What is Dharma?|What is Secularism?|Watch Shrimad Bhagwad Geeta video|Arun Shourie reveals secrets of CONgress|
Why is 'secular' Government of India controling operations of Hindu temples but not Mosques and Churches?|Skeletons in CONgress's closet

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Delhi Jama Masjid Imam Bukhari assaults Muslim Journalist for supporting Hindus

Spread The Word

Journalist who was assaulted by Syed Bhukhari & his thugs.
Image courtesy: Indian Express

Anti-Hindu bigot Imam Bukhari who along with his hooligans attacked a Journalist.

Delhi's Jama Masjid Imam Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari is a known Islamic terrorist supporter (refer his visits to homes of "Batla House" encountered terrorists) & Anti-Hindu bigot no different than his fellow Muslim apologist politicians like Digvijay Singh, Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Ram Vilas Paswan, Mamta Banerjee, Sitaram Yechuri and many others. Bukhari as can be seen in the video evidence below attacked a Muslim journalist Mr. Mohammed Abdul Waheed Chisti, editor of Urdu weekly "Dastaan-e-Awadh", who merely asked a question about Hindus legitimate claim on Ayodhya & God Shri Ram Janambhoomi. Chisti asked the Shahi Imam to spell out his stand on the mention of King Dashrath's name in land records of 1528 before the Babri Dhancha was constructed. He asked, "Why you are trying to mislead Muslims when the revenue record of 1528 indicates that Raja Dashrath palace stood on the (disputed) spot and after the high court verdict that it should be handed over to Ram Lalla (idols of baby Ram)?"

As per News reports below, Bukhari threatened Mr. Chisti with dire consequences in full view of journalists and policemen. Bukhari threatened Journalist to hold his tongue or his neck would be broken. However, no action has been initiated against him so far.

Very unbecoming of a self-proclaimed mass leader of section of Indian Muslims. And fake secularists & Hinduphobic Leftists want Hindus to make peace with such Anti-Hindu bigots who can't even stand the idea of giving up their claim on Hindu's land, encroached by them. Shame! Religion of Peace indeed.

  1. Bukhari thrashes scribe over Ayodhya query by Rediff News
    Imam of the Delhi Jama Masjid, Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari, on Thursday lost his cool when a journalist questioned him regarding the Ayodhya verdict during a press conference, following which he was thrashed by supporters of the cleric.

    Mohammed Abdul Waheed Chisti, a reporter with a local Urdu daily, raised a question relating to the ownership of the disputed site before the construction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya.

    Chisti asked the Shahi Imam to spell out his stand on the mention of King Dashrath's name in land records of 1528 before the Babri mosque was constructed.

    Initially, Bukhari skirted the question but when the journalist insisted, he was threatened.

    "Get him out of this conference, Bukhari shouted while accusing the journalist of working against the interests of the Muslims," he said.

    Bukhari's supporters then thrashed the journalist in full public glare.

    People like him will 'not be tolerated by Muslims at any cost,' the Shahi Imam said before leaving the press conference.

    Chisti said he was only seeking a clarification from Bukhari, who had needlessly got provoked. The journalist later filed an FIR against Bukhari and his supporters at Hazratganj kotwali.

    Earlier, Bukhari said the September 30 verdict of the Allahabad high court on the Ayodhya title suits was based on faith and was not acceptable to the Muslims.

    He said there was no question of evolving a consensus or even holding talks for giving the mosque site for temple construction.

  2. Bukhari’s effigy burnt in Lucknow by Two Circles

  3. Uttar Pradesh journalists demand Bukhari's arrest by Sify

  4. Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee minority cell attacks Jama Masjid Imam. Dont trust CONgress as they play both side of game.

  5. Journalists demand CBI probe into attack on reporter. Good effort but everyone knows neither Mayawati nor CONgress, both Pro-Muslim conservative politician/party, can dare to touch this certified a*shole Bukhari.

  6. Journalist assaulted in Shahi Imam’s media conference by Indian Express
    An FIR was lodged against the Shahi Imam on a complaint by Mohammad Abdul Waheed Chisti, the reporter of a Urdu daily, at the Hazratganj police station in Lucknow. The case was registered under sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

    When Chisti, during the course of the press conference, asked the Imam why he was instigating Muslims against the court order on Ayodhya title suits, the Imam got infuriated, questioned his credentials and alleged that he was an agent of the Congress and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). Calling him a traitor to the cause of the community, the Imam threatened him of dire consequences. Later, the journalist was chased and assaulted.

    Alleging that the AIMPLB and the Congress were conspiring to force Muslims to accept the court verdict, Bukhari said it was not based on law, evidence and Constitution but on faith, and would challenge it in the Supreme Court.

    When pointed out that senior BJP leader L K Advani has said the verdict was based on the report of the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) which had conducted excavations near the disputed site, Bukhari said, "Muslims reject the ASI report with the contempt it deserves. The report was changed to suit the political interests of the Congress. The original report of the ASI was different. After all, the ASI is under the control of the Central government."

  7. Scribe lodges FIR against Bukhari by Times of India
    The maulana, who has been highly critical of the Allahabad high court's judgment on Ayodhya title suit, lost his cool when Chisti reminded him about his earlier stand that Muslims must respect the verdict. Appearing to be in a particularly dark mood, he scowled menacingly at the reporter and brusquely ordered him to be quiet and take his seat.

    When Chisti didn't stop, Bukhari ordered the man to hold his tongue or his neck would be broken. " The press conference broke up soon after and Chisti was surrounded by TV crews. This enraged Bukhari further and he charged towards the scribe who had to be rescued by other journalists present there, but not before he was roughed up by Bukhari's men.

  8. Imam Bukhari’s men attack scribe asking ‘difficult’ questions by DNA
    Things were fine till the time Abdul Wahid Chishti, a reporter from an Urdu daily, decided to grill the maulana. As he started asking difficult questions, Bukhari started getting infuriated.

    The journalist asked why the entire land, now recognised legally as Ram’s birthplace, should not be handed over to Hindus. He also reasoned that such a land could not be used for a mosque according to Shariat (Islamic law).

    This was clearly more than what the shahi imam could put up with. He flew into a fit of anger and started shouting at the journalist. At one point, he even said, “It is because of traitors like you that Babri Masjid was demolished”, andtold the journalist to shut up and leave.

    Soon afterwards, Bukhari’s men told him that the journalist was talking to TV channels outside. At this, he leapt out of the conference hall asking his aides to catch hold of the scribe and beat him up.

    As his men attacked Chishti, some journalists grappled to stave them off. Bukhari was shouting at the top of his voice threatening the journalist with dire consequences.

    “The maulana is a respected cleric, but the way he acted today, it was worse than a hooligan,” Chishti told reporters soon after the melee ended.

    He has lodged a criminal case at the local police station, alleging that Bukhari and his men assaulted him and even threatened to kill him.

    Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant in the Ayodhya case, castigated the maulana for “irresponsible” and “shameful” conduct. He said the attack on the scribe was a result of “frustration”.

    “The imam is frustrated as his efforts to sell himself as the messiah of Muslims have failed,” Ansari said, calling Bukhari an “opportunist” trying to capitalise on the Ayodhya verdict to serve vested interests.

  9. Bukhari beats up journalist by Hindustan Times
    Infuriated by an inconvenient question on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi verdict, the Imam of Delhi’s Jama Masjid Ahmad Bukhari slapped and punched a journalist at a press conference in Lucknow on Thursday. He even threatened to kill the journalist, a Muslim, after he asked Bukhari:
    “Why you are trying to mislead Muslims when the revenue record of 1,528 indicates that Raja Dashrath palace stood on the (disputed) spot and after the high court verdict that it should be handed over to Ram Lalla (idols of baby Ram)?”

    As soon as Abdul Waheed Chishti of the weekly Dastan-e-Awadh asked the question, Bukhari abused him verbally and shouted: “Shut up and sit down, you Congress agent. I will chop your neck off.”

    As soon as the press conference was over, the electronic media swooped on Chishti for his reaction.

    Bhukhari, standing in a corner of the hotel hall, watched for some time. His men tried to pull Chishti away from the TV cameras but were pushed away by the mediamen. That’s when a seething Bukhari rushed towards Chishti and assaulted him. The police have booked Bukhari for assault.

  10. Delhi: Journalist thrashed by Delhi Jama Masjid Imam's supporters by NDTV. The secular censored version of News.

  11. FIR against Imam Bukhari for assault on reporter by Express Buzz
    The move followed a complaint by Mohammad Abdul Wahid Chishti, a journalist working for Dastan-e-Awadh daily/ weekly newspaper, published in both Urdu and Hindi, who was beaten up by Bukhari. The Imam also beat up a few other journalists and threatened the media in general to be aware of his power to teach them a lesson if they ever dared to question him about his views.

    During the conference, Chishti referred to the land record of 1528, before the construction of the Babri mosque, saying that the Ramjanamsthan belonged to King Dashrath, father of Lord Rama, and when Bukhari had announced before the Allahabad High Court verdict on September 30 that he and the Muslim community would accept the verdict, whatever it might be, then why was he not accepting the verdict now.

    At this Bukhari called Chishti an agent of the Congress and of anti-Muslim forces, and loudly abused him.

    Subsequently, while some scribes were talking to Chishti about his reference to the 1500 land records, other scribes were talking to Bukhari.

