BABARI MASJID

Sushil Srivastava on the Babari Masjid

(Concluding Chapter (Extracts) from the Disputed Mosque,

A Historical Inquiry, Vistaar, New Delhi, 1991 Ramjanambhoomi issue. The conflict that arose in 1949 between the Hindus and Muslims over the possession of the mosque was shifted to the judicial arena for arbitration and the political, social and religious tensions that arose in Ayodhya and Faizabad were contained for a long time. But the declaration by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of its intention to liberate the birthplace of Shri Rama in Ayodhya, the birthplace of Shri Krishna in Mathura, and the Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi, again brought the question of the Babari Masjid and Ramjanambhoomi to the forefront of national issues. The VHP took the offensive, when several Hindus took an oath to fight for the liberation of the Ramjanambhoomi. In 1987, the Parishad announced that it would take over all the mosques that had been raised on the site of destroyed Hindu temples.

The VHP wants to undo the realities of history. It apparently seeks to efface from memory that period of history which, according to them, saw the oppression and humiliation of the Hindus.

The declarations of the Parishad and their logic naturally created an atmosphere of fear among Indian Muslims. They drew the conclusion that the occupation of the mosques in Ayodhya, Mathura and Benares would lead to the take-over of other mosques and would logically culminate in the occupation of their homes. In these circumstances, a very large section of Indian Muslims began questioning their decision to choose secular India rather than Islamic Pakistan. They were convinced that a 'Hindu nation' would have no place for non-Hindu people. R.E. Frykenberg believes that the idea of a Hindu nation is as old as the British empire.

The policy of the government in the early part of the nineteenth century was to consciously encourage the integration and mobilization of "Hindu' institutions - that is, all religious institutions which were not openly Muslim, Christian, Buddhist and Sikh - into a common identification as belonging to a single religion. This process of basing identity in religion merged with the new force of nationalism which demanded for its growth a democratic environment within the British empire. Democratic institutions based upon the principle of the "majority' naturally led to a coalescence of the idea of Hindu nationalism with Indian nationalism. A sense of fear naturally gripped the other religious groups, which were in the minority. This fear had at times found an outlet in activities that were termed, by the majority as 'anti-national'. Animosity between the majority and the minority religious communities grew in this atmosphere. Today, it has become focused on the Babari Masjid- Ramjanambhoomi issue.

The growing popularity of Shri Rama coincided with the growth in the activities of the Ramanandi sects. Abul Fazal, the chronicler of the Mughal emperor Akbar, accepted that Ayodhya was also known as the Ramjanambhoomi or the place of birth of Rama. However, till the seventeenth century, all activities and places associated with Shri Rama were limited to the banks of the river in Ayodhya. William Finch tells us about the bathing ghats but does not talk about temples situated in the city. He also relates some local myths - that Vishnu took human form in Ayodhya, about the ruins of the fort of Rama and the Swargaddwar. The last two places described by Finch were situated on the banks of the river. This naturally raises the issue of whether there were no places associated with Rama inside the city of Ayodhya known till the seventeenth century.

During the eighteenth century a struggle continued between the 'Shaiva' Sanyasis and Vaishnava Bairagis over the possession of religious places in Ayodhya. Shaivas were dominant in Ayodhya and elsewhere. Although, Hans Bakker claims that there was a continuity in the traditions of Rama bhakti and Ayodhya, he does not deny the conflict between the Shaivas and Vaishnavas. The 'Sanyasis' were a militant group and the Bairagis could only take over by waging a bloody war. There is evidence that Raja Naval Rai, a Rama bhakta, encouraged the building of several Rama temples in Ayodhya. The Bairagis received encouragement and political backing to win away the places of worship from the Sanyasis. It was during his time that building activity in Ayodhya was encouraged and therefore Cunningham could say that most of the temples in Ayodhya appeared only as old as the period of Aurangzeb.

