|
1. What is the
significance of Ayodhya the city?
It is the birthplace of Rama, the God incarnate and the
Hero who became the fountainhead of Hindu Culture. The Ancient Hindu Scripture
Brahma Purana [4.4.91] cites Ayodhya as the premier city of the six holy
cities - (the other being Mathura, Haridvar, Kashi, Kanchi and Ujjain).
The great Saint-Poet Tulsidas commenced the writing of his Ramayana (Shri
Rama Charit Manas) in Ayodhya, in 1574
2. Was Shri Rama
a person or a mythical figure?
Rama is a very real figure. Hundreds of ancient monuments along the route
that he had taken from Ayodhya to Lanka are strewn all over and bear sacred
testimony to his presence even to this day. A photo/image provided by
the US Space Agency shows the remains of the ‘Setu’ (bridge)
between India and Lanka. Shri Rama’s temples abound in every nook
and corner of not only India but also in the whole of Aryavart of yore,
which included Indonesia, Thailand, and Cambodia, etc.
Several of the events mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana have
been authenticated by recent archaeological findings. His presence
dates back to over 9323 years as per the astronomical configurations
described by Sage Valmiki in his Ramayana. A very interesting painter’s
image (map) of India, during the time of Shri Rama, has been published
in Brazilian Portuguese Ramayana written by Octavio Mendes Cajado, and
published by Editora Cultrix Ltda, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1976. a copy of
this map is also available.
3. Why is Shri
Rama called a Maryada Purushottam?
He personifies the highest of Human Values, never deviating
from the virtuous path in thought, or action, even in the direst of circumstances.
His renouncing of the mighty throne of Ayodhya to keep the word of his
father, his infinite love for his brothers and the unflagging love and
respect for Kaikeyee, the mother who banished him to the jungles, establish
the paramount of love, truth and sincerity over the greatest possible
worldly acquisitions. The entire cosmos is sustained by dharma (i.e.,
prescribed discipline or maryada). Having epitomized the highest discipline
expected of Humans, he is called Maryada Purushottam (i.e., the Finest
Specimen of a disciplined Human Being).
4. How long in
antiquity is the belief in Shri Rama?
The antiquity of Ayodhya and Shri Rama is cited in the Faizabad Gazetteer
(vol. XLIII, 1905 by H.R. Nevill, ICS). Valmiki Ramayana describes the
celestial configuration of the grahas (planets) and nakshatras (stars)
at the time of various important events such as the birth time of Rama,
the meeting of Shri Hanuman, etc. Recent calculations, performed by many
noted researchers, including Saurabh Kwatra, place the birthday of Shri
Rama during the year 7323 BC.
For the last two millennia, the tradition of veneration to Shri Rama has
existed in the Hindu society in one form or another.
The earliest known inscription to testify to this is found
in the Nasik cave inscription dating back to AD 150. evolution of the
tradition of Shri Rama worship at least from AD 300 is established by
the early shrines surviving at ancient Ramagiri hills, 30 km from Nagpur.
Paintings depicting episodes of Shri Rama’s life have adorned the
walls of numerous temples in India and outside - from the famous Deogarh
temple in Madhya Pradesh to Angkor Vat in Cambodia. The Grand Palace in
Bangkok has a pictorial depiction of the complete Ramayana along the inner
part of the compound wall.
5. Is there any archaeological
evidence to establish the genuineness of the Shri Rama Jaanmabhoomi site?
The most clinching Palaeographic evidence emerged from the inscription
on the thick stone slab (shown on the cover page) that the debris of the
demolished structure yielded on 6th December, 1992. Over 265 pieces of
artifacts were recovered that day. All of them have been identified as
being part of the ancient temple. The inscription has 20 lines, 30 shlokas
(verses), and is composed in chaste Sanskrit written in Nagari script.
The ‘Nagari Lipi’ (a form of Sanskrit script) was prevalent
in the eleventh and twelfth century. The crucial part of its message as
deciphered by a team of experts {world class Epigraphists and Sanskrit
scholars, Historians and Archaeologists} which includes Prof. A.M. Shastri,
Dr. K.V. Ramesh, Dr. T.P. Verma, Prof. B.R. Grover, Dr. A.K. Sinha, Dr.
Sudha Malaiya, Dr. D.P. Dubey and Dr. G.C. Tripathi is given on the cover
page of this booklet. It is reproduced below in English.
The first twenty verses are the praises of the king Govind Chandra Gharhwal
(AD 1114 to 1154) and his dynasty while the twenty-first verse says the
followings:
For the salvation of his soul the King( Govind Chandra Gharhwal) after
paying his obeisance at the little feet of Vamana Avatar (the incarnation
of God as a midget Brahmana) went about constructing a wondrous temple
for Vishnu Hari (Shri Rama) with marvelous pillars and structure of stone
reaching the skies and culminating in a superb top with a massive sphere
of gold and projecting shafts in the sky - a temple so grand that no other
King in the History of the nation had ever built before.