    Just then one of the Imam’s supporters informed him that the scribe was telling something about him to media persons. Bukhari immediately rushed towards Chishti and thrashed him, even as he called his supporters to kill the journalist. When some other journalists tried to save Chishti they were also thrashed by Bukhari and some of his supporters. The Imam’s security personnel and even the city police present on the occasion were more interested in protecting him than preventing him from resorting to open violence recorded by the electronic media.

  12. Shahi Imam's supporters thrash scribe by India Today
    Slamming the journalist Bukhari shouted, "You have been sent here as part of a conspiracy. There are thousands like you here. Shut up and sit down."

    A little after, Bukhari's men told him that the journalist was talking to TV channels outside. At this, he leapt out of the conference hall asking his aides to catch hold of the reporter and beat him up. Bukhari was shouting at the top of his voice threatening the journalist with dire consequences.

    "I have filed an FIR against Shahi Imam. I feel there is a threat to my life. I was assaulted by his supporters. He can cause me harm," Chishti said.

  13. Urdu Editors Guild condemns attack on Lucknow journalist by TCN News
    “Urdu Editors Guild is shocked to see the growing numbers of attack on the working journalists. The recent case in question being of physically assaulting Mr. Abdul Waheed Chishti, a journalist of an Urdu daily, by the Imam of Shahi Jama Masjid Syed Ahmed Bukhari. It is to be noted that he was involved in a similar attack on another scribe Mr. Yusuf Ansari in the past,” it said in a statement.

Muslim Paper Takes up Hindu Cause, Furthers Oneness
Don't kill cows and don't eat beef - that's the message of harmony a Muslim editor in Uttar Pradesh has been sending out to the community since 1998 when he began a newspaper to bridge divides in the communally sensitive state.

The Daastaan-e-Awadh, which used to be in Urdu but is now in Hindi to reach to more readers, is relentlessly pursuing its tagline of being 'a messenger of communal harmony, democratic and secular values'.

The six-page weekly newspaper published from Lucknow has been carrying in virtually every issue articles calling upon Muslims to join hands against the slaughter of cows that are revered by Hindus and associated with Lord Krishna.

And the man behind it is 49-year-old Abdul Waheed.

"From news reports pertaining to politics, business, sports and other fields, we do ensure to carry at least a write-up on the importance of cows in an edition. In such articles, we appeal to Muslims not to get directly or indirectly involved in killing of cows that are considered sacred in Hinduism," the Daastaan-e-Awadh editor told IANS.

"In our articles, we also condemn killing of cows and even term it anti-Islamic by referring to the basic teaching of Islam that says no one has the right to disrespect religious sentiments of anyone...

"In fact, in the write-ups, Muslims are also reminded about their task to protect sacred entities of different religions," Waheed added.

This is a campaign that the newspaper began in 1998 itself when it was launched. It has continued it since.

In the latest edition, for instance, Waheed, the author of most of the pieces on the issue, has written on how there was a ban on cow slaughter in the Mughal era.

"Several Mughal emperors, besides Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan, had made cow slaughter and beef eating an offence...The emperors did that for communal harmony," said Waheed.

"Despite a ban on sale of beef in many states of the country, I really feel ashamed when I come across news reports pertaining to those caught by police for killing cows in Uttar Pradesh, where cow slaughter has been banned since 1955. I remember that on several occasions, recovery of cow meat has led to communal tension in various parts of the state," he added.

Interestingly, Waheed launched Daastaan-e-Awadh as an Urdu weekly but later transformed it into Hindi as he wanted to cater to a large number of readers.

"When the newspaper was published in Urdu, we had a limited number of readership, which in turn was preventing us from reaching those Muslims, particularly those of younger generation, who are not well-versed in Urdu," said Waheed.

"It was in 2001 that we decided to bring the newspaper in Hindi with the objective of reaching out to more and more people," he recalled.

Asked what prompted him to launch such a newspaper, Waheed replied, "As a journalist I always wanted to use my writing skills for bridging the Hindu-Muslim divide. It was that desire that prompted me to launch the weekly that besides providing the news could also bring the members of the two communities closer."

Run by over 20 Muslim employees, Daastaan-e-Awadh that was earlier circulated only in Lucknow now has 10,000 readers in 14 districts of Uttar Pradesh, including Ghaziabad, Bareilly, Faizabad, Azamgarh, Agra and Shahjahanpur.

Monday, October 4, 2010

Prayagraj High Court's verdict - Shri Ram Mandir existed in Holy city Ayodhya

Spread The Word

Delhi's Jama Masjid Imam Syed Bukhari who is known Islamic terrorist supporter & Anti-Hindu bigot, like Muslim apologist Digvijay Singh, attacked a Muslim journalist who merely asked a question about Hindus legitimate claim on Ayodhya & Shri Ram Janambhoomi. Very unbecoming of a so-called mass leader of section of Indians. And fake secularists wants Hindus to make peace with such Anti-Hindu bigots who can't even stand a mere query. Shame! Religion of Peace indeed.

Official website of Prayagraj High Court's verdict on Holy city Ayodhya


Division will escalate dispute. By S Gurumurthy

A perverse discourse: Steeped in ignorance, pseudo-secularists are busy doing what they do best, Deliberately misinterpreting the Ayodhya judgement. By A Surya Prakash

Eminent historian displeased with the Ayodhya verdict. By Koenraad Elst

How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause By Abhinav Garg, Times of India
The role played by "independent experts" — historians and archaeologists who appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board to support its claim — has come in for criticism by one of the Allahabad High Court judges in the Ayodhya verdict.

While the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed objections raised by the experts to the presence of a temple, it was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to extended judicial scrutiny.

Most of these experts deposed twice. Before the ASI excavations, they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and, after the site had been dug up, they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa. During lengthy cross-examination spread over several pages and recorded by Justice Agarwal, the historians and experts were subjected to pointed queries about their expertise, background and basis for their opinions.

To the court's astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, found themselves withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displaying an "ostrich-like attitude" to facts.

He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were all connected — one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness.

Some instances underlined by the judge are: Suvira Jaiswal deposed "whatever knowledge I gained with respect
to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told" (other experts). She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute "after reading newspaper reports and on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department." Supriya Verma, another expert who challenged the ASI excavations, had not
read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation. She did her PhD under another expert Shireen F Ratnagar.

Verma and Jaya Menon alleged that pillar bases at the excavated site had been planted but HC found they were not present at the time the actual excavation took place.

Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the "introduction" to the book of another expert who deposed, Professor Mandal. She admitted she had no field experience.

"Normally, courts do not make adverse comments on the deposition of a witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not, but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements..." the judge has noted.

He said opinions had been offered without making a proper investigation, research or study in the subject. The judge said he was "startled and puzzled" by contradictory statements. When expert witness Suraj Bhan deposed on the Babri mosque, the weight of his evidence was contradicted by anotherexpert for Muslim parties, Shirin Musavi, who told the court that Bhan "is an archaeologist and not an expert on medieval history".

Justice Agarwal referred to signed statements issued by experts and noted that "instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere it tends to create more complications, conflict and controversy." He pointed out that experts carry weight with public opinion. "One cannot say that though I had made a statement but I am not responsible for its authenticity since it is not based on my study or research but what I have learnt from what others have uttered," Justice Aggarwal has said, emphasising the need for thorough original research before concurring with what someone else has claimed.

Fundamentals of Sri Ram temple
True and devout Hindus believe Lord Sri Rama was born in Ayodhya, the then capital of a flourishing kingdom of the Suryavamsa dynasty. Rama is venerated as Maryada Purushottam, and worshipped by Hindus of the north. As an avatar of Vishnu, he was first propagated by Tamil saints Nayanmars and Alwars; the north later came to accept Rama, especially thanks to the saint Tulsidas. In that sense, Sri Rama was the first truly national king of India, supra region, supra varna or jati.

The exact spot where Rama was born has been and remains firmly identified in the Hindu mind and is held as sacred. This is the very area where stood from 1528 till December 6, 1992, a structure that came to be known as Babri Masjid, put up in 1528 by Babar’s commander Mir Baqi.

Baqi was a Shia Muslim, and hence he intended it to be a place for Shias to perform namaz. Today, interestingly, the Shia clerics have made it clear to Hindu organisations that they would agree to have the site restored as a Ramjanmabhoomi. It is the Sunni Waqf Board, which entered the legal dispute as late as 1961, that has been claiming the title to the land on which the structure once stood. I call it a ‘structure’ since it cannot be strictly called a mosque by Sunni edicts — because it did not have the mandatory minarets and wazu (water pool).

In Skanda Purana (Chapter X, Vaishnav Khand) the site is vividly described. Valmiki Ramayana also describes it beautifully. Less than two decades before Mir Baqi carried out the horrible demolition of the Ram temple, Guru Nanak had visited the Ramjanmabhoomi and had darshan of Ramlala in the mandir at the spot. Guru Nanak himself records in 1521 the barbarity of Babar’s invasions (in Guru Granth Sahib at p.418). In Akbar’s time, Abul Fazal wrote the Ain-i-Akbari in which he describes Ayodhya as the place of “Ram Chandra’s residence who in Treta Yuga combined spiritual supremacy and kingship” (Translated by Colonel H S Jarrett and published in Kolkata in 1891).

In Chapter X of the Report of the Archeological Survey of India, NW, and Oudh (1889) it is mentioned (p.67) that Babri Mosque ‘was built in AD 1528 by Mir Khan on the very spot where the old temple of Janmasthan of Ram Chandra was standing’.