However, the local myth-makers, faced by the problem of finding a historical personality and attributing to him the construction of the famous Ramajanambhoomi temple, said that a king called Bikramjeet had constructed it. Montgomery Martin was also told in 1838, about the famous temple and he concluded that the Bikramjeet of the local myths was actually Vikramaditya the ruler of Ujjain. However, he did not believe that Vikramaditya of Ujjain discovered the birthplace of Rama and re-established the other religious places associated with Rama. According to the myths in circulation the religious places discovered and established by Vikramaditya numbered 360. Martin doubted the existence of these temples and also the story that the Mughal emperors had destroyed Hindu temples.

Montgomery Martin is the first historian who relates the local myths of Ayodhya. It was he who raised the matter of the Blackstone pillars in the mosque:

"That they have been taken from a Hindu building is evident from the traces of images being observable on some of their bases; although the images have been cut off to satisfy the conscience of the bigot. It is possible that these pillars belonged to a temple built by Vikrama, but I think the existence of such a temple doubtful; and if it did exist, it is probable that the pillars were taken from the ruins."

Martin expressed his doubts about the theory that the Muslim rulers dispossessed people from land and destroyed non-Islamic buildings. He, in fact, believed that the Muslim rulers preserved the social and cultural fabric of the land.

Despite the attempt of Montgomery Martin to examine the question in a rational manner, other British historians continued the process of providing a historical basis to the local myths. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, Erskine provided credence to the story that Vikramaditya had gone to Ayodhya. The writings of Leyden and Erskine convinced the British officials posted in Avadh about the truth of the local myths. Carnegy, Benet and Nevill all came to believe that Babur had come to Ayodhya and destroyed the Ramjanambhoomi temple. They also regarded as historical the story that Vikramaditya constructed 360 places of worship in Ayodhya. Along with the officials, archaeologists and some scholars also came to regard the myths as historical truths.

It is certain that the myth that Babur destroyed the Ramjanambhoomi temple and constructed a mosque instead came into circulation in the nineteenth century. We do not have any historical evidence to show that the myth existed before this. This is not surprising, taking into consideration the political and religious environment in Ayodhya. In the eighteenth century, the Ramanandi sect had gradually established itself, it started acquiring land in the city. Soon after, the sect clashed with the Sanyasis for the possession of religious places. In the nineteenth century the domination of the Vaishnava Bairagis was so complete that when Martin visited the city in 1838, he called Ayodhya the Hindu city and Faizabad the Muslim area. After the Bairagis had taken all the important places, particularly those of the Muslims. It was during this time that claims over the Babari Masjid might also have been raised.

Not surprisingly, the mosque is at the highest and most central spot in the city. There are non-Islamic elements in the material used for its construction. These, however, cannot be said to be exclusively Hindu. The material could have been a part of either a Hindu, Jaina or Buddhist structure.

Claims and counter-claims were made by the two communities for a long time before they finally led to bloody conflict, between 1853 and 1855. The British sought to resolve the situation by physically demarcating the rights of the two religious communities in the area. The Hindus were to warship at the raised platform outside the eastern entrance of the mosque and the Muslims were to enter the mosque from the north gate. But the tension between the two communities was not resolved and, in declared their intention to demolish the mosque and fact, continued to grow till, finally, Hindu groups have constructed a glorious temple to commemorate the birthplace of Rama.

The state seems to have played a significant role in supporting the cause of the Hindus. The British Government openly encouraged the Bairagis. They were in their building activity. Although in 1885 the Bairagis allowed occupation over nazul land and were encouraged were not allowed to physically occupy the land in front of demarcation of the religious places in Ayodhya.

In 1949, the state once again came to the support of the Hindu cause. Following the conflict that arose around the Babari Masjid, the District Magistrate asked the Imam to leave the premises, while he allowed entry to a maharaj (cook), and two purohits (priests). In 1986, the doors of the mosque were unlocked and the Hindus were allowed to establish a Rama temple in the central sanctum. However, the Imam was not allowed to hold prayers in foundation-stone of the Rama temple in front of the the mosque. In 1989, the Vishwa Hindy Parishad laid the Babari Masjid. The question, is, may they do so? All land the State Government, no land can be utilized for any in Ayodhya is nazul land and without the permission of purpose by any party. It is necessary for the Government to put a complete end to any building activity in Ayodhya. To preserve history, the building of the mosque should be handed over to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, for maintenance as a historical monument.