Misplaced Pages

Babri Masjid: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:51, 15 August 2006 view sourceBakasuprman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,844 edits History as cited by the Muslim parties of the dispute← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:29, 2 January 2025 view source Tamir Nazir (talk | contribs)481 edits Inscriptions: copied content from Baqi TashqandiTag: Visual edit 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Destroyed mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India}}
{{POV check}}
{{pp|reason=Persistent addition of ]; long-term problem, as per ] request|small=yes}}
]


{{Use Indian English|date=December 2023}}
The '''Babri Mosque''' ({{lang-ur|بابری مسجد}}, {{lang-hi|बाबरी मस्जिद}}), or '''Mosque of ]''' was a ] constructed by order of the first ] emperor of ], ], in ] in the 16th century. Before the 1940s, the mosque was called '''Masjid-i Janmasthan''' ("mosque of the birthplace"). The mosque stood on the ''Ramkot ("Rama's fort") hill'' (also called ''Janamsthan ("birthplace")''. It was destroyed by Hindu activists in a riot on December 6, 1992.
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2023}}
{{Infobox mosque
| building_name = Babri Masjid
| native_name =
| native_name_lang =
| image = Babri Masjid.jpg
| caption = 19th century photo by ]
| religious_affiliation = ]
| alt = Babri Masjid
| locale =
| sect =
| municipality = ]
| district = ]
| state = {{flagicon image|Flag of Uttar Pradesh.svg}} ]
| country = {{flag|India}}
| map_type = India
| map_caption = Location in India
| coordinates = {{coord|26.7956|82.1945|display=inline,title}}
| architecture_style = Tughlaq
| creator = ]
| funded_by = ]
| established = 935 ] (1527-{{start date and age|1528}})<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |url= https://www.britannica.com/place/Babri-Masjid |title=Babri Masjid |encyclopedia=Britannica|date=21 October 2024 |access-date=30 November 2024}}</ref>
| date_demolished = {{start date and age|1992|12|6|df=y}}
| religious_features_label = Fate
| religious_features = Site now occupied by the ] temple; succeeded by ]
| functional_status = ]
}}
{{Ayodhya debate}}


'''Babri Masjid''' (]: Bābarī Masjida; meaning ''Mosque of ]'') was a ] in ], ]. It has been claimed to have been built upon the site of ], the legendary birthplace of ], a principal ] of ].<ref name="bbc1">{{Cite web |title=BBC |date=16 October 2019 |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50065277.amp |access-date=8 September 2023}}</ref> It has been a ] between the Hindu and Muslim communities since the 19th century.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11436552 |title=Timeline: Ayodhya holy site crisis |work=BBC News |date=6 December 2012 |access-date=8 August 2020 |archive-date=10 December 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191210110209/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11436552 |url-status=live }}</ref> According to ], it was built in 1528–29 (935 ]) by ], a commander of the ] emperor ]. Before the 1940s, the masjid was officially known as "Masjid-i-Janmasthan" ("the mosque of the birthplace").<ref>{{Cite book|url=|title=Writing Fundamentalism|last1=Stähler|first1=Axel|last2=Stierstorfer|first2=Klaus|date=2009-05-27|publisher=Cambridge Scholars Publishing|isbn=9781443811897|location=|pages=63|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=|title=The Ethics of Terrorism: Innovative Approaches from an International Perspective (17 Lectures).|last1=Gilly|first1=Thomas Albert|last2=Gilinskiy|first2=Yakov|last3=Sergevnin|first3=Vladimir|date=2009|publisher=Charles C Thomas Publisher|isbn=9780398079956|location=|pages=25|language=en}}</ref> ] by a ] mob in 1992, which ignited communal violence across the ].
It was alleged that ]'s commander-in-chief '''Mir Baki''' destroyed an existing temple at the site, which many ] believe was the temple built to commemorate the ] of ], an incarnation of ] and ruler of Ayodhya (''See ].''). Interestingly the mosque shared a wall with a ] Temple. The Babri Mosque was one of the largest mosques in ], a state in ] with some thirteen million ]s. Although there were several older mosques in the city of Ayodhya, with a substantial Muslim population, including the ] constructed by the ] kings, the Babri Mosque became the largest.


The mosque was located on a hill known as Ramkot ("]'s fort").<ref name="Hiltebeitel2009">{{citation|last=Hiltebeitel|first=Alf|title=Rethinking India's Oral and Classical Epics: Draupadi among Rajputs, Muslims, and Dalits|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MMFdosx0PokC&pg=PA227|year=2009|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=978-0-226-34055-5|pages=227–}}</ref> According to Hindu nationalists, Baqi destroyed a pre-existing temple of Rama at the site. The existence of this temple is a matter of controversy.<ref>{{cite journal| last = Udayakumar| first = S.P.| date = August 1997| title = Historicizing Myth and Mythologizing History: The 'Ram Temple' Drama| journal = Social Scientist| volume = 25| issue = 7| pages = 11–26| doi = 10.2307/3517601| jstor = 3517601}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Jaffrelot |first=Christophe |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118663202 |title=The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism |date=2015-12-07 |publisher=Wiley |isbn=978-1-4051-8978-1 |editor-last=Smith |editor-first=Anthony D |edition=1 |language=en |chapter=Ayodhya Issue |pages=1–3 |doi=10.1002/9781118663202.wberen644 |editor-last2=Hou |editor-first2=Xiaoshuo |editor-last3=Stone |editor-first3=John |editor-last4=Dennis |editor-first4=Rutledge |editor-last5=Rizova |editor-first5=Polly}}</ref> The ] conducted an excavation of the disputed site on the orders of the ]. The excavation period was short due to court time constraints, lasting only 15 days. The report of the excavation concluded that there were ruins of "a massive structure" beneath the ruins of the mosque which was "indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India", but found no evidence that the structure was specifically demolished for the construction of the Babri Masjid. The report received both praise and criticism, with some other archaeologists contesting the results of the report.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Varghese |first=Rachel A |date=2023-07-19 |title=Archaeology for the courtroom: the Ayodhya Case and the fashioning of a hybrid episteme |journal=Journal of Social Archaeology |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=109–129 |language=en |doi=10.1177/14696053231190374 |issn=1469-6053|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Etter |first=Anne-Julie |date=2020-12-14 |title=Creating Suitable Evidence of the Past? Archaeology, Politics, and Hindu Nationalism in India from the End of the Twentieth Century to the Present |url=http://journals.openedition.org/samaj/6926 |journal=South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal |issue=24/25 |doi=10.4000/samaj.6926 |issn=1960-6060|doi-access=free }}</ref>
==Architecture of the Mosque==
]
The rulers of the Sultanate of Delhi and its successor ] were great patrons of art and architecture and constructed many fine tombs, mosques and madrasas. These have a distinctive style which bears influences of 'later Tughlaq' architecture. Mosques all over India were built in different styles; the most elegant styles developed in areas where indigenous art traditions were strong and local artisans were highly skilled. Thus regional or provincial styles of mosques grew out of local temple or domestic styles, which were conditioned in their turn by climate, terrain, materials, hence the enormous difference between the mosques of Bengal, Kashmir and Gujarat. The Babri Mosque followed the architectural school of Jaunpur.


Starting in the 19th century, there were several conflicts and court disputes between Hindus and Muslims over the mosque. In 1949, idols of Rama and Sita were placed inside the mosque, after which the government locked the building to avoid further disputes.{{sfnp|van der Veer|1992|pp=98–99}} Court cases were filed by both Hindus and Muslims asking for access.<ref name=outlookindia-01Dec17>{{Cite news |url=https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/tracing-the-history-of-babri-masjid/299597 |title=Tracing The History of Babri Masjid |newspaper=] |date=1 December 2017 |access-date=3 September 2020 |archive-date=2 February 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190202212508/https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/tracing-the-history-of-babri-masjid/299597 |url-status=live }}</ref>
Babri is an important mosque of a distinct style, preserved mainly in architecture, developed after the ] was established (1192). The square CharMinar of Hyderabad (1591) with large arches, arcades, and minarets is typical. This art made extensive use of stone and reflected Indian adaptation to Muslim rule, until Mughals art replaced it in the 17th century, as typified by structures like the ].


