Over the last two articles we tried conveying to the Hindus about how BJP owes the constructions of a Ram Temple at Ayodhya by messing it up altogether not once but twice. What we aim to achieve by publishing these articles is to aware the Hindus about how strong our case is in the court and a general apathy towards is the only impediment towards it. We also wish to dispel the counter narratives of our Muslim brothers.
In the series of articles we will also shed light on the several decisions of the courts starting from the Sub Judge of Faizabad in 1949 to that of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court that delivered its verdict in 2010. What we wish to achieve is a galvanized public opinion that is so strong that leaves the Government with no other option but to pursue this case with keen interest and solve it once and for all. The statements that will be given here have been accepted in the courts or are admissible there under the Indian Evidence Act,1923.
We all know that there was a temple at Ayodhya which marks the birthplace of Lord Rama, the 7th Avatar of Lord Vishnu. For many who don’t know that Ram Lala Virajman manifested as the idol in the makeshift temple is a party to the case fighting it to save his home i.e. the temple from the clutches of the followers of a lineage that takes pride in monuments which symbolize our slavery. He is an infant and Ram Janm Bhoomi Nyas as well as Hindu Mahasabha acting as his friends and well wishers are fighting for him in the court. Just like a body corporate is a juridical entity, a deity is also a juridical person in the eyes of the law which can sue and get sued too. Before the law, the idol manifests the deity and the desecration of either the temple and the idol does not mark the cessation of its existence. So even if Ram Lala Viraajmaan’s idol was destroyed by Muslim iconoclasts, the deity continues to preside over the campus.
The left brigade of India attributes the entire confusion around the mosque being treated as a temple to the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd December in 1949,when the idols of Ram Lala Virajmaan mysteriously appeared under the three domes mosque. This is portrayed as a mischief to show that before the said date, the place was used a mosque. The last shape of the 3 domed mosque that existed before the demolition on the 6th December, 1992 in the symbolic Kar Seva was given by the repair work of the British after it was demolished by the Bairagis in the riots of the 1934. So nobody can conclude safely whether the place was indeed in the shape that got demolished on 6th December,1992. This should be seen in the light of the verdict of the Allahabad High Court in 2010 in which all the 3 judges accepted the fact that a temple predated the mosque and majority of the 3 accepted it to be the birthplace of Lord Ram and that Babur indeed demolished it to construct a mosque instead. In Ayodhya we had the gadhi that housed the exact birthplace of Lord Ram as well as the Kaushalya Rasoi. This structure was separated by a set of railings from the 17 feet ×21 feet platform known as the Ram Chabootra. The railings were constructed by the British in 1855 and the Hindus were given the rights to use the outer portion for Bhajan Kirtan.
Coming back to the list of historical works, non of them i.e. the Babarnama, Humayunama, Ain-e-Akbari, Tuzuk-e-Jahangiri, Tarikh-e-Barauni, Tarikh-i-Shahi speak about the Babur building any mosque in the area but the Jesuit Austrian priest Tiffentathler has spoken at length about the presence of Sri Janmsthan Temple at Ramkot in Ayodhya. Tiffentathler attributed Aurangzeb with the desecration of the said temple and the building of the mosque over its remains along with Treta ka Thakur and a few other temples. This shall be covered in a separate article. Apart from the travel account of William Finch,the Gazaetter of Faizabad,1960,the Gazaetter of Oudh 1877-78 corroborate the exclusive use of the place by the Hindus for worship. The Chinese traveler Yuan Chwang visited the place during the reign of prince Harshavardhana in the 7th century and speaks about the temple at Ayodhya being amongst the prominent temples of India. Babur in Babarnama spoke about the construction works in Dholpur and Agra but not in Ayodhya. He spoke about the temples he demolished in Gwalior but not Ayodhya. It stands established that Babar never visited the area. Something similar were the observations of his daughter Gulbadan Begum in her biography of Humayun. Ain-e-Akbari speaks about how Ram Navmi was celebrated at Ram Kot in Ayodhya in the memory of Rama of Treta Yug. Abul Fazl speaks about the tomb of Salar Ghazi in nearby Baharaich,of Kabir in Ratanpur but no Babri Masjid.
Now the usage of the said temple as a praying hall by the Muslims we can refer to the condition no. 3 of the Dhimmis who cannot prevent the stay of Muslims in a temple and their right to pray in it. The imperial Gazaetter of 1877-78 clears this elaborately stating that Hindus were declared Dhimmis in the Oudh province till its annexations in the British Empire in 1856. Till the segregation was done via railings in 1855-56 there was non use of the place as a mosque. So, this was one of the several aspects that demolish the claims of the historicity of a mosque at Ram Kot in Ayodhya. In the next part we will shed light on how Babar and Baqi Tashkandi could neither have demolished the mosque nor they could have build a one over it if one were to go by logic.