|
Summary of the Ram Janmabhoomi Evidence
1. Sacredness of the site
The Ram Janmabhoomi site has been a sacred site for crores of
Hindus since time immemorial, and was kept alive as a focus of Ram devotion
even in the face of the forcible Muslim occupation of the site during more than
four centuries. Why this is a sacred site, is beyond the limits of the dispute,
firstly because the Government of India had asked us for evidence for the pre-existence
of the Mandir on the Babri Masjid site, no more, no less; and secondly because
we do not have to prove and justify the sacredness of our sacred sites, anymore
than the Muslims have ever been asked to prove that, against all available indications,
the Kaaba was built by Abraham.
Many dozens of Sanskrit texts from the first millennium BC and
the first millennium AD attest the veneration for Ram, and put to rest recent
allegations that the Ram cult became popular only in the last few centuries.
There is multiple archaeological and iconometrical evidence for Ram worship
since at least the 15th century AD.
2. Archaeological evidence for the temple
Archaeological excavations have brought to light the remains of
an 11th century building on the disputed site. This was already clear from the
first brief report of the excavations led by Prof. B.B. Lal in 1975-80 (though
motivated "eminent historians" have tried first to conceal and later
to deny this pertinent fact), but recently more details have been made public,
especially the rows of pillar-bases, aligned with the pillars of the present
structure. Datable pottery remains indicate that the building was in use till
at least the late 15th century. Nothing points to a period of disuse between
this building's demolition and the Masjid's erection. But the "robbers
trench" around the pillar-bases indicates that the materials of the demolished
building had been taken for use in a new building, probably the Masjid.
That the pre-existing building was a Mandir, is coherent with
all the evidence so far, and requires no special assumptions or ad hoc hypotheses.
More importantly, it is positively indicated by the 14 black pillars of schistose
used in the masjid. Documentary evidence from the 18th century as well as common
sense dictate that, in conformity with a general pattern, these were materials
of the demolished temple incorporated in the masjid built over it. The disfigured
sculptures on the black pillars all belong to Hindu religious iconography. Some
of the motifs are common to different traditions, including Buddhist and Shaiva,
but some are specifically Vaishnava.
All indications converge easily, without any artificial theoretical
assumptions, on the hypothesis that a Vaishnava temple stood on the janmabhoomi
site until it was forcibly replaced with the Masjid. That it was specifically
a Ram temple, is indicated by a wealth of documentary evidence.
3. Documentary evidence for the temple
tradition
There are plenty of authentic documents available that unanimously
prove two things: everyone agreed, and no one ever doubted, that the site on
which the Babri Masjid was built, was taken from the Hindus; and the Hindu devotees
kept coming back to the site for worship. Some sources suggest that in some
periods the Hindus even used the Masjid itself. At any rate they set up Ram
Chabootra just outside the Masjid, and in the 18th century they also built a
make-do Janmasthan temple just nearby.
Among the most remarkable of the Muslim testimonies, we may mention
the Chapel Nasaiah, written by Aurangzeb's granddaughter around 1700, in which
she exhorts Muslims to assert their presence in the "place of worship of
the Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh etc., in which the Kafirs
have great faith - the birthplace of Kanhaiya, the place of Rasoi Sita, the
place of Hanuman... were all destroyed for the strength of Islam, and at all
these places mosques have been constructed". Ten other testimonies of local
Muslims confirm that the Babri masjid had replaced the Ram Janmasthan temple.
That Hindus kept coming for worship as nearby the site as possible, and that
they kept claiming the site, is attested by a number of these same sources,
as well as by a Faizabad Qazi in 1735.
Among the European records, the most remarkable is probably Josef
Tieffenthaler's (1767), who describes in detail how Hindus kept on worshipping
in the masjid courtyard, with a big celebration on Ram Navami day, and how everyone
believed that the pre-existent Ram Mandir had been forcibly replaced with the
masjid, though opinions differed on whether this had been done by Babar or Aurangzeb.
All the British surveyors, archaeologists and Gazetteer-writers, as well as
the District Judge of Faizabad in 1886, saw no reason at all to doubt the unanimous
local tradition that the Masjid had been built on the forcibly demolished temple
marking Rama's birthplace.
Revenue records show that the disputed site has always been known
as Janmasthan. Recent attempts to manipulate these records cannot change that,
just like recent attempts to conceal or even obliterate pieces of testimony
by local Muslims cannot change the facts to which these uncalculating witnesses
testified.
4. Evidence must be coherent
All the authentic testimonies of various kinds converge, without
exception, on the following scenario. A Ram Mandir standing on the now-disputed
site since the 11th century was demolished and replaced by a Muslim ruler, probably
Babar or his aide Mir Baqi, who flaunted the victory over Paganism by using
and displaying some of the temple pillars in his Masjid. But because the place
was so sacred to them, the Hindus kept on trying to continue the worship on
the site, or as close to it as possible.