On 6 December 1992, a large group of Hindu activists belonging to the ] and allied organisations ], triggering riots all over the ], resulting in the death of around 2,000–3,000 people.<ref name="Haar Busuttil 2005"/><ref name="Tablet Publishing Company"/><ref>{{citation |last=Fuller |first=Christopher John |title=The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=To6XSeBUW3oC&pg=PA262 |year=2004 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=0-691-12048-X |page=262}}</ref><ref name="Guha2007a">{{cite book|last=Guha|first=Ramachandra|title=India After Gandhi|year=2007|publisher=MacMillan|pages=582–598}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://thewire.in/south-asia/pakistan-babri-majid-ayodhya-hindus|title=How the Babri Masjid Demolition Upended Tenuous Inter-Religious Ties in Pakistan|first=Haroon|last=Khalid|date=14 November 2019|publisher=The Wire|access-date=30 May 2020|archive-date=15 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200815205948/https://thewire.in/south-asia/pakistan-babri-majid-ayodhya-hindus|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.themorningchronicle.in/as-a-reaction-to-babri-masjid-demolition-what-had-happened-in-pakistan-and-bangladesh-on-6-december-1992/|title=As a reaction to Babri Masjid demolition, What had happened in Pakistan and Bangladesh on 6 December, 1992|date=6 December 2018|publisher=The Morning Chronicle|access-date=30 May 2020|archive-date=3 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210203234625/http://www.themorningchronicle.in/as-a-reaction-to-babri-masjid-demolition-what-had-happened-in-pakistan-and-bangladesh-on-6-december-1992/|url-status=live}}</ref>
The traditional hypostyle plan with an enclosed courtyard, imported from Western Asia was generally associated with the introduction of Islam in new areas, but was abandoned in favour of schemes more suited to local climate and needs. The Babri Masjid was a mixture of the local influence and the Western Asian style and examples of this type of mosque are common in India.


In September 2010, the ] upheld the claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Rama's birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the ]. Muslims were also awarded one-third area of the site for the construction of a mosque.<ref name="Outlook 2010"> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191018103743/https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/the-three-way-divide/267309 |date=18 October 2019 }}, Outlook, 30 September 2010.</ref><ref name="BBC 2019">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50065277|title=Ayodhya dispute: The complex legal history of India's holy site|work=BBC News|date=16 October 2019 |access-date=16 October 2019|archive-date=17 October 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191017092145/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50065277|url-status=live}}</ref> The decision was subsequently appealed by all parties to the ], wherein a five ] bench heard a title suit from August to October 2019.<ref name="BBC 2019" /><ref name=hindubusinessline-16Oct19>{{Cite news |url=https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/supreme-court-hearing-ends-in-ayodhya-dispute-orders-reserved/article29710840.ece |title=Supreme Court hearing ends in Ayodhya dispute; orders reserved |date=16 October 2019 |work=The Hindu Business Line |agency=Press Trust of India |access-date=18 October 2019 |archive-date=23 October 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191023101322/https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/supreme-court-hearing-ends-in-ayodhya-dispute-orders-reserved/article29710840.ece |url-status=live }}</ref> On 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court quashed the lower court's judgement and ordered the entire site ({{convert|2+3/4|acre|ha|1|order=flip|disp=or}} land) to be handed over to a trust to build the Hindu temple. It also ordered the government to give an alternative {{convert|5|acre|ha|0|order=flip|adj=on}} plot to the ] to replace the Babri Masjid that was demolished in 1992.<ref name=timesofindia-09Nov19>{{Cite news |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/ayodhya-babri-masjid-ram-mandir-case-verdict-highlights-supreme-court-declared-verdict-on-ram-janmabhoomi-case/articleshow/71978918.cms |title=Ram Mandir verdict: Supreme Court verdict on Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case |date=9 November 2019 |work=] |access-date=9 November 2019 |archive-date=9 November 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191109143026/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/ayodhya-babri-masjid-ram-mandir-case-verdict-highlights-supreme-court-declared-verdict-on-ram-janmabhoomi-case/articleshow/71978918.cms |url-status=live }}</ref> The government allotted a site in the village of ], in Ayodhya District, {{convert|18|km|mi}} from Ayodhya City and {{convert|30|km|mi}} by road from the site of the original Babri Masjid.<ref name=indiatoday-05Feb20 /><ref name=businessstandard-14Feb2020>{{Cite news |title=The mood in Dhannipur, a village in Ayodhya, chosen for the 'Babri Masjid' |url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/the-mood-in-dhannipur-a-village-in-ayodhya-chosen-for-the-babri-masjid-120021401728_1.html |date=14 February 2020 |work=] |first1=Ritwik |last1=Sharma |access-date=28 August 2020 |archive-date=31 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200731225249/https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/the-mood-in-dhannipur-a-village-in-ayodhya-chosen-for-the-babri-masjid-120021401728_1.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The construction of the ] started on 26 January 2021.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|last=Razak|first=Hanie Abdul|date=19 January 2021|title=Construction of Ayodhya mosque to begin with flag-hoisting on Republic Day|url=https://www.siasat.com/construction-of-ayodhya-mosque-to-begin-with-flag-hoisting-on-republic-day-2070951/|access-date=26 January 2021|website=The Siasat Daily|language=en-GB|archive-date=31 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210131052215/https://www.siasat.com/construction-of-ayodhya-mosque-to-begin-with-flag-hoisting-on-republic-day-2070951/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Ayodhya Mosque Work Starts On Republic Day With Tricolour Hoisting|url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ayodhya-mosque-work-starts-on-republic-day-with-tricolour-hoisting-tree-plantation-2358171|access-date=26 January 2021|website=NDTV.com|archive-date=26 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126131952/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ayodhya-mosque-work-starts-on-republic-day-with-tricolour-hoisting-tree-plantation-2358171|url-status=live}}</ref>
The Babri Mosque was a large imposing structure with three domes, one central and two secondary. It is surrounded by two high walls, running parallel to each other and enclosing a large central courtyard with a deep well, which was known for its cold and sweet water. On the high entrance of the domed structure are fixed two stone tablets which bear two inscriptions in Persian declaring that this structure was built by one Mir Baqi on the orders of Babur. The walls of the Babri Mosque are made of coarse-grained whitish sandstone blocks, rectangular in shape, while the domes are made of thin and small burnt bricks. Both these structural ingredients are plastered with thick chunam paste mixed with coarse sand.