It is recorded in many official and judicial proceedings. In 1885, for example, Mahant Raghubar Das in a Suit No 61/280 of 1885 filed in the court of the Faizabad sub-judge against the secretary of state for India (who was based in London), prayed for permission to build a temple on the chabutra outside the mosque. His suit was dismissed on March 18, 1886.

However, in his order, the sub-judge, an Englishman, stated: “It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as the event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance.”

It is well-established by GPRS-directed excavations done under the Allahabad High Court monitoring and verification in 2002-03, that a large temple did exist below where Babri Masjid structure once stood. Inscriptions found during excavations describe it as a temple of Vishnu Hari who had killed the demon king Dasanan (Ravana).

The Sunni Waqf Board does not accept these findings. It does not however matter if all this was indeed so or not, since under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) it is prescribed that ‘Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both’.

That is, an offence under criminal law is committed if a body of persons hold something as sacred. It does not matter if the majority does or does not hold so. Nor can a court decide what is sacred and what is not. The offence under Section 295 IPC is cognisable and non-bailable, as well as non-compoundable. The fundamental question before us is: Can a temple and a masjid be considered on par as far as sacredness is concerned? Relying on two important court judgments that hold the field today, the answer is ‘no’. A masjid is not an essential part of Islam, according to a majority judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.

In the famous Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India case (reported in (1994) 6 SCC 376), the Supreme Court had observed: ‘It has been contended that a mosque enjoys a particular position in Muslim law and once a mosque is established and prayers are offered in such a mosque, the same remains for all time to come a property of Allah…and any person professing Islamic faith can offer prayer in such a mosque, and even if the structure is demolished, the place remains the same where namaz can be offered’. (para 80).

The Constitution Bench rebutted this contention. The Bench stated: ‘The correct position may be summarised thus. Under Mohammed law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession…A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India’. (para 82).

Thus what was wrong in the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 was that it was unauthorised by law and hence a criminal offence. Otherwise any government depriving the Muslims of the Babri Masjid is within law, if the government decides to do so in the interest of public order, public health and morality (Article 25 of the Constitution). This is the position in Islamic law as well since in Saudi Arabia the authorities demolish mosque to lay roads. Even the mosque where Islam’s Prophet Mohammed used to pray was demolished for a road to pass through!

When I was Union law and justice minister, the question of the status of a temple — even if in ruins or without worship — had come up before me in November 1990 in a case of a smuggled out bronze Nataraja statue which was up for sale in London.

The Government of India, when Rajiv Gandhi was PM, decided to file a case in the London trial court in 1986 for recovery. The Nataraja statue had by then been traced to a temple in ruins in Pathur, Thanjavur district. A farmer named Ramamoorthi had unearthed it in 1976 while digging mud with a spade near his hut.

When the news spread, touts of an antique dealer paid a small sum and smuggled it out to London, where in 1982 they sold it to Bumper Development Corporation Private Limited. The corporation sent it to the British Museum for possible purchase. By then the Government of India asked the UK government to take action.

The Nataraja idol was seized by London Metropolitan Police, and thus the corporation sued the police in court for recovery but lost the case. An appeal was filed in the Queens Bench which was dismissed on April 17, 1989. The Bumper Corporation went to the House of Lords. On February 13, 1991 when I was law minister, the judgment came dismissing Bumper’s final appeal (see (1991) 4 All ER 638).

The UK apex court upheld the Indian government’s position that because of the prana prathista puja a temple is owned by the deity, in this case Lord Shiva, and any Hindu can litigate on behalf of the deity as a de facto trustee. The Bench consisting of Justices Purchas, Nourse and Leggatt concluded: “We therefore hold that the temple is acceptable as party to these proceedings and that it is as such entitled to sue for the recovery of the Nataraja.” (page 648 para g).

Even if a temple is in ruins as the ASI had found, or destroyed as Ram temple was, any Hindu can sue on behalf of Lord Rama in court for recovery! No such ruling exists for a mosque. That is, the Ram temple on Ramjanmabhoomi has a superior claim to the site than any mosque. This the fundamental truth in the Ayodhya dispute. This truth will apply to Kashi Vishvanath and Brindavan temple sites as well.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Movement - FAQ

Spread The Word

Please also read THE indisputable evidence of Shri Ram Mandir at Ayodhya

Jai Shri Ram!

1. What is the significance of Ayodhya the city?

Ayodhya is situated on the banks of the Saryu river in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India. The Brahamanda Purana dentifies Ayodhya as the premier amongst the six holy cities for the Hindus. The other five are Mathura, Haridwar, Kashi, Kanchi, and Ujjain. These holy cities are places of pilgrimage from where the Hindus seek inspiration of their great civilisation and culture. Visits to these places also assure them of Moksha or Nirvana.

2. Was Shri Ram a person or a mythical figure?

According to the Hindu tradition, Shri Ram is the seventh avtaar (incarnation) of Lord Vishnu. He was born to King Dashratha of Ayodhya to deal with the setting of adharma (unrighteousness) in the trethta Yug, the second of the four Yugas. Hence he is not a mythical figure. In every nook and corner of India there is a unique citation of Shri Ram having visited their place.

The belief in Shri Ram as a person has an antiquity of more than 3000 years, and this tradition is a continuous one. Shri Ram is accepted as a maryada purushottam all over the country, and also wherever Hindu civilisation had spread, as in Indonesia. Many of the incidents that have been mentioned in the Ramayana are being established on the basis of archaeology, attesting to the historicity of the various events that live today in the traditions relating to Shri Rama.

3. Why is Shri Ram called a Maryada Purushottam?

As a person, Shri Ram personifies the characteristics of an ideal person who is to be emulated. He had within him all the desirable virtues that any individual would seek to aspire. For example, he gave up his rightful claim to the throne, and agreed to go into exile (vanvas) for fourteen years, to fulfil the vow that his father had given to Kaikeyi, one of King Dashratha’s wives. This is in spite of the fact that Kaikeyi’s son, Bharat, begged him to return back to Ayodhya and said that he did not want to rule in place of Shri Rama. But Shri Ram considered his dharma as a son above that of his own birthright and his life’s ambition. For such supreme sacrifices, and many other qualities, Shri Ram is considered a maryada purushottam.

4. How long is the antiquity of the belief in Shri Ram prevalent?

Archaeology has established that the antiquity of the belief in Shri Ram to be more than 3000 years, and that too on a continuous basis. However, the Hindu literature places the date back even further. Even the later figure would make the belief to be based on history, and not myth. The submerged city of Dwarka, which was recently discovered by a marine archaeological survey, has always existed in the collective consciousness of the Hindus. Many other events in different parts of the world have been accepted as facts on the basis of traditions (parampara) which are even younger than the belief in Shri Rama.
5. Is there any archaeological evidence to establish the antiquity of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site?

Yes. In 1975-80, the Archaeological Survey of India, under the leadership of Prof B B Lal, took up extensive excavations, in different parts of India, to establish the various sites mentioned in Ramayan. Similar excavations were undertaken in Ayodhya, including in two places around the Babri structure. The team was able to establish that the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site was occupied prior to 7th century BC.

6. Is there any proof of destruction of a mandir in honour of Shri Ram at Ayodhya in 1528 AD?

Yes. Muslim records attest to the fact of the destruction. European visitors, prior to the British rule, mention the fact of the destruction. Archaeological studies have found the existence of buildings prior to the construction of the Babri structure. Land revenue records, maintained by the British, have identified the site as Janmasthan. There is even legal judgement of 1886 that avers the fact that the structure was constructed on a site that was holy to Hindus.

In December 1990, the above facts, along with many others, were compiled by the VHP and presented to the Government of India. A copy was given to the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee, and was also published by the VHP. Neither the committee, nor the so-called secular historians have refuted the evidence.

7. How can one say that Babur destroyed a mandir in Ayodhya?

Destruction of the indigenous places of worship has been a norm for the Islamic invaders all over the world. India and the Hindus have not been an exception in experiencing these barbaric practices. It is, thereore, difficult to believe that Babur would have behaved any differently, as can be seen from his diary, Babur Nama.

Babur did not come to India merely to loot the wealth of our nation. He had a religious motivation too, as is the case with many other Islamic invaders. His motivation can be well judged by his actions and what he wrote in his diary called Babur Nama. He says:

“For Islam’s sake, I wandered in the wilds,
Prepared for war with Pagans and Hindus,
Resolved myself to meet the martyr’s death,
Thanks be to God! a Ghazi I became.”

Whether Babur himself supervised the destruction of the temple at Shri Ram Janmabhoomi is difficult to say, since the pages in question from his diary relating to his presence at Ayodhya have been lost.However, the pages that are available show that he was near Ayodhya just prior to the destruction of the temple, and that Ayodhya was planned for attack. The fact that the structure was named after Babur also points out to the role of this Islamic invader from outside, in the destruction of the temple in honour of Shri Ram in 1528 AD.

8. Was the Babri structure deliberately built over ruins of a temple in Ayodhya?

Yes. Construction of structures, either religious or secular, over sites vandalised by the invaders has been a standard practice of both Islam and Christianity all over the world. The Hindus have been no exception to this barbaric practice. The objective of the new structure is to show the conquered people that the invaders were the new masters, and hence the structure had nothing but a political message.To draw any other meaning clearly signifies that the programme of trampling of the sentiments of the indigenous people is sought to be continued. This is no way to have cordial relations between groups. In the English translation of the Persian diary of Babur Nama, Annete Beveridge mentions specifically the destruction of the temple. She says that Babur was impressed with the dignity and sanctity of the ancient Hindu shrine at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi. She also says that as an obedient follower of Mohammed, Babur regarded the substitution of the temple by a mosque as a dutiful and worthy action.