It further states that this astounding temple (ati-adbhutam) was built
in the temple-city of Ayodhya. Line 19 describes god Vishnu (Shri Rama)
as destroying king Bali (brother of Sugreeva) and the ten-headed Dashanana
(Ravana).
It is to be noted that King Govind Chandra Gharhwal reconstructed
this temple after Salar Massood had destroyed it when he had invaded Ayodhya
earlier.
Even so, between 1975-80 the Archaeological Survey of India had carried
out extensive excavations at various sites cited in Ramayana. The excavations
done at the site contiguous to the Rama Janmabhoomi Mandir mound comprehensively
established sets of pillars at that spot which continued till the last
point that was considered safe for the structure. The presumption is that
if the excavations were to be continued, those formations of pillars could
be found existing right beneath the disputed structure. Those archaeological
finds date back to seventh century BC.
6. Is there any
proof of destruction of a Mandir in honour of Shri Rama at Ayodhya in
1528 AD?
Emphatically yes. Historical, archaeological, eye-witness accounts of
ancient travelers, revenue records, and entries in the District gazetteers
of Faizabad, Sultanpur and Delhi of the nineteenth century exist as irrevocable
evidence. In the first flush of success in the 1857 war of Independence
that was fought shoulder to shoulder by Hindus and Muslims, Amir Ali had
decided to hand over the temple to the Hindus and thus put an end to the
root cause of Hindus-Muslim differences. The incident finds mention on
page 134 of the Delhi Gazetteer published in 1883-4, revised 1907-9 and
published in 1912. Then revised completely and published in 1976.
In the words of Col. Martin: The news that Muslims have agreed
to voluntarily hand over the Babri Masjid to the Hindus created a wave
of panic in our ranks and it was felt that the British should be vanquished.
Thereafter on 18th March, 1857 when Amir Ali and Rama Chandra Das were
publicly hanged, Col. Martin said: After this the back of the Faizabad
Revolutionaries was broken and in the entire District of Faizabad our
authority was restored.
In yet another reference, the Faizabad District Judge on a plaint filed
by Mahant Raghubar Das gave a judgment on 18th March, 1886. Though the
plaint was dismissed, yet the judgment brought out two points very clearly
in the following words:
I found that Masjid built by Emperor Babar stands on the border
of the town of Ayodhya…. It is most unfortunate that Masjid should
have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as
that event occurred 358 years ago it is too late now to remedy the grievance.
All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo. In such
a case as the present one any innovation would cause more harm and derangement
of order than benefit.
This judgment brought out two points: (i) that it was built by Babar and
(ii) that it was built on Hindu sacred land.
The Muslims all along have been conscious of the vandalisation of the
Rama Temple and its conversion into a Mosque. The consciousness of this
wrong is alive even today. It is therefore that the Muslim community by
and large has little objection to it going to the Hindus. It is the Muslim
and Hindu leaders lusting for the Muslim vote-bank that are obstructing
an amicable settlement.
The truth is that during Prime Minister Chandrashekar’s
period when the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) had been deluged
with irrefutable evidence of prior presence of Rama Temple at that site,
the BMAC unilaterally withdrew from parleys refusing to counter any piece
of a mountain of evidence put forth by VHP.
7. How can one
say that Babar destroyed a Mandir in Ayodhya?
There is irrevocable evidence that Mir Baqi had built the mosque on the
order of Babar, as available in the form of inscriptions on the stone
slabs that existed before the structure got destroyed on 6th December,
1992. The material evidence cited below confirms this.
Before the structure got demolished a slab of stone measuring 4.28 m by
35 cm was present on the top arch of the gateway. Inscribed on it were
5 couplets, in Persian, composed by a poet Pahalwan Muhammed Sahib. Translated,
it stated that "that mosque, the well and Chahar-bagh were completed
in 935AM /1528-29 by the order of the Emperor Babar". The actual
inscription is reproduced in the book:
Further to the above is the Faizabad Gazetteer (pages 172-3 of vol. XLIII,
1905 by Mr. H.R. Neville, ICS) which says:
It was still regarded as the holy spot by the Hindus is clear from
the fact of its desecration by Babar and Aurangzeb. [page 172]
The Janmasthan was in Rama Kot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In
1528 AD Babar came to Ayodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed
the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar’s
Mosque. The materials of the old structure were largely employed and many
of the Columns are in good preservation. [Page 173]
The fact of the recovery of 265 artefacts (all fragments
and parts of an erstwhile temple) on 6th December, 1992 provide the
clinching evidence allaying all doubts that the mosque was built after
destroying Shri Rama temple.
8. Was the
Babri structure deliberately built over ruins of a temple in Ayodhya?