== Etymology ==
]
The name "Babri Masjid" comes from the name of the ] ], who is said to have ordered its construction.<ref name="Colin">{{cite book |last=Flint |first=Colin |title=The geography of war and peace |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-19-516208-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7Ms5N7NhGXIC&pg=PA165 |page=165 |access-date=15 August 2016 |archive-date=14 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230414061243/https://books.google.com/books?id=7Ms5N7NhGXIC&pg=PA165 |url-status=live }}</ref> Before the 1940s, it was called ''Masjid-i Janmasthan'' ("mosque of the birthplace") including in official documents.<ref name="janmasthan">Multiple sources state this fact:
The Central Courtyard was surrounded by lavishly curved columns superimposed to increase the height of the ceilings. The plan and the architecture followed the Begumpur Friday mosque of Jahanpanah rather than the Moghul style where Hindu masons used their own ] structural and decorative traditions. The excellence of their craftsmanship is noticeable in their vegetal scrolls and lotus patterns. These motifs are also present in the Firuz Shah Mosque in Firuzabad (c.1354) now in a ruined state, Qila Kuhna Mosque (c.1540, The Darasbari Mosque in the Southern suburb of the walled city of ], and the Jamali Kamili Mosque built by Sher Shah Suri this was the forerunner of the Indo Islamic style adopted by Akbar.
*{{citation |last=Griffiths |first=Gareth |chapter=Open Spaces, Contested Places: Writing and the Fundamentalist Inscription of Territory |editor1=Axel Stähler |editor2=Klaus Stierstorfer |title=Writing Fundamentalism |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XFxJDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA63 |year=2009 |publisher=Cambridge Scholars Publishing |isbn=978-1-4438-1189-7 |page=63}}
*{{citation |first=K. |last=Jaishankar |chapter=Communal Violence and Terrorism in India |editor1=Thomas Albert Gilly |editor2=Yakov Gilinskiy |editor3=Vladimir Sergevnin |title=The Ethics of Terrorism: Innovative Approaches from an International Perspective (17 Lectures). |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=w5SlnZilfMMC&pg=PA25 |year=2009 |publisher=Charles C Thomas Publisher |isbn=978-0-398-07995-6 |page=25 |quote=Before the 1940s, the Mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan}}
*{{harvnb|Narain, The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute1993|pp=19, 27, 104}}</ref>


== Architecture ==
The Babri Masjid with its bold and graceful style was universally praised and widely followed.
=== Background ===
{{Main|Indo-Islamic architecture}}


The rulers of the ] and their successors, the ], were great patrons of art and architecture and constructed many fine tombs, mosques and ]s. These have a distinctive style which bears influences of "later ]" architecture. Mosques all over India were built in different styles; the most elegant styles developed in areas where indigenous art traditions were strong and local artisans were highly skilled. Thus regional or provincial styles of mosques grew out of local temple or domestic styles, which were conditioned in their turn by climate, terrain, materials, hence the enormous difference between the mosques of ], ] and ]. The Babri Mosque followed the architectural school of ]. When viewed from the west side, it resembled the ] in ].<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MURuAAAAMAAJ |title=Babri-Masjid Ramjanambhoomi controversy |editor=Asgharali Engineer |publisher=Ajanta Publications |year=1990 |page=37 |isbn=9788120202832 }}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=May 2017}}
==Babri Masjid acoustic & cooling system==


=== Architectural style ===
"A whisper from the Babri Masjid Mihrab could be heard clearly at the other end 200 feet away and through the length and breadth of the central court" according to Graham Pickford architect to Lord William Bentinck (1828&ndash;1833) The Mosque's acoustics were mentioned by him in his book 'Historic Structures of Oudhe' he says “for a 16th century building the deployment and projection of voice from the pulpit is considerably advanced, the unique deployment of sound in this structure will astonish the visitor”.
]
The architecture of the mosque is completely a replica of the mosques in the Delhi Sultanate. Babri was an important mosque of a distinct style, preserved mainly in architecture, ], seen also in the Babari Mosque in the southern suburb of the walled city of Gaur, and the ] built by ]. This was the forerunner of the ] style adopted by Akbar.<ref>Harle, J.C., ''The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent'', p. 421, 2nd edn. 1994, Yale University Press Pelican History of Art, {{ISBN|0300062176}}</ref>


=== Acoustics ===
Modern Architects have attributed this intriguing acoustic feature to a large recess in the wall of the Mihrab and several recesses in the surroundings walls which functioned as resonators, and gave our sounds back to the worshippers, this design helped everyone to hear the speaker at the Mihrab. The sandstone used in building the Babri Mosque also had resonant qualities which contributed to the unique acoustics.
"A whisper from the Babri Masjid ] could be heard clearly at the other end, 200 feet away and through the length and breadth of the central court" according to Graham Pickford, architect to ] (1828–33). The mosque's acoustics were mentioned by him in his book ''Historic Structures of Oudhe'' where he says "for a 16th-century building the deployment and projection of voice from the pulpit is considerably advanced, the unique deployment of sound in this structure will astonish the visitor".<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Memoirs+of+a+Mosque/1/113887.html |title=Memoirs of a Mosque |last1=Shankar |first1=Ravi |date=4 October 2010 |work=] |access-date=19 April 2017 |archive-date=20 April 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170420045629/http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Memoirs+of+a+Mosque/1/113887.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.deccanherald.com/content/446468/young-girls-rally-safeguard-secularism.html |title=Young girls rally to safeguard secularism |work=] |access-date=19 April 2017 |first1=Azaan |last1=Javaid |date=9 December 2014l |archive-date=19 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181119132506/https://www.deccanherald.com/content/446468/young-girls-rally-safeguard-secularism.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
]
The Babri mosque’s Tughluquid style integrates other indigenous design components and techniques (air cooling systems) disguised as recognizably Islamic design elements (arches, vaults and domes) In the Babri Masjid the high ceiling, domes, and six large grill windows (see picture) all served as a passive environmental control system that brought down the temperature and also allowed in natural ventilation as well as daylight.

==Legend of the Babri Mosque’s miraculous well==

The reported medicinal properties of the deep well in the central courtyard have been featured in various news reports such as the ] report of December ] and in various newspapers. The earliest mention of the Babri water well was in a two line reference to the Mosque in the Gazette of Faizabad District 1918 which says “There are no significant historical buildings here, except for various Buddhist shrines, the Babri Mosque is an ancient structure with a well which both the Hindus and Mussalmans claim has Miraculous properties.”

Ayodhya, a pilgrimage site for Hindus has an annual fair attended by over 500,000 people of both faiths, many devotees came during the annual Ram festival to drink from the water well in the Babri Courtyard. It was believed drinking water from this well could cure a range of illnesses. Hindu pilgrims also believed that the Babri water well was the original well in the Ram Temple under the mosque. Ayodhya Muslims believed that the well was a gift from God. Local women regularly brought their new born babies to drink from the reputedly curative water.

The 125 foot (40 m) deep well in question was situated in the South Eastern Courtyard of the large rectangular courtyard of the Babri Mosque. There was a small Hindu shrine built in 1890 joining the well with a statute of Lord Rama. It was an artesian well and drew water from a considerable distance below the water table. Eleven feet (3 m) in radius the first 30 feet (10 m) from ground level were bricked. It drew water from a reservoir trapped in a bed of shale sand and gravel; this could explain the unusually cool temperature of the water. The water contained almost no sodium explaining its reputation that the water was ‘sweet.’ To access the well one had to climb on to a three foot (1 m) platform, the well was covered with planks of thick wood with an unhinged trapdoor. Water was drawn by means of a bucket and long lengths of rope and due to its claimed ‘spiritual properties’ used only for drinking.
]
Even though the medicinal properties of artesian wells can be explained by the high amount of calcium and mineral content in the water it, is significant that Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya considered the Babri Mosque Complex a haven of peace and spiritual tranquillity. Many people in the area, of both faiths, had a profound belief in the miraculous properties of its cold and pure underground water. Folklore is said to contribute much to the legends of the healing waters.


== History == == History ==
=== Construction ===
===History as cited by the Hindu parties of the dispute===
The date of construction of the Babri Masjid is uncertain. The inscriptions on the Babri Masjid premises found in the 20th century state that the mosque was built in 935&nbsp;] (1528–29) by ] in accordance with the wishes of Babur.{{sfn|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016|page=xxix}} However, these inscriptions appear to be of a more recent vintage.{{sfn|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016|loc=Chapter 5}}
Hindu partisan historians say that in the year 1527 the Muslim invader ] came down from Ferghana in Central Asia and attacked the Hindu King of Chittodgad, Rana Sangrama Singh at Sikri and with the help of cannons and artillery (used in India for the first time) overcame Rana Sangrama Singh and his allies.