9. It is said that the act of destruction by Babur was not a religious one, but had a political motive. Please comment.

The act has to be interpreted in terms of the one who committed it. From what Babur has written about himself in his Babur Nama, it is clear that his intention was also to spread Islam. His actions after his victories also attest to this fact. It is true that he had a political mantle in terms of being a ruler. But in Islam most of the rulers also did take all actions to propagate their religion. This is something that has happened all over the world, and the treatment meted out in India to the Hindus is no exception.

If Babur was purely a political person, there would have been no need, one, to destroy a place of worship of the indigenous people and, two, to construct an alien place of worship and/or victory monument where such destruction took place. The fact that the Babri structure was built after destroying a temple in honour of Shri Ram establishes the religious nature of the act.

Whether it is destroyed for a religious reason or for a political one, the Babri structure, supposed to be a Muslim place of worship, would still be termed as a monument of the slavery and subjugation of the Hindus. Also, since it was built after destroying Shri Rama’s temple, the recovery of the site is still justified. The Hindus are not asking for the return of the thousands of the vandalised sites, but only three that are the most important to them in their tradition .

10. What was the significance of Ram Chabootar and Sita-ki-Rasoi?

These were built during the time of Akbar, that is within fifty years of the destruction of the temple in honour of Shri Ram in 1528 AD. The Sita-ki-Rasoi was built at the original site. The Ram Chabootar was built slightly away from where the garbha griha (sanctum sanctorum) existed. Hindus accepted this as a second best option, because they did not want to give up their claim of the site, and wanted to establish their right by their presence there. This is a clear indication of the attachment of the Hindus demonstrated to the place where Shri Ram was born. Akbar’s acceptance of the demand also indicates that he respected the Hindu sentiments for the site

Throughout the existence of the Ram Chabootar, continuous worship of Shri Ram took place. There are numerous accounts of Ram Navami (Shri Rama’s birthday) being celebrated from 1700 onwards.

11. If the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site is so important, why was it not recovered earlier?

Tens of thousands of people sacrificed their lives in defending the temple at Shri Ram Janmabhoomi. Further, right from the time of the destruction of the temple at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi in 1528 AD, the efforts to recover the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site has been a continuous one. In spite of a relatively strong Islamic rule in the area, Hindu kings used every opportunity to liberate the site. Prior to 1947, there have been a total of 77 recorded attempts to wrest the control of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi from the clutches of Islam.
The insistence of construction of the Ram Chabootar and Sita ki Rasoi, within the precincts of the Babri structure, was with the intention of establishing the Hindu claim to the site. At the Ram Chabootar, prayers of Shri Ram were conducted on a continuous basis. Ram Navami was always celebrated at the site, even during the time of Islamic rule.

12. Is there an archaeological evidence to establish the destruction of a temple in 1528 AD?

Yes. In the period 1975-80, an archaeological study was done of the various places mentioned in the Ramayan, and two pits were dug near the Babri structure. This led to the discovery of bases of pillars of the destroyed temple. These were aligned in the same direction as the fourteen Kasauti-stone pillars that were used in the structure. These pillars in the Babri structure had distinctive Hindu carvings of the 12th century period. They were used, as in many other similar situations, to establish that the Babri structure was built after destroying a temple, as was done in many other cases of similar vandalism. This was a standard Islamic practice carried out all over the world.

In addition, artefacts of the time of the destruction of the mandir in 1528 were also recovered. Since the bases of the pillars were aligned in the same direction as the pillars in the Babri structure, it clearly shows that the two are linked with each other.

At the time of the destruction of the Babri structure, various other archaeological artefacts of the temple were discovered. One of the most important one was a 1.10×0.56 meter slab consisting of a 20 engraved lines in Nagari script. These lines mention of an existence of a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari at the site.

13. During the time of Islamic rule, were there any attempts to peaceful recover the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site?

During the time of Islamic rule, a peaceful return of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site to the Hindus would have defeated the very purpose of constructing the Babri structure. This purpose was to provide a visual reminder to the Hindus that Islam ruled even over their holy sites, and that Hindus were now slaves.

However, Hindus insisted on having at least a symbolic presence at the site. The permission to construct the Ram Chabootar and Sita-ki-Rasoi next to the Babri structure was a recognition of the Hindu sentiment of attachment to the site. Such a permission could only be done by a person who wanted to be benign, namely Akbar. For the Hindus, it was only a second best option. It was accepted only to establish their rightful claim for a future return of the site.

One should not forget the fact that temples were destroyed not only during the time of Babur. The record of Aurnagzeb in this respect was particularly atrocious. Hence, to try for a full return of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site would have been futile.

14. During the time of British rule, were there attempts at peaceful recovery of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site?

Yes. Even though the Hindus were still not their own masters, at least an option of seeking the return through the judiciary process was available to them. This was taken up and a case was filed in 1885.

The essential section of the judgement that was delivered in 1886 reads as follows: “It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as the event occurred 356 years ago it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the status quo. In such a case as the present one any innovation could cause more harm and derangement of order than benefit.”

A proper reading of the above judgement would clearly indicate that the Hindus have proved their right over the site. The second part of the judgement indicates that the British did not feel it necessary to be overly concerned about the Hindu sentiments since they were not their own masters. The harm that would be caused was to the colonial masters, and not to the Hindus

15. Were there attempts at a peaceful recovery of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site in the post-independence period?

Yes. Since the judiciary option was now available once again, cases were filed in the courts for recovery of the site. After December 1949, when the idols of Shri Ram appeared in the Babri structure, the courts permitted continuous puja of the Hindus within the structure. The Courts also declined the removal of the idols and prohibited Muslims within 200 feet of the idols. In February 1986, it was on court orders that the locks at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi were removed, giving full access to the Hindus to worship Shri Ram lalla.

In addition, the VHP participated in various discussions, organised by the Government of India, during the reign of three Prime Ministers – Shri V P Singh, Shri Chandrashekar, and Shri Narsimha Rao. The most organised and well-documented effort of the three was one at the time Shri Chandrashekar was the Prime Minister. In each case, the discussions were frustrated because the prime ministers refused to proceed further, knowing that it will go against their programme of vote-bank politics. They would have had to stand up not only to an obscurantist Muslim leadership, but also to those politicians and intellectuals who like to wear the badge of secularism on their sleeves.

One would have thought that monuments of slavery would have no place in public life. However, the practice of secularism in this country, which meant that Hindu sentiments are not to be considered, prevented the logical thing from happening.

16. Has the evidence to establish the destruction of the Shri Ram mandir in 1528 AD been presented to the Government of India?

In December 1990, when the Chandrashekar government organised the meetings to discuss the history of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site, VHP gave written submissions, with sufficient supporting material to establish the authenticity. The VHP has, in its own, published the evidence, and many people have written about it. Thus, the documents are available for study by the general public.

These submissions covered all the aspects relating to literary, historical, revenue, judicial and archaeological records. All these had clearly proved the stand of the Hindus that a temple in honour of Shri Ram and was deliberately destroyed in 1528 AD with an objective of constructing the Babri structure in its place.

The government did acknowledge the receipt of this information. The relevant minutes of the time read as follows: “The VHP submitted the rejoinder in which it tried to refute claims of the AIBMAC point wise. The AIBMAC did not react to the evidences put forward by the VHP. Instead it submitted photo-copies of more evidences in support of its claims. Since the AIBMAC did not give comments on the evidences put forward by the VHP, it is not possible for the government to decide the areas of agreement and disagreement.”

The Narsimha Rao government had formed a cell under Shri Naresh Chandra called the Ayodhya Cell. This was to evaluate the evidence already submitted. The deliberations of the cell is not publicly known. Given the practice of secularism in our country, it would be safe to say that this cell probably came to the conclusion that the historical case of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site is fully in favour of the Hindus.

17. Is the demand for the return of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site to the Hindus a forerunner to demand for the return of the thousands of vandalised temple sites?

No. The demand is for the return of only three of the holiest of the holy sites and not the rest of the thousands of the vandalised sites. This has been clearly stated by the VHP as far back as January 1991. In its written submission to the government, VHP said: “We do not even demand the return of the thousands of places of worship that have been forcibly replaced with mosques…We merely want three places back, three age-old sacred places. And we would prefer getting them back from the Muslim community, to getting them back by an official decree…..Muslims should understand what kind of message they are sending by insisting on continuing the occupation of our sacred places, an occupation started by fanatics and mass-murders like Babar and Aurangzeb. We do not like to think of our Muslim compatriots as heirs and followers of such invaders and tyrants. It is up to them to make a gesture that will signify a formal break with this painful past.”

Ten years ago VHP had made this unequivocal statement about its position on the return of only the three sites. In asking for the return of only three sites, which have a special significance to the Hindus, it is clear that they are not seeking revenge.

18. Could the Babri structure have been moved from the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site and built somewhere else?

A long time ago this was an option that was offered to the Muslim community. It was done with an intention of showing the essence of Hindu tolerance and generosity in arriving at a negotiated solution. This is a clear indication that the Hindus had no intention of seeking revenge on the Muslims. It is unfortunate that the Muslim leadership rejected this offer.

19. Is there a need of a temple to pray for Shri Ram at the Janmabhoomi?

What is sought to be constructed is not merely just another temple for Shri Rama, but a temple where he was born, that is the Janmabhoomi. At such sites there cannot be any other structure other than the one that honours the person born there. This is particularly important when we consider that Shri Ram is a maryada purushottam, and a very important symbol of our cultural heritage. The temple will be a reminder of the glory of our civilisation, and a beacon to the future.

