Akbari, AD 1598
The first mention of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage in the Ain-i-Akbari by Abul Fazl who completed in 1598. Abul Fazl Ayodhya included among the places of pilgrimage in India. In the chapter on Ayodhya, he gives a detailed account of a large area called Ayodhya, where the festival of Ramnavmi and estimated as one of the holiest places of antiquity. He even mentions small details such as two Jewish priests lying buried in Ayodhya. However, there is the slightest reference to birthsite Ram, much less to any mosque built on it.
William Flinch, AD 1608
British historian William Flinch, who stayed in India during the years 1608-1611 gives a detailed description of Ayodhya and the castle of Ramchand (Ramkot), “large enough to conduct a search of gold.” Although it does not mention the birthplace of Rama, he gives a detailed account of the place where the ashes of Ram are kept. “Some two miles across the river in a cave of his with a narrow entrance, but as wide and full of turns in which a man may be lost if not better strives not paying attention, where it is believed that his ashes were buried. Come in great complex of all parts of India, who have been there in memory certain grains of black rice powder as they say they have been preserved since then. “If the place has been considered sacred for being the birthplace of Lord Rama, should have become one of the places of pilgrimage. Instead, the place where his ashes are stored was considered a place of worship.
SUJAN Rai Bhandari, AD 1695
THE TAWARIKH KHULASTU-I, the first geographical account of the holy places in India, written by Sujan Rai Bhandari in 1695 to 1696, specifically mentions that the “temple of Mathura Keshav have been destroyed by Aurangzeb who had a mosque built in its place . But in describing Ayodhya, he says, “In the Hindu books is called Ayodhya, birthplace of Ramchand … As this city was the residence of Ramchand, is considered one of the holiest places are in town … tombs of Shish (Seth), the son of God to Adam (peace of God be upon him!) and Ayub (Job) The Prophet – both places of pilgrimage for Moslems. ”
Chaturman Ram, AD 1759
Chaturman Ram Another writer, who wrote his Chahar Gulshan in the year 1759-60 Ayodhya described as “one of the select places of worship, the birthplace of Raja Ramchand, son of Jasrat (Dasharat) was one of the ten avatars . The whole place was considered as the ruins of the fortress Ramachand, including the palace and several buildings and other constructions.
So, until 220 years after construction of the Babri mosque, there was no suggestion in any part of the story that there was a precise site of the birth of Ram, which has destroyed the sacred structure and a mosque built on it.
[Courtesy, nation and world, New Delhi, November 16, 1992]
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.