After this victory, Babar decided to spread terror among the subjugated Hindu population. He despatched his general general, Mir Baqi to attack the Hindu places of pilgrimage. Mir Baqi came to Ayodhya in 1528 and destroyed the many temples that were there. He gave special attention to the main and biggest temple in the town. This was the temple which was built on the place where Samrat Shri Ramachandra, an ancient King of India was born. Samrat Shri Ramachandra was (and still is) revered by the devout among the Hindus as a god, also referred to as ], believed by Hindus to be an avatar of ].

Babar, whose general Mir Baqi allegedly destroyed this temple at Ayodhya, built by the Hindus to commemorate their king Samrat Ramchandra born around 1.3 million years ago. Mir Baqi built a mosque at the site of the destroyed temple. This was called the Babri Masjid (Mosque), named after the invader who destroyed the temple and built a mosque in its place.

The claim of the destruction of this temple and the erection of a mosque in its place is also mentioned in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The advocates say that many Indians - and even many of the educated Indians - are unaware of this truth. Indian History books at School and College do not tell the story in its true detail. Hence many Indians do not seem to recognize that the alien Muslim marauders destroyed this and countless other temples as also disturbed for eleven hundred years, the historical evolution of what was till then a spiritually, philosophically and materially advanced civilisation.

Advocates allege that the Government of India has 'shamelessly' pandered to the muslims in this and other issues in order to secure the minority electoral bloc as part of their partisan ] politics.

Advocates also allege that the excessive sypmathy for muslims in this issue is due to a zeitgeist of ] in Indian society brought about by ] thinking, where struggles between Hindus and Muslims are viewed as a "class struggle" rather than a communal one. This identification of muslims as an "opressed underclass" are viewed as fallacious, since many Indian muslims are quite wealthy and well-represented in many walks of life.

They claim that the muslims claims to the region are unfounded, in violation of common law and based on the beliefs and practices of ]. They allege that this is part of a malicious agenda of hate against Hindus and is an attempt to delegitimize the Hindu ethos in India.

Until 1989 when the BJP made into a political issue there had been no question about the site’s history . All the written sources, whether Hindu, Muslim or European, were in agreement about the pre-existence of a Rama temple at the site. “Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple”, according to the 1989 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry “Ayodhya”. However, this text was changed in subsequent editions. Neither was there any document contradicting this scenario: no account of a forest chopped down to make way for the mosque (already unlikely in the centre of an ancient town), no sales contract of real estate to the mosque’s builder, nothing of the kind. By contrast, there were testimonies of Hindus bewailing and Muslims boasting of the replacement of the temple with a mosque; and of Hindus under Muslim rule coming as close as possible to the site in order to celebrate Rama’s birthday every year in April, in continuation of the practice at the time when the temple stood.

In case authors of testimonies may be unreliable, there was also the archaeological evidence: in the 1970s, a team of the Archaeological Survey of India led by Prof. B.B. Lal dug out some trenches just outside the mosque and found rows of pillar-bases which must have supported a larger building predating the mosque. Moreover, in the mosque itself, small black pillars with Hindu sculptures had been incorporated, a traditional practice in mosques built in forcible replacement of infidel temples to flaunt the victory of Islam over Paganism.

The only remaining question about the site was its status in the period 1192-1528. In 1192 and the subsequent years, practically all the Hindu temples and Buddhist monasteries in North India were demolished by Mohammed Ghori and his Turkish invaders. It is impossible that the medieval temple at the site could have survived until 1528. The most likely scenario is the one well-attested at another famous temple site: the Somnath temple in Gujarat. No less than nine times did Hindus reclaim it as a temple, until Muslims retook it and turned it into a mosque again. Since Ayodhya was a provincial capital of the Delhi Sultanate, opportunities for wresting the site from Muslim control were certainly more limited than in the case of the outlying Somnath temple. Then again, the frequent infighting among the Muslim elite may have given rebellious Hindus some opportunities too. From peculiarities in the architecture of the Babri Masjid, art historians on both sides of the debate (Sushil Srivastava, R. Nath) have deduced that the main part of the structure had been built well before the Moghul invasion, probably in the 14th century. In that case, the tradition that it was built by Mir Baqi may be based on the following scenario: towards the end of the Sultanate period, Hindus may have managed to recapture the site and to turn it into a functioning temple, until Babar and his lieutenant Mir Baqi firmly imposed Muslim control again and gave some finishing touches to the mosque architecture in replacement of any Hindu elements that had come to adorn it. But this must for now be kept inside speculative brackets. What is certain is that a major Hindu temple at the site was demolished by Islamic iconoclasm and replaced with a mosque symbolizing the victory of Islam over Infidelism. Of that, evidence is plentiful and of many types.

===History as cited by the Muslim parties of the dispute===

Muslims and Muslim partisan sources claim that neither history nor fact can come to prove the Hindu case as claimed above.

They claim that is clear that the allegations, on which, the demands of RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad & Hindu Munnani are based for laying claim to Babri Masjid are biased against Islam.

According to the District Gazetteer Faizabad 1905, it is said that "up to this time (1855), both the Hindus and Muslims used to worship in the same building. But since the Mutiny (1857), an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the Masjid and the Hindus forbidden access to the inner yard, make the offerings on a platform (chabootra), which they have raised in the outer one."

Some Hindus in 1883 wanted to construct a temple on this chabootra, but the Deputy Commissioner prohibited the same on Jan. 19, 1885. Raghubir Das, a mahant, filed a suit before the Faizabad Sub-Judge. Pandit Harikishan was seeking permission to construct a temple on this chabootra measuring 17 ft. x 21 ft. the suit was dismissed. An appeal was filed before the Faizabad District Judge, Colonel J.E.A. Chambiar who after an inspection of spot on March 17, 1886, dismissed the appeal.

A Second Appeal was filed on May 25, 1886, before the Judicial Commissioner of Awadh, W. Young, who also dismissed the appeal. With this, the first round of legal battle fought by the Hindus came to an end.

During the "communal riots" of 1934, walls around the Masjid and one of the domes of the Masjid were damaged. These were reconstructed by the British Government.

On mid-night of December 22, 1949, when the police guards were asleep, idols of Rama and Sita were quietly brought into the Masjid and were planted. This was reported by constable, Mata Prasad, the next morning and recorded at the Ayodhya police station.

The following morning (Dec. 23, 1949), a large Hindu crowd made a "frantic attempt" to enter the Masjid on in order to offer puja to the deities. The District Magistrate K.K. Nair has recorded that "The crowd made a most determined attempt to force entry. The lock was broken and policemen were rushed off their feet. All of us, officers and men, somehow pushed the crowd back and held the gate. The sadhus recklessly hurled themselves against men and arms and it was with great difficulty that we managed to hold the gate. The gate was secured and locked with a powerful lock brought from outside and police force was strengthened (5:00 pm)."

On hearing this news Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru directed UP Chief Minister Govind Ballabh Pant, to see that the dieties were removed. Under Pant's orders, Chief Secretary Bhagwan Sahay and Inspector-General of Police V.N. Lahiri sent immediate instructions to Faizabad to remove the dieties. However, K.K. Nair feared that the Hindus would retaliate and pleaded inability to carry out the orders.

Muslims allege that Hindus have been hypocritical in the issue of the Babri Masjid, claiming adherence to common judicial law while allegedly breaking it during the demolition.

Yet for all these allegations, they have not proven in any form, that the disputed structure was not a temple at some point in time.