20. What is the basic ethos of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement?

The basic ethos of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement is to rejuvenate the Hindu samaj and culture, and not just an issue of bricks and mortar. This has been very well expressed by Vidiadhar S Naipaul, when he said: “What is happening in India is a new historical awakening….Indian intellectuals, who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going on. But every other Indian knows precisely what is happening: deep down he knows that a larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening.”

Given the response received from the masses in India and other places in the world for the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement, Shri Ram is clearly at the heart of our civilisation and a major unifying force. There is no section, nor any region, of the Hindu samaj that does not exhibit a deep attachment to Shri Rama. This empathy is also strongly exhibited not only in other lands where Hindus have settled, but also where the indigenous people accepted the Hindu culture, as in Indonesia.

21. What is the rationale of the people who make a case that there was no destruction of a temple at Ayodhya?

The rationale keeps varying as per the needs of the situation. It seems that the ultimate objective is to create and maintain a level of confusion.

First, the historicity of Shri Ram is denied. When that is accepted, the concept of maryada purushottam as applicable to Shri Ram is denied. In effect, it is said that he was an ordinary person, without attributing any special importance to him. When that is accepted, it is denied that he was born in Ayodhya. When that is accepted, it is denied that the Ayodhya where he was born is not where the present day Ayodhya is. When that is accepted, it is denied he was born at the spot where the Hindus have a continuous tradition of more than 3000 years. And so on.

In essence, the strategy is one of negation of the site of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi. A further element of this strategy is to negate that a discussion took place at the time of the Prime Ministership of Chandrashekar, where the VHP gave the totality of evidence to establish that a temple was destroyed in 1528 and the Babri structure was erected in its place. The media has kept under wraps the various attempts made for a negotiated solution, because they would then have to also mention that these efforts were frustrated by those opposed to the construction of the temple.

22. Is the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi a political movement?

No. For the Hindus, a temple at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi is not an issue of mere bricks and mortar.It is an issue of our cultural resurgence and identity, where Shri Rama, as maryada purushottam, has a prime place of importance. The movement is an expression of the collective consciousness of the Hindu ethos which was also articulated by Shri K M Munshi in case of the Mandir at Somnath: “The Hindu sentiment in regard to this temple is both strong and widespread. In the present conditions, it is unlikely that, that sentiment will be satisfied by mere restoration of the temple or by prolonging its life. The restoration of the idol would be a point of honour and sentiment with the Hindu public.” Hence, for the Hindus Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement is not political.

The ones who are politicising the issue are the ones who are negating this importance of Shri Rama. By giving the Babri structure a significance other than that of monument of slavery, the issue becomes politicised. Not accepting a legitimate claim of the Hindus on their holy sites is what causes politicisation.

23. The then Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, has recently said that the construction of a temple at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi is an expression of the national sentiment. Please comment.

What Atalji has said reflects what the Hindu samaj, all over the world, has been saying for many years. The Hindus have deep attachment to the site where Shri Ram was born, and the Babri structure was a monument of thier slavery. No self-respecting independent nation, which seeks to regain its past glory, can tolerate such a structure on its land. Moreover, when he spoke in the Parliament in his strong defence of the events leading up to the December 6, 1992, he exhibited the same sentiments. What Atalji has said recently is what he has said in the past.

24. Is it necessary to correct a wrong done in medieval times, when vandalising the holy sites of the conquered people was a norm?

Correcting a medieval wrong cannot necessarily be considered wrong. The people of India fought for their independence, often being forced to resort to violence, to get rid of the foreign rulers who were entrenched for two centuries. If this wrong was not to be corrected, then we should not have initiated and fought for our country’s independence.

The manner in which the medieval wrong is sought to be corrected is also important. Hindus have not followed the example of Christians in Spain, when in the 16th century they drove out the Moors who had conquered the country some 400 years earlier. The Moors had forcibly Islamised Spain in the process of their conquest. The Christians, also by force, re-Christianised Spain when the Moors were defeated.

The Hindus, whenever they defeated the Islamic rulers in India, took a benign stand towards those who had converted to Islam, either by force or inducements. Shivaji and the Marathas stand out as a shining example of this tolerance of the Hindus.

In case of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi, Hindus have made serious attempts to get the site back peacefully – through negotiations and the judiciary. These attempts were frustrated for no fault of the Hindus.

Finally, if the barbaric behaviour during the medieval period was a norm of the time, correcting the medieval wrongs becomes even more important. This is the best way to tell the future generations that such behaviour is not accepted and should not be repeated.

25. Does the destruction of the Babri structure not mean that the concept that ‘two wrongs make a right’ is accepted?

The concept of ‘two wrongs’ is applicable only when the wrongs are not related. For example, in reaction to the destruction of a Hindu religious place, if a Muslim religious place at another site was destroyed, the concept of ‘two wrongs’ is applicable. Similarly, if a wrong was corrected in an uncivilised manner, then the concept is applicable. The peaceful attempts of Hindus to recover the three holy sites of Ram Janmabhoomi, Krishna Janmabhoomi and Kashi Vishwanath clearly establishes that either of these criteria does not apply in the case in question.

In 1528 AD an existing temple in honour of Shri Ram was destroyed. What is, therefore, sought to be done is to undo a historical wrong, one which has caused deep hurt to the Hindu sentiments. In the true spirit of Hindu dharma, efforts were first made to find a negotiated solution. It was also clearly stated that the Hindus are asking for the return of only three holy sites, and not the thousands that have been vandalised or destroyed. It is only because the efforts were frustrated, for no fault of the Hindus, that the events of December 6, 1992, took place.

If this is considered to be wrong, then we have to consider that it was wrong on part of Shri Krishna to advise Arjun to fight a just fight, even if it means that he has to kill not only his cousins, the Kauravas, but also his elders, teachers, and others who took care of him during his childhood.

26. In destroying the Babri structure, does it not mean that the present day Muslims are being asked to pay a price for the mistakes of those who indulged in vandalism and destruction?

The real issue is how the present day Muslims view the Babri structure. Do they consider it as their holy place? If the answer is yes, then they end up owning the barbarism of Babur and others like him. The right way for Muslims to act is to distance themselves away from such vandalism of the past. When the Germans are asked to apologise for the crimes of Hitler, they do not hesitate to do so, clearly indicating that they do not own Nazism.

Hindus have asked for a peaceful return, through judiciary and negotiations, of only three of their holy sites that were vandalised. Hindus are not asking for the thousand other sites that have received similar treatment. Hindus are not asking for any sort of compensation or restitution. Having established that the Hindus are not seeking revenge, there is no question of the present day Muslims being asked to pay a price for the mistakes of those who indulged in vandalism.

27. Has the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement disturbed the communal atmosphere in the country?

The disturbance of the communal atmosphere in our country has a long and unhappy history, which has nothing to do with the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement. In case of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement, the problem is blown up because the Muslims are told that the Babri structure is their religious place. They are not told the truth of the history of the site. They do not recognise that the monument was a political one, and that it was a symbol of the slavery of the Hindus. This programme of misleading the Muslims is not only confined to their obscurantist leadership but also to those who authenticate this leadership. The latter try to project themselves as protectors and benefactors of the Muslims, while in truth all that they are interested in is to keep them in a continual state of disenchantment. The cause for the communal atmosphere in the country being disturbed has to be correctly identified, if the problem is to be solved.

28. Why are those who oppose the construction of the mandir at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site called “Babur ke aulad” (descendants of Babur)?

One has to first determine how one views the Babri structure. Some of those opposed to the construction of the mandir at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi say that the Babri structure was a place of worship for the Muslims. Some others argue that it was a monument of our secular tradition. Any interpretation of the Babri structure, other than that it was a monument of our slavery, would clearly indicate that the Hindus are being asked to persist with the feeling of humiliation that Babur wanted to inflict on them, as conquered people.

The Babri structure was built after destroying a temple in honour of Shri Rama. Thus those who oppose the restoration of the temple wish to hold the memory of Babur, an invader from a foreign land, and one who caused much devastation, over that of Shri Rama, the maryada purushottam. It is in this sense that the opponents of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi are called “Babur ke aulad”.

29. Would the construction of a temple in honour of Shri Ram create a confrontation with the government in power?

The merit of the demand for the construction of a temple in honour of Shri Ram is the one that has to be decided first. The justification for the construction has been made on the basis of historical, literary, legal, revenue and archaeological records. This has been presented to all the sections of the society, including the Government of India and those opposed to the construction of the temple. Time and again, the Hindus have made sincere efforts to find a negotiated solution. These were frustrated for no fault of the Hindus. All the relevant information is in public domain.

Therefore, under the circumstances, and given the just merit of the demand for the construction, we do not see any reason why there should be any kind of confrontation with any party. The people who are seeking a confrontation are those who do not wish to recognise the strong sentiments of the Hindus for their holy sites. Hence, the fault will not lie with the Hindus in this case too.

30. If the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple were rebuilt, would this not create a chain reaction in destroying the Hindu temples in other parts of the world?

Hindu temples in Pakistan, Bangladesh and even India have been destroyed prior to the coming of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement at the centre stage. The novel, Lajja, describes the atrocities against the Hindus in Bangladesh right from the time of independence. In 1986 in Kashmir, many Hindu temples were attacked, and some destroyed, during the initial stages of terrorism in the state.