This scenario, which is confirmed by all the available evidence
of every kind, is moreover in perfect consonance with well-attested behaviour
patterns of people in general (who built castles or temples on elevated and
central places), of Muslim rulers (who destroyed thousands of temples to replace
them with mosques, and often visibly displayed the iconoclastic origin of their
Masjid), and of Hindu devotees (who in many cases kept on revering the desecrated
site)
5. The AIBMAC non-evidence
In contrast to our own collection of coherent testimony for one
precise scenario, our AIBMAC friends have just given a pile of papers, without
adding even an attempt to show the coherence, the proof value, or even just
the relevance of this pile. Their documentation consists of:
1. casual statements of opinion by 20th century writers supporting
all kinds of conflicting scenarios (most of them not even concerning the pre-existence
of the Mandir), including outright crank theories;
2. a large number of documents relative to judicial disputes,
which all emanate from the unjust situation created by the forcible Muslim takeover,
and are therefore irrelevant to the question under consideration, viz. what
was there just before the Masjid was built;
3. exactly three documents relevant to the historical question
under consideration, of which one has the relevant pages missing (Babar's diary),
one is not a matter of dispute between us (the inscriptions on the Masjid declaring
that it was built by Mir Baqi on Babar's orders), and one is a proven forgery
(Babar's testament).
There is absolutely nothing in our AIBMAC friends' documentation
that proves their point or disproves our evidence. It is in fact not even collected
or presented as evidence for something. Any statement by any crackpot or secularist
is included as long as it disagrees with the well-established consensus for
which we have presented a mass of corroborating evidence, and regardless of
mutual contradictions.
One example out of a dozen: while disputing the belief that Ram
was born on the Janmabhoomi site; they do not build up coherent evidence that
he was born at a specific other site. instead, they give "evidence"
that Ram was born in Nepal, in Punjab, in Afghanistan, in Egypt, in Varanasi,
in Ayodhya on a different site, in an unknowable other place, or not at all.
So, each of these 8 "evidences" is contradicted by 7 other pieces
of "evidence" in the AIBMAC's own pile.
Obviously, they did not even attempt to build a case for an alternative
scenario to the one for which we have given evidence. They just wanted to make
us dissipate our energy on disproving all manners of inconsistent and spurious
contentions. And they counted on the sloppiness, ignorance or bias of the press,
to present their quantity of worthless arguments as a genuine counter-weight
to our coherent body of evidence.
6. The rebuttal
In our rejoinder, we have dealt with all the AIBMAC documents
relevant to the historical question, but the AIBMAC has not replied to our own
evidence. Their only reply was yet another set of the same kind of documents,
again containing not a trace of evidence that the masjid was built on something
else than a forcibly destroyed Mandir. They have not given any rebuttal whatsoever
to our evidence. Since they have not challenged our evidence, not even in this
round of Government-sponsored scholarly contest, they must be considered as
having accepted our evidence.
7. This debate is now closed
Since our AIBMAC friends have not disproven nor even denied the
validity of the evidence we have given, the way we have demonstrated the utter
inadequacy of their bulky but incoherent and irrelevant documentation, our evidence
stands. it should now count as a proven proposition, i.e. supported by all the
evidence available, not disproven and not even challenged, that the Babri masjid
was built on a Hindu sacred place, forcibly replacing a Mandir.
All the Babri polemists and secularist intellectuals who were
so cocksure in lambasting us for clinging on to "myths", spreading
"distortions" and denying "history", now have to face the
fact that it is we who have given conclusive evidence, while they have merely
given politically motivated opinions and swearwords, apart from erudite considerations
on issues beside the point. From now on (as until a few years ago), the established
historical opinion is that the Babri masjid has forcibly replaced a Ram Mandir
built on a specially sacred Hindu site.
In our opinion, any Government decisions should from now on honour
this established position of historical science, without giving in to further
distraction anoeuvres such as calls for "non-partisan" arbitration.
Since our evidence has not even been challenged by the AIBMAC, there is no need
for any arbitration. The historical facts themselves are the only competent
and non-partisan arbitrator, and they have spoken through the authentic and
unchallenged testimonies, which we have collected and submitted, to the Government.
8. Our request
Since it is now firmly established, and no longer being competently
challenged, that the disputed site was one of the Hindu sacred places, we would
like to ask our Muslim friends and fellow-countrymen the following questions:
1. In the Middle Ages, theologians and conquerors told you it
was all right to destroy and occupy other communities' sacred places. Now in
this age of secularism, do you still insist on continuing this occupation, or
do you opt for "equal respect for all religions"? We are not occupying
your Kaaba or Al-Aqsa mosque, so is it not time you renounce the occupation
of our most sacred places?
2. The last few years, motivated politicians and anti-Hindu propagandists,
both communalist and communist, have concocted the theory that there was no
temple at this site, that the masjid was innocently built on empty land. Given
the pretentious titles they flaunted, like "protectors of Islam" and
"eminent historians", we can understand that you were misled into
believing their made-up story. But now, scientific research has firmly established
that this theory was indeed a concoction, and that the masjid was built on a
Hindu sacred site. Even the AIBMAC has not challenged the evidence, which re-establishes
that the Masjid has replaced a Hindu temple by force. in view of the renewed
certainty that this Masjid was willfully located on a Hindu sacred site in order
to disturb and humiliate the religious practices of your Hindu fellow-countrymen,
do you still insist on resuming the occupation of our Ram Janmabhoomi site,
or do you agree to leave this Hindu sacred site to the Hindus?
Footnotes:
1 The Summary was released to the press on 10 January, 1991 by
the Vishva Hindu Parishad headquarters in New Delhi.
|