== Date of construction ==
The date of the construction of the Babri Mosque is disputed. Before the 1940s, the Mosque was called ''Masjid-i Janmasthan''. It is presumed that Babur built the mosque, based on an inscription. Although we have a detailed account of the life of Babur in the form of his diary, the pages of the relevant period are missing in the diary. But it is possible that the mosque already existed before Babur, who may only have renovated the building. However, the construction of the mosque must have been between 1194 and 1528. The ] conquests reached Ayodhya in 1194.

=== 1528 ===

] may have built the mosque in 1528, or he may only have renovated the building.

=== 1767 ===

Joseph Tieffenthaler records that Hindus are worshipping and celebrating Ramanavami at the site of the mosque.<ref>History and Geography of India (in French) by Joseph Tieffenthaler p. 253-54 </ref>
The tradition of treating the mosque site as the birthplace of Rama appears to have begun in early l8th century. The earliest suggestion that the Babri Masjid is in proximity to the birthplace of Ram was made by the Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, whose work in French was published in Berlin in 1788. It says:

"Emperor Aurangzeb got demolished the fortress called Ramkot, and erected on the same place a Mahometan temple with three cuppolas. Others believe that it was constructed by Babar. We see 14 columns of black stone 5 spans high that occupy places within the fortress. Twelve of these columns now bear the interior arcades of the Masjid; two (of the 12) make up the entrance of the cloister. Two others form part of the tomb of a certain Moor. It is related that these columns, or rather the debris of these columns, were brought from Lanka (called Ceylon by the Europeans) by Hanuman, chief of the monkeys." which in French reads as

''l'empereur Aurungzeb a détruit la forteresse appelée Ramkot et construit à la même chose placer un temple musulman avec 3 dômes. D'autres indiquent qu'il a été construit par Babar. On peut voir 14 colonnes faites en pierre noire qui soutiennent des découpages. Plus tard Aurungzeb, et certains indiquent que Babar a détruit l'endroit afin d'empêcher des heathens de pratiquer leurs cérémonies.Toutefois ils ont continué à pratiquer leurs cérémonies religieuses dans le places, sachant ceci pour avoir été endroit de naissance de Rama, en le circulant 3 fois et en se prosternant sur la terre..''

We see on the left a square platform 5 inches above ground, 5 inches long and 4 inches wide, constructed of mud and covered with lime. The Hindus call it bedi, that is to say, the birth-place. The reason is that here there was a house in which Beschan, (Bishan-Vishnu) took the form of Rama, and his three brothers are also said to have been born. Subsequently, Aurangzeb, or according to others, Babar razed this place down, in order not to give the Gentiles (Hindus) occasion to practice their superstition. However, they continued to follow their superstitious practices in both places, believing it to be the birthplace of Rama."

This record reveals that Aurengzeb demolished the Ramkot fortress; that either he, or Babar constructed a Masjid there; the 12 columns of black stone pillars were brought from Lanka; and when veneration of Rama became prevalent after the 17th century, a small rectangular mud platform was built to mark the birthplace of Rama.(History and Geography of India'', by Joseph Tieffenthaler, (published in French by Bernoulli in ]))

However, this account does not explicitly mention the existence of a temple but a mud platform.

=== 19th century ===

Some Hindus of ] retained the tradition to worship ] on the ] hill, and always returned to the site. According to British sources, Hindus and Muslims used to worship together in the Babri Mosque complex in the 19th century until about 1855. P. Carnegy wrote in 1870: ''"It is said that up to that time the Hindus and Mohamedans alike used to worship in the mosquetemple. Since the British rule a railing has been put up to prevent dispute, within which, in the mosque the Mohamedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings." (P. Carnegy: A Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad, Lucknow 1870, quoted by Harsh Narain: The Ayodhya Temple/Mosque Dispute, Penman, Delhi 1993, p.8-9, and by Peter Van der Veer: Religious Nationalism, p.153)''

=== 1854 ===

Edward Thornton records that Hindus are worshipping Ramanavami at the site of the mosque (Gazetteer of the territories under the Government of East India Company, pp-739-40).

=== 1855 ===

Hindu-Muslim clashes over the mosque-temple occurred (Hadiqai-Shahada by Mirza Jan, 1856, pp. 4-7).

=== 1858 ===

The Muazzin of the Babri mosque says in a petition to the British government, that the courtyard had been used by Hindus for hundreds of years (Petition by Muhammed Asghar dated 30.11.1858 in Case No.884 to the British Government).

=== 1886 ===

On 18th March 1886 the ] District Judge passed an order in which he wrote: ''"I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the Masjid built by Emperor Babar stands on the border of Ayodhya, that is to say, to the west and south. It is clear of habitants. It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to agree with the grievances."'' (Court verdict by Col. F.E.A. Chamier, District Judge, Faizabad (1886))

=== 20th century ===

The Hindus claim that the Babri Mosque was not used by Muslims since 1936, and that the Hindus took over the unused mosque in 1949. A court ruling on March 3, 1951 by the Civil Judge of ] states: ''“it further appears from a number of affidavits of certain Muslim residents of Ayodhya that at least from 1936 onwards the Muslims have neither used the site as a mosque nor offered prayers there... Nothing has been pointed to discredit these affidavits.”'' Prof. B.P. Sinha stated: ''“As early as 1936-37, a bill was introduced in the legislative council of U.P. to transfer the site to the Hindus (... ) the bill was withdrawn on an unwritten understanding that no ] performed.” (in annexure 29 to the VHP evidence bundle)''. Of the 26 mosques in the region, only half of them were used for offering ] in the early 1990s. It is also noted that there are about 40 different temples in ] where the worshippers believe that Lord ] was born. However, Abdul Ghaffar the Imam of the mosque asserted that Muslims prayed in that mosque until 1949 when some miscehevous elements placed the idols of Ram after breaking into the mosque. {{fact}}

=== November 2, 1989 ===

On November 2, 1989 the first stone for the planned new temple was laid.

The events of November 2 1989 led to riots in Bangladesh and Pakistan, which left 50,000 Hindus homeless in ]. More than 200 Hindu temples were demolished in Bangladesh.
However, many Muslims were also shot directly on their heads in the rioting that followed in Maharshtra by the state police.

=== 1990 ===

], a high-ranking member of the ] (BJP) began a campaign tour (a ], or "chariot-journey") in 1990, to build support for a ] temple at the mosque site.

=== November 2, 1990 ===

During demonstrations by Kar-Sevaks, many Kar-Sevaks and other demonstrators were arrested and killed by the police. The official death toll is 45, although this is disputed. The ] estimated that 168 were killed. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) alone cremated 76 bodies.

In connection with the ] debate, at least forty temples were demolished in November 1990. According to the Hindu-Buddha-Christian Oikya Parishad, the ] minorities' association, over fifty women were raped in a village in the ] district and hundreds of temples were razed or burnt down.

=== January 24, 1991 ===

A government-sponsored discussion platform for the two parties (] and Babri Masjid Action Committee/BMAC) was organized for January, 24 1991. The BMAC then demanded that their historians would get special privileges and be recognized as independent scholars who could pass a verdict on the case (this demand wasn't granted). The BMAC team didn't show up on the day of the meeting and claimed that they weren't prepared for the discussion, although shortly before that day they signed a public statement that stated that (according to them) there would be absolutely no evidence for an ancient ] on the disputed site.

However , other accounts said that They met first on December 1, 1990, presented the
'evidence' of their sides to the Indian government on December 23,
obtained copies of the 'evidence' of the other side from the government,
and met again on January 10, 1991. In that meeting they decided to set up
four committees of experts nominated by both parties to examine the
historical and archaeological evidence and revenue and legal records
collected as evidence. The VHP released the summary of 'evidence' to the
public, turned down the demand of the other side for more time to study
and evaluate the evidence, and made it known that they were not interested
in an amicable solution.(28)VHP's actions were taken by the Muslim parties to mean aggressive postures and unnecessary public arousal made to shore up vocal support from the hindu masses.