Undoubtedly yes. Shri Sita Rama Goel, an eminent
Historian, in his book Hindu Temples: What happened to them has provided
the detailed proof about the Hindu, Buddha, Jain, etc., temples that
were destroyed and mosques built over the very spot. This was considered
a sacred duty as per the edicts of Quran. The concept of Jihad, Kafirs,
and Ghazis in the Quran provided to the invaders the ultimate sanction
to carry out such destruction. The construction of mosques on the foundations
of destroyed temples was meant to proclaim the Muslim Supremacy over
the Hindus. The Babri structure was no exception. The following statement
of Babar in Babar Nama as translated in English confirms this mindset.
For Islam’s sake, I wondered in the wilds,
Prepared forward with Pagans and Hindus,
Resolved myself to meet the martyr’s death,
Thanks be to God! A Ghazi I became.
[According to Islamic theology, a ‘momin’ (believer)
becomes a mujahid (holy warrior) when he wages wars against the infidels
and becomes a "Ghazi" when he kills them.]
In the English translation of the Persian diary of Babar
Nama, Annette Beveridge (1922) specifically mentions the destruction
of this Janmasthan temple. She says that "Babar, a devout Muslim,
was impressed by the dignity and sanctity of the ancient Hindu Shrine
at the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi" and goes on to say that "as
an obedient follower of Muhammad, Babar regarded the substitution
of the temple by a Mosque as a dutiful and worthy action".
Annette Beveridge wrote "Presumably the order for building the
mosque" was given during Babar’s stay in Oudh (Ayodhya) and
she attributes intolerance to Prophet Muhammad and says that, as a follower
of Islam, Babar "would regard the substitution of a temple by a
mosque as dutiful". Babar’s attitude towards unbelievers has
already been quoted above.
9. It is said
that the act of destruction by Babar was not a religious one, but had
a political motive? Please comment.
The Rama Janmabhoomi had not been vandalized by Muslim
religious leaders but on orders of the Muslim Political Head of State.
Mounting a mosque on half demolished temples of Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura
was a diabolical political stratagem to strangulate the Hindu psyche
and extinguish their will to fight back. They knew that these three
temples attracted millions of Hindu pilgrims from all corners of the
country and this message went right across the country through this
ocular demonstration.
As a result even a man of the stature of Nehru had to
write that he "was a Hindu by birth" as though apologising
that he got born as a Hindu. The slogan "Garv Se Kaho Hum Hindu
Hain" (Proudly proclaim you are a Hindu) was coined primarily to
secure the release of the strangulated Hindu psyche. That this slogan
had to be resorted to after forty years of independence epitomizes the
success of this Islamic psychological ploy.
There can be absolutely no doubt that half demolishing
the temple and mounting a mosque on top of it was no religious act.
It was an act of physical outrage - an unadulterated Political Act to
drive home in an offensive manner the supremacy of Muslim over Hindu
India. Religious urges of the Muslims could as well have been fulfilled
if mosques had been built elsewhere on all the enormous empty grounds
that were freely available in those times.
So long as the concept of Jihad, Kafirs and Ghazi remains
a part of the Quran, whatever is religious inevitably must have political
consequences while what is done in pursuit of political objectives cannot
but yield religious dividends. Remember, when Moors converted Spain
they converted the entire population to Islam. Of course the Spaniards
did the same when Spanish Christians won back Spain. The mix of Politics
and Religion is inherent in Islam. Little wonder that government in
Islamic countries is run on Islamic tenets.
10. Has it
never occurred to the Hindu Protagonists that mixing religion with politics
is a lethal mixture for the health of the Nation and that it should
be eschewed totally?
It is most undoubtedly a lethal mix. But it did not emanate
from the Hindus. The mix is inherent in Islam. The concept of
Jihad and its execution yields political consequences. Jihad is being
practiced in India even today. Similarly, the concept of ‘Kufr’,
Kafirs and ‘Ghazi’ followed to their logical conclusions produce
political consequences. It is not that the Hindu kings did not fight
battles for political expansion of their kingdoms before the advent
of Muslim invaders. But those battles had no trace of religion in them.
They were purely political. Fighting a battle for religious purposes
is unknown to Hinduism.
The Hindu protagonists never politicized even the Rama
temple issue. They had continued to fight their religious battles only
in the courts. It is the politicians who moved into the realm of religion
of pursuit of their vote-bank politics. If this lethal mix has to be
eradicated then one will have to go to the clerics of Islam for amending
the Quran and also approach the politicians to eschew religious issues.
There is absolutely no validity to pontificate before the Hindu Protagonists
reminding them about the lethality of mixing politics with religion.
If the Hindus really had plans to use the lethal mix, they would not
have waited from 1949 to 1986 for doing so. Just as the mix is inherent
in Islam, the insulation of religion from politics is inherent in Hinduism.
Is there any political party in India, which has the
courage to even suggest to the Muslims to interpret the tenets of Quran
in keeping with the tenets of secularism? It is an irony that the Muslim
leaders swear by secularism most frequently and most loudly even while
their politics is enmeshed in religion. The Shah Bano case and consequent
Constitutional Amendments, the terrorism in Kashmir or even the insurgencies
in North-Eastern States are classic examples of this lethal mix in action.
|