This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
the Babri Masjid structure in Ayodhya was built after the forcible demolition of a Hindu temple on the same spot by Muslim soldiers. The case can be summarized as follows. There is archaeological evidence that a temple, or at the very least a building with pillars, has stood on the Babri Masjid spot since the eleventh century. Of course, because of the structure standing there, the archaeological search has been far from exhaustive, but at least of the existence of this 11th century building we can be certain. When the building was destroyed, we do not know precisely, there are no descriptions of the event extent anywhere. Mohd. Gori's armies arrived there in 1194, and they may have destroyed it. It may have been rebuilt afterwards, or it may only have been destroyed by later Muslim rulers of the area. So it is possible that when Mir Baqi, Babar's lieutenant, arrived there in 1528, he found a heap of rubble, or an already aging mosque, rather than a magnificent Hindu temple. However, it is very unlikely that the place was not functioning as a Hindu place of worship just before the Babri Masjid was built. As is well known, fourteen pillarstones with Hindu temple ornamentation have been used in the construction of the Babri Masjid. Considering the quantity of bricks employed in the building, one cannot say that these fourteen pillar- stones were used merely to economize on bricks: quantitatively, they simply didn't make a difference. These remnants of Hindu architecture were more probably use in order to display the victory of the mosque over the temple, of Islam over Paganism. That was in keeping with a very common practice of Muslim conquerors, who often left pieces of the outer wall of the destroyed temple standing (as was done in the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, replacing the Kashi Vishvanath temple), or worked pieces of idols into the threshold of the newly- built mosque, so that the faithful could tread them underfoot. Since the actual practice in the case of the Babri Masjid conforms to this general pattern, we may infer that in all probability the Masjid was built in the same material circumstances in which the pattern normally applied, viz. just after the demolition of a Pagan place of worship. This is all the more probable considering that no alternative explanations for the presence of these Hindu pillar-stones have been offered, not even by those historians who would have an ideological and argumentative interest in doing so. In methodological terms, our conclusion that the use of Hindu remnants in the mosque building indicates an immediately preceding temple demolition because such a sequence fulfills a common pattern, is based on the principle of consistency. This principle as a ground for historical inference does not given absolute certainty, but at least a good measure of probability. But conversely, a contention that violates the principle of consistency without being supported by hard evidence, thereby becomes very improbable. As we shall see, the advocates of the Babri Masjid cause, including a team of JNU historians, have disregarded the consistency principle in central points of their argumentation. In their well-known and oft-quoted statement on the Ayodhya controversy, the JNU historians have rejected the contention that there was a temple on the disputed spot before the Babri Masjid was built there. This is a wildly improbable contention. There
as you find in some places. even after passing the Hanuman Garhi which itself is on a little hill. This is attested by a number of different pieces of testimony by Western travelers and by local Muslims. The JNU historians completely fail to explain this well attested fact. born in the castle of the local ruler. If you go to Ayodhya and walk to the Masjid/Janmabhoomi. That the Babri Masjid replaced a pre-existent centre of worship. which would logically (i. and then his birthplace temple would also have to be there. which is the JNU historians' position. they testify to the existing practice. For the sake of argument. In such a temple city par excellence. is indirectly corroborated by the attempts made to make two of them disappear. as well as from shortly after the 1856 British take-over but explicitly referring to older local Muslim sources. . Or we do not assume Ram's historicity (without necessarily excluding it) and we also do not assume that he was born there. and it overlooks Ayodhya. The JNU historians themselves cite evidence that it housed important temples of the Buddhists. A number of these documents have been presented by Harsh Narain and A. you will find yourself walking uphill. there would be a tradition saying so. it is virtually impossible that the geographical place of honour would have been left unused. strategically) have been built on this elevation.K. but for separate Hindu worship of Lord Ram.not for common Hindu-Muslim worship of some local Sufi. and then the question is reduced to whether people would have refrained from building a temple on this hilltop. Chatterjee. and is not contradicted by any authentic source giving a different explanation.is a general cultural pattern that would have made people build a temple there. Now. But whatever their historical explanation for this unusual phenomenon of Hindus insisting on worshipping in a mosque's courtyard. either prince Rama was a historical character. a very important one. Most of these sources explicitly declare that the Babri Masjid had replaced an earlier Hindu temple. The contention that there was no temple on the Babri Masjid site goes against all we know of ritual patterns in the lay-out of sacred places the world over: it violates the principle of consistency. and even specify that it has been Ram's birthplace temple. we might as well accept it. And these Hindus were going into a mosque courtyard for specifically Hindu worship -. That they are authentic and have a real proof value. which Harsh Narain and Arun Shourie independently discovered. is also indicated by the fact that Hindus kept returning to the place. the disputed split is quite an elevated place.e. where more indulgent Muslim rulers allowed them to worship on a platform just outside the mosque. we might opine that perhaps a great miracle happened on the spot. and stems from a pre-existent tradition of worship on that very spot. Since this near inevitable assumption is corroborated by all relevant documents and by the local Hindu tradition. No. Relative to the flatness of the entire Ganga basin. Ayodhya is a place of pilgrimage and temple city of long standing. sometime later than 1528: but in that case. The attachment of the Hindus to the Babri Masjid spot cannot reasonably have originated in the period when the mosque was standing there. the Hindus' attachment to the spot clearly dates back to pre-Masjid days. all of the pre-British period. Shaivas and Jains.
came out with unambiguous archaeological and iconographical proof that a Vaishnava temple has stood at the site until it was replaced with the Babri Masjid. Lal (Former Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India).B. At the same time. but no evidence whatsoever. If they were so attached to the place. By contrast. documents are the definitive scholarly statement on the Ayodhya dispute. but because the place had an importance of its own. There are many destroyed temples to which Hindus have not kept returning.. it may not be sufficient. Dr. This assumption is coherent with the unanimous and un contradicted testimony of Hindu and pre-colonial Muslim and Western sources.existent tradition of worship on the spot is necessary for explaining the Hindus' centuries-long attachment to the place. B. Gupta and Prof. and even when Muslim power ended. articles and book extracts by partisan writers who gave their anti-Mandir opinion. The Hindu team of scholars had no difficulty in demonstrating.However. They simply built a new temple somewhere else. . When in December 1990 the government asked both parties to collect evidence for their case. while the inference that there was a pre. S. traced some more strong pieces of documentary evidence. a small group of scholars. that the place was believed to be Ram's birthplace. the Babri Masjid Action Committee could only muster a pile of newspaper clippings.P. on being invited by the VHP. they stayed with the new arrangement and forgot about the destroyed and abandoned temple. and retained its special character even regardless of there being a temple in place or not. the utter lack of proof value of the AIBMAC evidence …(and these).. it is probably not because the erstwhile temple had made it important. in a rejoinder.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.