=== 1992 ===


There are no records of the mosque from this period. The '']'' (Chronicles of Babur) does not mention either the mosque or the destruction of a temple.<ref name="KE_1995">{{cite book |author=K. Elst |title=Indian Epic Values: Rāmāyaṇa and Its Impact |publisher=Peeters Publishers |year=1995 |isbn=9789068317015 |editor=Gilbert Pollet |pages=28–29 |chapter=The Ayodhya Debate |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EVnK3q48dL0C&pg=PA28}}</ref> The '']'' of ] (1574) and '']'' of ] (1598) made no mention of a mosque either.{{sfn|Narain, The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute|1993|p=17}}{{sfn|Jain, Rama and Ayodhya|2013|pp=165–166}} ], the English traveller who visited Ayodhya around 1611, wrote about the "ruins of the Ranichand castle and houses" where Hindus believed the great God "took flesh upon him to see the ''tamasha'' of the world." He found ''pandas'' (Brahmin priests) in the ruins of the fort, recording the names of pilgrims, but there was no mention of a mosque.{{sfn|Jain, Rama and Ayodhya|2013|p=9, 120, 164}} ] described in 1634 the "pretty old castle of Ranichand built by a Bannyan Pagod of that name" which he described as an antique monument that was "especially memorable". He also recorded the fact of Brahmins recording the names of pilgrims.{{sfn|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016|p=xv}}
On ] 1992, over a million ] activists brought in by the ] nationalist ] (VHP, "World Hindu Council") and BJP, razed the three domes of this 16th century Muslim mosque, sparking nationwide riots between Hindus and Muslims that killed more than 2,000 people in one of the worst spates of sectarian violence in contemporary Indian history.
]
The earliest record of a mosque at the site traditionally believed by Hindus to be the ] comes from ] (or "Sawai Jai Singh") – a Rajput noble in the Mughal court who purchased land and established a ''Jaisinghpura'' in the area surrounding the mosque in 1717 (as he had also done in several other Hindu religious places). The documents of Jai Singh preserved in the Kapad-Dwar collection in the ] of ],{{efn|Professor ], who has examined these records, concludes that Jai Singh had acquired the land of ''Rama Janmasthan'' in 1717. The ownership of the land was vested in the deity. The hereditary title of the ownership was recognised and enforced by the Mughal State from 1717. He also found a letter from a ''gumastha'' Trilokchand, dated 1723, stating that, while under the Muslim administration people had been prevented from taking a ritual bath in the Saryu river, the establishment of the ''Jaisinghpura'' has removed all impediments.{{sfn|Jain, Rama and Ayodhya|2013|pp=112–114}}}} include a sketch map of the Babri Masjid site. The map shows an open court yard and a built structure with three temple spires (''sikharas'') resembling today's Babri Masjid with three domes. The courtyard is labelled ''janmasthan'' and shows a ''Ram chabutra''. The central bay of the built structure is labelled ''chhathi'', which also denotes birthplace.{{sfn|Jain, Rama and Ayodhya|2013|pp=112–115}}


], a European Jesuit missionary who lived and worked in India for 38 years (1743–1785), visited Ayodhya in 1767. He noted one Ramkot fortress — comprising the house that was considered as the birthplace of Rama by Hindus — to have been demolished by ] (r.&nbsp;1658–1707); however, "others" said it to have been demolished by Babar. A mosque with three domes was constructed in its place but Hindus continued to offer prayers at a mud platform that marked the birthplace of Rama.<ref name="Robert_2003">{{cite book |author=] and ] |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hEOFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA2 |title=Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property |publisher=Routledge |year=2003 |isbn=978-1-134-60498-2 |pages=2–9}}</ref>{{efn|{{harvnb|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016|pp=xvi}} quotes from ]'s ''Descriptio Indiae'' ({{circa}} 1772): "Emperor Aurangzeb got the fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that it was constructed by 'Babor'. Fourteen black stone pillars of 5 span high, which had existed at the site of the fortress, are seen there. Twelve of these pillars now support the interior arcades of the mosque. Two (of these 12) are placed at the entrance of the cloister. The two others are part of the tomb of some 'Moor'.... On the left is seen a square box, raised five inches from the ground, with borders made of lime, with a length of more than 5 ells and a maximum width of about 4. The Hindus call it Bedi, i.e., 'the cradle'. The reason for this is that once upon a time, here was a house where Beschan was born in the form of Ram. It is said that his three brothers too were born here. Aurangzeb or Babor, according to others, got this place razed in order to deny them the noble people, opportunity of practising their superstitions..."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Tiefenthaler |first=Joseph |url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.143241/page/n299/mode/2up |title=Description historique et géographique de l'Inde |volume=1. ''La Géographie de l'Indoustan'' |location=Berlin |publication-date=1786 |pages=253–254 |language=fr |translator-last=Bernoulli |translator-first=Jean}}</ref>}}
The demolition of the ] set off a round of riots, especially in Bombay, that lasted two months (December 1992 & January 1993), and where the actual toll of lives is far less than the ''official'' one (See also '''Justice Sreekrishna Commission of Inquiry'''). However, most enquiry reports in India fail to satisfy all the parties.In retaliation, Muslim mafia, principally the ''D-Gang'' operated by ] Khaskar, the Konkanni Muslim and acolyte of former Mafia don Haji Mastan, staged a simultaneous, multiple bomb attacks in Bombay using RDX and whose toll is also not finally set. See ].


=== Inscriptions ===
===December 6, 1992: the destruction of the Babri Masjid===
''The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry'' by Sushil Srivastava mentions that The Babri Masjid has ''three'' inscriptions in Persian, in different styles of ], two outside and one inside the mosque-just above the pulpit. ]'s translation of the inscription inside the mosque, mentions that by the order of Babar, Mir Baqi constructed the mosque in the year AH 935 (AD 1529).<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Babri Masjid Question, 1528-2003: 'A Matter of National Honour' |publisher=] |isbn=9789382381457 |editor-last=Noorani |editor-first=A.G. |volume=1 |pages=54}}</ref> Only six lines of one of the two external inscriptions are legible. The legible inscription has apparently been written in praise of God, The Prophet and Babar, who has been called a qalandar.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Srivastava |first=Sushil |title=The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry |publisher=] |year=1991 |location=New Delhi}}</ref>