Where the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement is concerned, what should be considered is whether the Hindus have a legitimate claim on the site. Since the legitimacy has been established, it becomes incumbent not only for the Hindus to explain their position, but also for the others to view it in the same perspective. It should also be stated that Hindus have made sincere efforts to resolve the issue through negotiations, and these efforts were frustrated at the altar of vote-bank politics.

31. What will be the reaction of the Islamic oil producing countries if the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple is rebuilt?

The issue is whether the Hindus have a legitimate claim on the site or not. It is necessary for the society as a whole, and not only the Hindus, to undertake this exercise of explaining to the whole world about the case. Given the righteousness of the position of the Hindus, there is really no reason to expect an adverse reaction from any part of the world.

32. Will the reconstruction of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple in any way affect the position of India vis-à-vis Kashmir?

These two issues have no link with each other. The problem of Kashmir is the result of the two-nation theory on the basis of which our country was divided. It, therefore, predates the coming of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement to the centre stage.

The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement is not one against the Muslims of the country but one which seeks for a rejuvenated Hinduism, which tradition belongs to all the citizens of India. The ancestors of the Muslims who were converted by force or inducement worshiped Shri Ram with as much fervour as those who did not convert.

33. Are Hindu organisations called fundamentalists in the crude sense? Will not the reconstruction of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple make this charge valid?

The charge of fundamentalist in the crude sense has a political agenda behind it, and is not based on truth. Given its ethos of tolerance and other norms, Hindus can never be charged with being fundamentalist. The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement is one to rejuvenate Hindu culture, and is not directed against anyone. So, just as the present charge against any Hindu organisations of being fundamentalist is wrong, so any effort to colour them with the same charge on the basis of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi will be equally wrong.

34. Are we not destroying the secular fabric of our country by undertaking the programme to reconstruct the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple?

No. The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement is not targeted against any segment of the society. Its objective is to revitalise the Hindu samaj and look at the glorious past to give a beacon for what can be achieved in the future. Being pro-Hindu does not mean that one is anti anyone else.

However, it is a practice of secularism in India that the history of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site is hidden from the people at large, and Muslims in particular. In this practice the ones who are getting appeased are the obscurantist leadership of the Muslim community, in the game of vote-bank politics.This practice has a history prior to the coming of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement at the centre stage. To repair the secular fabric of the nation, one has to understand the problem in its right perspective.

35. In destroying the Babri structure does it not go against the essence of tolerance in Hinduism?

No. First, the site belongs to the Hindus. Second, the Babri structure that stood there cannot be considered to be a place of worship. It was a political monument to remind the Hindus that they were slaves. Third, Hindus have made many sincere efforts to find a peaceful solution to the problem,through negotiations. Finally, since independence it is functioning as a temple. What happened on December 6, 1992, was an expression of the Hindu frustration at being denied what legitimately belongs to them.

Furthermore, in answering this question, one has also to look at what tolerance really means. It means that one accepts that another has a way of moksha or salvation which is unique to him. It does not mean that if someone tries to harm a person, the latter should meekly submit. That would be cowardice.

36. If the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple were rebuilt, what would be the position of Hindus in countries where Muslims are in large majority?

Hindu have always lived in peace with their neighbours, irrespective of whether they were in majority or minority. Throughout the history, Hindus have not created problems in any country in the world where they reside. In Indonesia, the Hindus of Bali have never asked for independence or any special privileges, as the Christians of East Timor have done.
Given the righteousness of the Hindu case for the return of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi, there is no reason why Hindus should be persecuted in other countries where they are in minority. Where they are persecuted, like in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the reasons have nothing to do with the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement. The persecution has existed prior to the coming of the movement to the centre stage.

37. Would the reconstruction of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple make the Christians in India insecure?

No. It should be noted that as far back as January 1991 the VHP had given a written submission asking for the return of only three of their holy sites which have been vandalised. They are not asking for the return of the thousands of similarly vandalised sites, either in the name of Islam or Christianity. For example, in Goa, many temples were destroyed and churches have been built on them. The Hindus have never asked for the return of these sites. Hence, there is no reason why Christians should feel insecure because of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement.

38. It is said that Islam does not sanction breaking of temples. Please comment.

The answer to this issue has to be determined on the basis of what the Muslim clergy has to say. Even a cursory reading of the history of 1400 years of Islam clearly indicate a pattern of destruction of holy sites and denigration of the culture of the conquered people. This has happened wherever Islam has gone by force. In Mecca, Mohammad himself ordered the wholesale destruction of idols except one – the well known Black Stone of Kaabah. He rejected the goddesses the Arabs worshipped. The Prophet declared that true belief demands iklas, the giving of one’s whole and unmixed allegiance to God, and its opposite is shirk, the ascribing of partners to God and the worship of any creature.

One has also to see the way the destroyers of the temple viewed their action. Sir Vidiadhar Naipaul has put it most appropriately when he says: “The Muslim view of their conquest of India is a truer one. They speak of the triumph of the faith, the destruction of idols and temples, the loot, the carting away of the local people as slaves.”

f it is to be accepted that Islam truly does not sanction destruction of temples, then that is more the reason for NOT considering the Babri structure as a place of worship. This reinforces the argument that it was a political monument.

39. Can one make a comparison between Shri Ram Janmabhoomi and Somnath?

Yes. In both the cases, the temples were deliberately destroyed in the name of Islam. In both the cases, the destruction was carried out by the invading forces who came from outside the country,Hindus made enormous personal sacrifices in protecting their sacred monuments, Hindus demonstrated great attachment not only to the temples but also to the site, and Hindus made continuous efforts for recovery of the site even when Islam ruled the areas. Such similarities abound.

Perhaps the only difference can find is that in case of Somnath, no religious place was built over the ruins of the vandalised temple. However, next to the ruins of the ancient Hindu place of worship, a small mosque was built within the temple precincts. Even this small structure was built not with any religious objective, but to give the same political message as in the case of the Babri structure at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi – namely that Hindus were now slaves of Islam. After all, if there was a need for the Muslims for a place of worship, it could have been built some distance away.

40. Have vandalised sites in other parts of the world sought to be recovered?

Yes. Around the 12th century, Spain was conquered by the Moors and the people were forcibly converted from Christianity to Islam. In the 16th century, the Christians recovered the whole of Spain from the Moors. The Muslims in the country were given three choices – reconvert to Christianity, leave the country along with the Moors, or be killed. All the Muslim places of worship were converted back to Christian churches. This re-Christianisation was also done with force.

In Warsaw, at the end of the first Russian occupation of Poland (1614-1915), one of the first things that the Polish people did was to bring down the Russian Orthodox Christian Cathedral that was built by the occupiers in the centre of the town. This was done despite the fact that Christ, whom the Poles worshipped, was being honoured in the destroyed Cathedral. The Poles took this action because they considered the cathedral not to be a religious monument, but a political one.

Recovery of vandalised sites, particular where political monuments were erected, is a common feature for a newly independent state.

41. How will the reconstruction of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple affect the election fortunes of the BJP?

The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement is not an issue related to electoral politics. It should be viewed on its own merit, and not on the basis of political fallout, favouring the BJP, or any other party. Unfortunately, the movement has come into the realm of electoral politics due to those who oppose the construction of the temple. This has happened at the altar of vote-bank politics.

Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee has rightly said that the construction of a temple at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi is part of our national sentiments. Hence, the programme of construction should be part of the agenda of all political parties, and not only the BJP. In this way, the movement will be kept out of the political arena.

42. Why could you not build a temple adjacent to the Babri structure, similar to the case of Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura and Kashi Vishwanath in Varnasi?

The Hindus accepted to offer worship at the Ram Chabootar as a second best option. The temples at Mathura and Varanasi have a similar significance. They were built at the time when Hindus were not their own masters. In all the three cases, the intention of the Hindus was to re-establish their claim to the sites, because of their cultural attachment to these locations.
Where the sites in question have a special holy significance for Hindus, they should not be asked to keep on being contented with the second-best option. The manner of offering of prayers at these sites being unsatisfactory, the ill will against Islam is perpetuated. The structures by the invaders at the above three sites keep on reinforcing this feeling, since their only objective have always been one of making political statements rather than being places of worship. The return of these three sites to the Hindus will go a long way towards improving religious harmony.

43. Instead of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement are there no other important issues to be tackled by the society?

Society always deals with many issues of varying importance at any one time. An effort to tackle the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi issue does not mean that the effort to educate the masses, for example, is kept in the background.

Also, this question has validity only if it is contended that it is because of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement that the country’s economic and social progress has been held back. The movement came to the centre stage only in the mid-80s. All the data show that that up to this time the country was in a poor state as measured by any parameter. The data also show that since then the country has progressed forward, at accelerated pace. Thus it is clear indication that even while the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement has come to the centre stage, the people of this country did not ignore the other issues.

44. Why not build something other then a temple at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi, say a library? Will this not lead towards a better communal harmony?

The site at Ayodhya is important for the Hindus all over the world, since that is where they believe that Shri Ram was born – a belief that has a continuous tradition of more than 3000 years. For the Hindus,the issue is not one of mere bricks and mortar, but to rejuvenate a pride in our culture and civilisation. In addition, the Hindus have made numerous efforts of getting back the site in a peaceful manner.

A Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple can only be built at the Janmabhoomi, and nowhere else. A library, or any other similar structure, can be built anywhere else, even next to the temple. In the Hindu tradition,places of worship have co-existed with places of learning.