] (Buchanan) did a survey of the Gorakhpur Division in 1813–14 on behalf of the British East India Company. His report was never published but partly reused by ] later. Kishore Kunal examined the original report in the ] archives. It states that the Hindus generally attributed destruction "to the furious zeal of Aurangzabe". Yet, it was ascertained to have been built by Babur by reying upon "an inscription on its walls". The said inscription in Persian was said to have been copied by a scribe and translated by a Maulvi friend of Buchanan. The translation however contained five pieces of text, including ''two'' inscriptions. The first inscription said that the mosque was constructed by Mir Baqi in the year 935&nbsp;AH or 923&nbsp;AH.{{efn|{{harvnb|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016|loc=Chapter 5}}: "By order of King Babur whose justice is a building reaching to the mansions of heaven, this alighting place of the angels was erected by Meer Baquee a nobleman impressed with the seal of happiness. This is lasting Charity in the year of its construction what declares in manifest "that good works are lasting." The anagram "good works are lasting" represented the year 935. "From the Tughra: There is no God but God, and Mohammad is the Prophet of God. Say, O'Mohammad, that God is one, that God is holy, unbegetting and unbegotten, and that he hath no equal."}} The second inscription narrated the genealogy of Aurangzeb.{{efn|{{harvnb|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016|loc=Chapter 5}}:"The victorious lord, Mooheyoo Din, Aulumgir, Badshah, the destroyer of infidels, the son of Shah Juhan, the son of Juhangeer Shah; the son of Ukbar Shah; the son of Humayoon Shah, the son of Babur Shah; the son Oomer Sheikh Shah; the son of Soolatan Uboo Saeed; the son of Soolatan Moohammad Shah; the son of Meeran Shah, the son of Shaib-i-Qiran Meer Tymoor." "From the Tughra: In the name of God, most merciful I testify that there is no God but God. He is one, and without equal. I also testify that Mohammad is his Servant and Prophet." "Upon the propitious date of this noble erection, by this weak slave Moohummud Funa Ullah."}} In addition to the two inscriptions and their monograms (''tughras''), a fable concerning a dervish called Musha Ashiqan was also included. The translator doubted that the fable was part of the inscription but recorded that the scribe "positively says that the inscription was executed at the erection of this building". The translator also had a difficulty with the anagram for the date, because one of the words was missing, which would have resulted in a date of 923 AH rather than 935 AH. These incongruities and mismatches made no impression on Buchanan, who maintained that the mosque was built by Babur.{{sfn|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016|loc=Chapter 5}}
The mosque was destroyed on ], ], by a crowd of 75,000 people ('']'') of the VHP and other associated groups. However, some estimates put the number at 200,000 (''Growth & Change'', Spring 2000). The destruction occurred at the end of Advani's ''rathayatra'', and there is some evidence that it was pre-planned by nationalist groups.


In 1877, Syed Mohammad Asghar the Mutawalli (guardian) of the "Masjid Baburi at Janmasthan" filed a petition with the Commissioner of Faizabad asking him to restrain the Hindus that raised a chabutara on the spot regarded as the birthplace of Rama. In the petition, he stated that Babur had inscribed one word "Allah" above the door. The district judge and the sub-judge visited the mosque in the presence of all parties and their lawyers and confirmed this fact. No other inscriptions were recorded.{{sfn|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016|loc=Chapter 5}} In 1889, archaeologist ] visited the mosque and found three inscriptions. One was a Quranic verse. The inscription XLI was Persian poetry in the metre Ramal, which stated that the mosque was erected by a noble 'Mir Khan' of Babur.{{efn|{{harvnb|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016|p=168}}:
LK Advani was present at the rostrum constructed opposite the Mosque on the day of its destruction and was the guest of honour. Witnesses report that many of the speeches on loudspeakers on that day praised Advani for mobilizing opinion for the destruction of the mosque. It is thought that the demolition was further incited via microphone by ] of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), along with two top associates, ] and ].
# By the order of Babur, the king of the world;
Bharati in her several turns at the microphone articulated two slogans to the crowds, 'Ram nam satya hai, Babri Masjid dhvasth hai,' (True is the name of Ram; the Babri Masjid has been demolished) and 'Ek dhakka aur do, Babri masjid tod do' (Give one more push, and raze the Babri Masjid).
# This firmament-like, lofty;
# Strong building was erected;
# By the auspicious noble Mir Khan;
# May ever remain such a foundation;
# And such a king of the world.}} The inscription XLII was also Persian poetry in metre Ramal, and said that the mosque was founded in year 930&nbsp;AH by a grandee of Babur, who was (comparable to) "another King of Turkey and China".{{efn|{{harvnb|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016|p=169}}:
# In the name of God, the merciful, the clement.
# In the name of him who...; may God perpetually keep him in the world.
# ....
# Such a sovereign who is famous in the world and in person of delight for the world.
# In his presence one of the grandees who is another King of Turkey and China.
# Laid this religious foundation in the auspicious Hijra 930.
# O God! May always remain the crown, throne and life with the king.
# May Babar always pour the flowers of happiness; may remain successful.
# His counsellor and minister who is the founder of this fort masjid.
# This poetry, giving the date and eulogy, was written by the lazy writer and poor servant Fath-Allah-Ghori, composer.}} The year 930 AH corresponds to 1523, three years before Babur's conquest of Hindustan. Despite the apparent contradiction, Führer published the date of "A.&nbsp;H.&nbsp;930 during the reign of Babar", in his book of 1891.{{sfn|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016|loc=Chapter 5}}


Writer Kishore Kunal states that all the inscriptions claimed were fake. They were affixed almost 285 years after the supposed construction of the mosque in 1528, and repeatedly replaced.{{sfn|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016|p=143}} His own assessment is that the mosque was built around 1660 by governor Fedai Khan of Aurangzeb, who demolished many temples in Ayodhya. Lal Das, who wrote ''Awadh-Vilasa'' in 1672 describes the ''janmasthan'' (Rama's birthplace) accurately but does not mention a temple at the site.{{sfn|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016|p=xxvii}}
While the mosque was being destroyed some local Hindus from Ayodhya pleaded with Acharya Dharmendra of the VHP's ] and BJP leader Uma Bharati to intervene and help stop the karsevaks, who were allegedly attacking Muslims in the town and burning and looting their houses and shops. In response, Acharya Dharmendra was quoted in the ] as having said, "Although the local Hindu residents did ask me to hold the crowds from burning Muslim homes I would have never stopped them. This is the only way in which Ayodhya could become like the Vatican." Journalists present were also attacked according to a letter by Time magazine journalists ] and ] which they sent to the judicial ] established in the wake of the violence. This was further corroborated by BBC correspondent ] in his radio commentary.


These developments were apparently known to local Muslims. In mid-nineteenth century, the Muslim activist Mirza Jan quoted from a book ''Sahifa-I-Chihil Nasaih Bahadur Shahi'', which was said to have been written by a daughter of the emperor ] (and granddaughter of ]) in the early 18th century. The text mentions mosques having been constructed after demolishing the "temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at ], ] and Awadh etc." Hindus are said to have called these demolished temples in Awadh "''Sita Rasoi''" (Sita's kitchen) and "Hanuman's abode." {{sfn|Narain, The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute|1993|pp=23–25}}<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hEOFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA8 |title=Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property |author=] and ] |publisher=Routledge |year=2003 |isbn=978-1-134-60498-2 |page=8 }}</ref> While there was no mention of Babur in this account, the Ayodhya mosque had been juxtaposed with those built by Aurangzeb at Mathura and Banaras. The manuscript, ''Sahifa-I-Chihil Nasaih Bahadur Shahi'', has not yet been found, and scholar Stephan Conermann has stated that Mirza Jan book, ''Hadiqa-yi shuhada'', is not reliable.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://crossasia-journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/iaf/article/view/1588 |title=Muslimische Quellen in der Ram Janmabhumi Mandir-Babri Masjid Debatte |work=] |date=1994 |access-date=20 August 2019 |archive-date=8 October 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191008015139/https://crossasia-journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/iaf/article/view/1588 |url-status=live }}</ref> Some historians like ], ], ] and Archeologist ] have concluded in their work, ''A Historians' Report to the Nation,'' that It is very likely, that the work (''Sahifa-I-Chihil Nasaih Bahadur Shahi'') or the passage (quoted above in this paragraph) was a figment of Mirza Jan's imagination.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Babri Masjid Question, 1528-2003: 'A Matter of National Honour' |publisher=] |isbn=9789382381457 |editor-last=Noorani |editor-first=A.G. |volume=1 |pages=45}}</ref>
The ] was imposed in UP at 6 p.m. on 6 December, although according to the BBC rioting did not begin in earnest until about 4 a.m. the following morning. However according to the BBC the violence and destruction continued for nearly 12 hours, with mobs several hundred strong roaming the streets of the town. According to some reports, the mobs also targeted other mosques with the result that almost all the masjids and idgahs of Ayodhya were damaged or destroyed. Only two mosques survived the violence. In the aftermath of the riots, members of both Hindu and Muslim communities hold 'outsiders' responsible for the events in Ayodhya, and insisted that they would survive recurring waves of violence together.