The reasons for having communal disharmony has an unfortunate history going back to prior to the coming of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement to the centre stage. The cause for the disharmony has nothing to do with the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Communal harmony can be improved by addressing the real causes of the problem, and not by constructing a library, or any other similar structure, at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi.

45. Was the Babri structure used as a Muslim place of worship in recent years?

Records show that since the mid-1930s, Muslims stopped offering namaz at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site. At the same time, Hindu worship at Ram Chabootar and Sita-ki-Rasoi, which existed within the Babri structure compound, has been continuously going on from the late 16th century. Since December 1949, Hindus started to offer pujas to Ram Lalla (infant Shri Rama) within the structure. This worship at the spot continues even to this day, with the full sanction of the judiciary. In effect it became a functioning temple. What is now sought to be done is to undertake a renovation programme (Jeernoddhar) to fully reflect the glory of the maryada purushottam.

When the then Prime Minister, Shri V P Singh, in July 1990, was attempting to have a negotiated solution, he said to the leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh: “Arey Bhai, Masjid hai hi kahan? Where is the mosque, my friends, when namaz is not being performed? When for forty years idol worship is going on there, what kind of a mosque is it? That is just the temple of our dear Ram.”

As the home minister during the prime ministership of Shri P V Narsimha Rao, Shri Shankarao Chavan visited the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site. He offered prayers to Ram Lalla and received his blessings.After these ceremonies, he expressed his intention to see the mosque built in honour of Babur. When he was told that he is already standing in the structure he expressed complete surprise.

46. Why do we need to have a grand temple at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi, in place of the existing functional temple?

The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement is not one of bricks and mortar, but as one that will restore the honour of the nation and its culture. People take great pride in, and receive inspiration from,temples which signify their glorious past. This can be done only when we have a proper and full-fledged temple at the site.

Swami Vivekanand said: “Your forefathers underwent everything boldly, even death itself, but preserved their religion. Temple after temple was broken down by the foreign conqueror, but no sooner had the wave passed than the spire of the temple rose up again. Some of these old temples of Southern India, and those like Somnath of Gujarat, will teach you volumes of wisdom, will give you keener insight into the history of the race than any amounts of books. Mark how these temples bear the marks of a hundred attacks and a hundred regenerations, continually destroyed and continually springing up out of the ruins, rejuvenated and strong as ever! That is the national mind, that is the national life-current. Follow it and it leads to glory. Give it up and you die; death will be the only result, annihilation the only effect, the moment you step beyond the life-current.”

47. Since some of the Dharmagurus are not willing to be associated with the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, how can it be said that the movement is of the Hindu samaj?

The Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, a trust set up by the Dharmagurus, will undertake the construction of the temple. Many Dharmagurus took the lead taken in setting up of the Nyas, and the president is Mahant Parmahans Ramchandradas of Ayodhya. Those Dharmagurus, who are not with the Nyas, alsowish to see a temple being built at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi. This is because they accept that the site is holy to the Hindus and that the Babri structure that stood there was a monument of our slavery. On this core issue, there is unanimity amongst the Dharmagurus.

One has, therefore, to understand what exactly is the objection of some of the Dharmagurus. Some say that the VHP should not undertake the construction. Some say that the architecture of the temple as proposed is not the correct one.

The construction project is the responsibility of the Hindu samaj, and not just the Nyas. What the VHP has undertaken to do is to take the programme that is chalked out by the Nyas to the Hindu samaj, not only in India but also in all parts of the world. Each and every programme that has been taken up by the Hindu samaj within the context of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi, like the Sant Yatra, Shri Ram Jyoti yatra, Shri Ram shila pujan, Shri Ram paduka pujan, Kar Seva, etc., have been the ones that were decided upon by the Dharmagurus at various Dharma Sansads.

At the time of the Mahakumbh Mela at Prayag in January 2001, the ninth Dharam Sansad was held, where one of the points for discussions was set the date to being the construction of a temple at Shri Ram Janmabhoomi. Initially the main Aakhadas decided not to take part in the Sansad. However, when the resolution to set the date for the construction of the temple was moved, representatives of most of these Akhadas were present. This clearly shows that there is very large consensus in the Hindu samaj to the plans of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.
The construction of the mandir at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi is the task of the whole Hindu samaj, and not merely of the Nyas. The Dharmagurus are the ones who have blessed the project. The Nyas welcomes the participation of all in the programme. The views which are expressed by any Dharmaguru who has expressed certain doubts about the programme of construction will be given due consideration, since they are all the protectors of the Hindu samaj. The Hindu samaj holds all the Dharmagurus in high esteem.

48. Are the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and the VHP trying to exclude some Dharmagurus from participating in the movement? In effect, are they trying to hijack the movement ?

For the Nyas and the VHP, the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement is the property of the complete Hindu samaj. Therefore, they whole-heartedly support the participation of all the Dharmagurus, as well as anyone who has respect for the Hindu civilisation and culture. A fuller participation of the samaj in the movement will make the achievement of the larger goal – namely a resurgent Hinduism – that much easier. Any attempt to hijack the movement, therefore, will defeat the primary objective of the construction of the temple at Shri Ram Janmabhoomi.

At the same time, it should be recognised that the fulfilment of the programmes decided upon by the Nyas – namely, the Sant Yatra, Shri Ram Jyoti yatra, Shri Ram shila pujan, Shri Ram paduka pujan, Kar Seva, etc. – have been implemented through the organisation structure of the VHP, and the supporting organisations, all over India and the world. At each of these programmes we have sought the participation of other Hindu organisations, and many of them have done so with enthusiasm. All that the VHP has done is to give a practical expression of the deep sentiments of the Hindus for the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site. They have not created these sentiments.

49. What has happened to the funds collected through the Shila pujan programme?

A sum of Rs 8.25 crores was collected during the Ram Shila pujan programme in 1989, and was deposited with several nationalised banks and in fixed deposits in public sector companies. A total of more than Rs 12 crores has been spent on the construction and the related activities. The current balance is around Rs 10 crores in the account of the Nyas.
The accounts of the Nyas are regularly submitted to the concerned government authority as per the provisions of the law. Hence, they are public documents, available for inspection by anyone.

50. Is it true that the foundation stone for the temple was laid by a harijan?

Yes. The Dharmagurus selected Shri Kameshwar Chaupal of Bihar to do the honour of laying the foundation stone on November 10, 1989. This was a deliberate act to show that the essential unity of Hinduism is blessed not only by the words of the Dharmagurus but also by their action. It is also a clear sign of the immense unifying power of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement.

51. What is the current status of construction?

The foundation stone of the temple was laid on November 10, 1989. Since then acquisition of a large area of land (67 acres) for the temple has been completed. Carving of the stones for the pillars and beams is going on at Ayodhya and three other places in Rajasthan. All the 106 pillars for the first floor have been completed. The carving for the beams and ceiling is in progress.

52. Has the date been announced for the construction of the temple? If so, what the plan for mass mobilisation?

At the Mahakumbh at Prayag, on January 20, 2001, the ninth Dharam Sansad have given a notice to all concerned to remove all obstacles to construct the temple at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi by March 12, 2002, the auspicious day of Mahashivrathri, after which the actual construction will commence. During this time, the carving of further pillars will proceed at the sites in Ayodhya and Rajasthan. By March 2002, sufficient preparatory work would be completed, and, once the erection activity at the site commences, it will proceed without interpretation.

The time will also be used to create a momentum within the Hindu samaj so that the sentiments for the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site will be clearly expressed. Various committees at the grass root level will be established. In the period September 18 to October 16, 2001, Jalabhishak programme will be conducted in more than 4,00,000 places all over the country. During the current year, the Suvarna Jayanti of the Pranpartishthapan (cosecration) of the jyotirling at the Somnath temple, which was reconstructed in a free India, will be celebrated. (The ancient temple here too was vandalised in the same manner as that at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi.) The Jalabhishak programme will be used to reaffirm the resolve to build a grand temple at the site of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi.

From November 26, 2001, on the auspicious day of Karthikshudda Ekadashi, the day after the end of the Chaturmas, till December 26, 2001, the day of Geeta Jayanti, a Ram namjap programme will be held all over the country. Each of these micro level programmes will be followed by a Ram yagna at the taluka level, with more than one in certain talukas.
The youths of this country will resolve themselves to the construction of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple. About 30 lakh youths will be enrolled as members of the Bajrang Dal and they will be trained to serve and protect the nation.

All the programmes will culminate with a Chetavani Sant Yatra which will commence on February 18, 2002, from Ayodhya and reach Delhi on February 25. More than 5000 sants will participate in this yatra.

Besides these main programmes, various Hindu organisations will undertake local level programmes to spread the message of the Dharam Sansad.

Written on December 5th, 2009 by adminno shouts
Summary of the evidence proving destruction of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple in 1528 AD
This Annexure gives the summary of the evidence provided by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in December 1990 to the government of India. This evidence was compiled in context of the discussions organised by the Chandrashekar government, and the moot point then was: Is there proof that an old and persistent tradition among Shri Ram devotees has considered the site as the sacred Shri Ram Janmabhoomi, and that Shri Ram worship ttok place there in a temple, before and until the Babri structure was built? It has also been published by the VHP, and many have written about the points made therein. The evidence establishes the vandalism at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site in 1528 AD.
The full evidence is available at the following websites: http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/rjm/index.php
As a response to a White Paper prepared by the Narsimha Rao government in February 1993, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) brought out its own document in April 1993. The section relating to the evidence of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple not only gives a summary of the evidence, but also includes comments made by the Government of India on the submissions made by the VHP. While the government comments have not been made public, the BJP’s White Paper is in the public domain. To the best of our knowledge the BJP’s reproduction of government notes have not been denied.
The relevant section is available at the following websites: http://www.hvk.org/ram/a8.php
The full White Paper of the BJP is available at the following websites: http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/index.php
The evidence provided by the VHP was divided into five parts. The first part dealt with the Hindu testimony. The city of Ayodhya has undeniably been a city of great antiquity and a sacred spot to the Hindus for a long time.

Valmiki’s Ramayana gives the location as on the bank of river Saryu, and describes its area, prosperity and glory. Many puranas attest the fact that Ayodhya is considered as one of the six holy cities, the other five being Mathura, Haridwar, Kashi, Kanchi and Ujjain. In all the Hindu scriptures, Ayodhya figures prominently and Shri Ram is referred to as an avatar of Vishnu.

Kalidasa, the greatest classical poet and dramatist, gives a narrative of Vishnu’s incarnation on earth as Shri Rama. There is not a single important poet or writer in classical Sanskrit literature who has not paid his best obeisance to Shri Ram in one form or another.
For the last two millennia, the tradition of veneration to Shri Ram has existed in the Hindu society in one form or another. The earliest known inscription to testify to this is found in the Nashik cave inscription dating back to 150 AD. The evolution of the tradition of Shri Ram worship at least from 300 AD is established by the early shrines surviving at ancient Ramgiri hills, 30 kms 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 Ramayan along the inner part of the compound wall.

The merits of a devote observing the vow on Ramnavami (the day Shri Ram was born) has been described in Ayodhya-Mahatmya in the following words: “A man who has seen the Janmasthana will not be born again even if he does not offer gifts, practise asceticism, goes on pilgrimages or make sacrifice-offerings. A man observing the vow world will be liberated from the bondages of rebirth on arrival of the Navami day because of the miraculous power of a bath and a gift. By seeing the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi he shall obtain the result that occurs to one who gives away a thousand red cows day after day.”

The second part dealt with the Muslim testimony. Numerous Muslim writers have written detailed accounts of the regional history of Awadh since the 17th century. Based on older authentic contemporary sources of various nature, they aver to the fact that the temple at the Ram Janmabhoomi was demolished and a mosque constructed in its place. Some of these writers were residents of Awadh. We give below five the twelve Muslim testimonies that were given as part of the evidence in December 1990.

In Safiha-i Chahal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, written during the late 17th and early 18th century by the daughter of Bahadur Shah Alamgir, it is stated as follows: “The places of worship of the Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh, etc., in which the Hindus have great faith – the place of the birthplace of Kanhaiya, the place of Rasoi Sita, the place of Hanuman, who, according to the Hindus, was seated by Ram Chandra over there after the conquest of Lanka – were all demolished for the strength of Islam, and at all these places mosques have been constructed.”

Mirza Jan, in Hadiqa-i-Shahada (1856), says, “The past Sultans encouraged the propagation and glorification of Islam and crushed the forces of the unbelievers, the Hindus. Similarly, Faizabad and Awadh were also purged of this mean practice of kufr. (Awadh) was a great worshipping centre and the capital of (the kingdom of) Rama’s father…. The temple of Janmasthan was the original birthplace of Ram, adjacent to which is Sita ki Rasoi….. Hence at that site, a lofty mosque has been built by Babar Badshah under the guidance of Musa Ashikan.”

The Urdu novelist Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur (1787-1867), in Fasana-i Ibrat, says, “During the reign of Babar Badshah, a magnificent mosque was constructed in Awadh at a place which is associated with Sita ki Rasoi. This was the Babri mosque.”

The Tarikh-i Awadh by Sheikh Mohammed Azmat Ali Kakorwai Nami (1869) states, “Awadh was the capital of the father of Laxman and Ram. There, under the guidance of Musa Ashikan, a magnificent Babri mosque was constructed at the site of the temple within the premises of Janmasthan.” In another book by the same title, but written by Alama Muhammad Najamulghani Khan Rampuri (1909), it is stated, “Babar built a magnificent mosque at the spot where the temple of Janmasthan of Ramchandra was situated at Ayodhya.”

In 1977, an English translation of Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein by Maulana Hakim Sayid Abdul Hai (d. 1923), was published by his son, Maulana Abdul Hasan Nadwi, alias Ali Mian. The book contains a chapter “The Mosques of Hindusthan”, giving at least six instances of construction of the mosques on the very sites of the Hindu temples demolished by the Muslim rulers during the 12th-17th centuries. As regards, the Babri structure, he writes, “This mosque was constructed by Babar at Ayodhya which the Hindus call the birthplace of Ram Chanderji.”

In the third part, European records were produced which attest to the holiness of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site and the destruction of a temple in 1528 AD. William finch, a European traveller (1608-11), confirms the existence of the ruins of Ramkot, the castle of Shri Rama, where Hindus believe he was born. Joseph Tieffenthaler, the Austrian Jesuit priest (1766-71), reports that Babur destroyed the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple and constructed a mosque using some of its pillars. He also wrote that Hindus refused to give up worship at the place, in spite of the Muslim efforts to prevent them. He noted the existence of the Ram Chabootra in the courtyard of the Babri structure, and celebration of Ram Navmi with great gatherings of people from all over India.

All the British official records have accepted the ancient Hindu belief of the holiness of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site and the destruction of a temple there. These records also mention that the Babri structure was built after the destruction, and many specifically mention the use of the pillars from the destroyed temple.

The Archaeological Survey of India (1934) identified all the holy sites of Ayodhya with reference to the ancient texts, numbered them and put up sign posts in stone to mark the sites. The Babri structure was identified as the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi and a signpost was embedded there saying: “Site no. 1: Janmabhoomi”.

The court verdict of 1886 has been discussed in details as answer to question number fourteen, and what is said in Babur Nama (from the English translation by Annette Beveridge) has been discussed in question numbers seven and eight. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica (1978, 15th edition, Vol 1) records that a mosque erected by Babur in 1528, on the site of an earlier temple, marks Shri Rama’s birthplace.

Hans Bakker, the Dutch scholar, in his comprehensive study entitled “Ayodhya” (1984) has categorically accepted that an old Vaishnava temple was situated on the holy spot where Hindus believe Shri Ram was born. Bakker also says that this Janmabhoomi temple was destroyed by Babur in 1528 AD and replaced with the Babri structure. Fourteen black-stone pillars from the temple were utilised by Mir Baqi in the construction of the mosque.
In the fourth part, the revenue records, Kot Ram Chandra, the residential headquarters of Shri Ram has been shown quite distinct from the city of Ayodhya. In the records, Janmasthan, a large complex serves as a land mark in Kot Ram Chandra.
In the final part, the evidence with respect to archaeological records is presented. In the period 1975-80, the Archaeological Survey of India undertook a project to study the various sites mentioned in the Ramayana. The combined evidence shows that there did exist a historical basis for the Ramayana. Excavations were also done at two places around the Babri structure. They established the existence of pillar bases outside the structure, which were aligned in the same direction as the pillars in the structure, and the distance between the bases outside and the pillars inside were the same. These excavations also showed that the site was occupied prior to 7th century BC, that is for nearly 3000 years. The pillars that were present in the Babri structure had distinctive Hindu features, establishing the existence of a temple prior to the construction of the Babri structure.

Two Hindu structures of importance that existed within the Babri structure were the Ram Chabootra and Sita-ki-Rasoi. The former was a small raised platform, with a canopy, where constant prayers for Lord Ram were being conducted. Joseph Tiffenthaler, the Austrian Jesuit priest, who stayed in Awadh in 1766-71 reported that the Hindus had constructed the Ram Chabootra in the Babri structure’s courtyard. He also reported that the Hindus practised their devotion at the Chabootra, and continued to celebrate Ram Navami with great gatherings of people from all over India. This clearly shows the importance of the site to the Hindus, and they were willing to take huge risks to establish their presence. Please also see the answer to question number ten.

The demolition of the Babri structure on December 6, 1992, brought to light a great deal of archaeological material from within the thick walls of the Babri structure. Besides sculptured panels and images, architectural components such as amalaka, sikharas, doorjambs, etc., it included three inscriptions on stone. The largest one, inscribed on a 1.10x.56 meter slab and consisting of 20 engraved lines, has been published by Professor Ajaya Mitra Shastri of Nagpur University in the Puratattva (a reputed scholarly journal of the Indian Archaeological Society), No. 23 (1992-93), pp. 35 ff. (Professor Shastri is a distinguished historian and a specialist in epigraphy and numismatics.) The relevant part of his paper reads its follows:
“The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a small portion in prose, and is engraved in the chaste and classical Nagari script of the eleventh-twelfth century AD. It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed on it. Line 15 of this inscription clearly tells us that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stone (sila-sam hati-grahais) and beautified with a golden spire (hiranya-kalasa-srisundaram) unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings (purvvuirapyakritam kritam nripatibhir) was constructed. This wonderful temple (aty-adhutam) was built in the temple-city (vibudh- alayni) of Ayodhya situated in the Saketamandala (district, line 17) showing that Ayodhya and Saketa were closely connected. Saketa being the district of which Ayodhya was a part. Line 19 describes god Vishnu as destroying king Bali (apparently in the Vamana manifestation) and the ten-headed personage (Dasanana i.e. Ravana).”