=== 1880s temple construction attempts ===
Following the destruction of the mosque, communal riots broke out between Hindus and Muslims across India, including in ] (Bombay), which was a largely secular and cosmopolitan city.
In 1853, a group of armed Hindu ascetics from ] occupied the Babri Masjid.<ref name="Roma_2014">{{citation |last=Chatterji |first=Roma |title=Wording the World: Veena Das and Scenes of Inheritance |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CJOUDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT406 |year=2014 |publisher=Fordham University Press |isbn=978-0-8232-6187-1 |page=406}}: "British administrative records show that the dispute began around 1853, when armed Hindu ascetics occupied the birthplace."</ref> Periodic violence erupted in the next two years, and the civil administration had to step in, refusing permission to build a temple or to use it as a place of worship. Gulam Hussain led a group of ] who asserted that the mosque site was home to the Hanuman temple in 1855. After a Hindu-Muslim clash, a boundary wall was constructed to avoid further disputes. It divided the mosque premises into two courtyards; the Muslims offered prayers in the inner courtyard. In 1857, the ''mahant'' of the Hanuman Garhi temple erected a raised platform and marked the site of Rama's birth.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Ludden |first=David |title=Contesting the nation : religion community, and the politics of democracy in India |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press |year=1996 |isbn=0-8122-1585-0 |location=Philadelphia |pages=38 |language=English}}</ref> The Hindus offered their prayers on a raised platform, known as "Ram Chabutara", in the outer courtyard.<ref name="Roma_2014" /><ref name="SGopal_1993">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=47AARF595dUC&pg=PA65 |title=Anatomy of a Confrontation: Ayodhya and the Rise of Communal Politics in India |author=] |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |year=1993 |isbn=978-1-85649-050-4 |pages=64–77 }}</ref>


In 1883, the Hindus launched an effort to construct a temple on the platform. After Muslim protests, the deputy commissioner prohibited any temple construction on 19 January 1885. On 27 January 1885, Raghubar Das, the Hindu ] (priest) of the Ram Chabutara filed a civil suit before the Faizabad Sub-Judge. In response, the ''mutawalli'' (Muslim trustee) of the mosque argued that the entire land belonged to the mosque.<ref name="Roma_2014" /> On 24 December 1885, the Sub Judge Pandit Hari Kishan Singh dismissed the suit. On 18 March 1886, the District Judge F.E.A. Chamier also dismissed an appeal against the lower court judgment. He agreed that the mosque was built on the land considered sacred by the Hindus, but ordered maintenance of ], since it was "too late now to remedy the grievance". A subsequent appeal before the Judicial Commissioner W. Young was also dismissed on 1 November 1886.<ref name="SGopal_1993" />
In 1994 The President of India sent an official inquiry to the Supreme Court to decide whether a temple existed below the mosque, which the High Court returned saying it was not competent to decide on matters of historical evidence, only matters of law and fact. It added that the question whether a temple existed beneath the mosque was " and superfluous" in the context of the legal dispute.


On 27 March 1934, a Hindu–Muslim riot occurred in Ayodhya, triggered by cow slaughter in the nearby Shahjahanpur village. The walls around the Masjid and one of the domes of the Masjid were damaged during the riots. These were reconstructed by the ].{{Citation needed|reason=Your explanation here|date=October 2016}}
<!--Commenting out picture until copyright information/restrictions are corrected.
]
-->


=== 1993 === === Shia–Sunni dispute ===
In 1936, the ] government enacted U.P. Muslim Waqf Act for the better administration of ] properties in the state. In accordance with this act, the Babri Masjid and its adjacent graveyard (Ganj-e-Saheedan Qabristan) were registered as ''Waqf no.&nbsp;26 Faizabad'' with the ]. The ] disputed the ] ownership of the mosque, claiming that the site belonged to them because Mir Baqi was a Shia.<ref name="Roma_2014" /> The Commissioner of Waqfs initiated an inquiry into the dispute. The inquiry concluded that the mosque belonged to the Sunnis, since it was commissioned by ], who was a Sunni. The concluding report was published in an official gazette dated 26 February 1944. In 1945, the Shia Central Board moved to court against this decision. On 23 March 1946, Judge S. A. Ahsan ruled in favour of the UP Sunni Central Board of Waqfs.<ref name="SGopal_1993" />


=== Placement of Hindu idols ===
The ], which were connected to the Ayodhya debate, occurred. The official number of dead was 257 dead with 1,400 others injured (some news sources say 317 people died; this is due to a bomb which killed 60 in Calcutta on March 17). Several days later, unexploded car bombs were discovered at a railway station. Islamic terrorist groups based in Pakistan were suspected to be responsible for these bombings, and evidence uncovered pointed to the involvement of ], leader of the muslim mafia of Mumbai.
In December 1949, the Hindu organisation Akhil Bharatiya Ramayana Mahasabha organised a non-stop nine-day recitation of the '']'' just outside the mosque. At the end of this event, on the night of 22–23 December 1949, a group of 50–60 people entered the mosque and placed idols of ] there. On the morning of 23 December, the event organisers asked Hindu devotees to come to the mosque for a '']''. As thousands of Hindus started visiting the place, the Government declared the mosque a disputed area and locked its gates.<ref name="SGopal_1993" />


Home Minister ] and Prime Minister ] directed the state's ] ] to remove the idols, however Pant was not willing to remove the idols. Pant wrote in response that "there is a reasonable chance of success, but things are still in a fluid state and it will be hazardous to say more at this stage".<ref name="Godbole 1996">{{cite book | last=Godbole | first=M. | title=Unfinished Innings: Recollections and Reflections of a Civil Servant | publisher=Orient Longman | year=1996 | isbn=978-81-250-0883-5 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ItQF4g08KbwC&pg=PA332 | access-date=2024-01-04 | pages=332–333}}</ref><ref name="Gehlot 1998 p. 203">{{cite book | last=Gehlot | first=N.S. | title=Current Trends in Indian Politics | publisher=Deep & Deep Publications | year=1998 | isbn=978-81-7100-798-1 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P-c0nGTRxRIC&pg=PA203 | page=203}}</ref> By 1950, the state took control of the structure under section 145 CrPC and allowed Hindus, not Muslims, to perform their worship at the site.<ref name="Chatterji">{{cite book | last=Chatterji | first=Roma | title=Wording the World: Veena Das and Scenes of Inheritance | publisher=Fordham University Press | series=Forms of Living | year=2014 | isbn=978-0-8232-6187-1 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CJOUDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT408 | page=408}}</ref>
=== 2002 ===


On 16 January 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad filed a civil suit in the Faizabad Court, asking that Hindus be allowed to worship Rama and Sita at the place. In 1959, the ] filed another lawsuit demanding possession of the mosque. On 18 December 1961, the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board also filed a lawsuit, demanding possession of the site and removal of idols from the mosque premises.<ref name="SGopal_1993" />
Since then, the AIBMAC and other Muslim groups have been campaigning to have the mosque rebuilt at the same site, while the VHP has been moving forward with plans to build a Rama temple there. In December 2002 the VHP announced that it would construct the temple in a year and a half (i.e., mid 2004). Prime Minister Vajpayee said in February 2003 during election campaigning in Himachal Pradesh that he firmly believed that the Babri Mosque existed on the site of a temple. The main opposition Congress Party took a cautious stance fearing it might alienate the Hindu vote by taking a position different from the Hindu hardliners'. Kapil Sibal, Congress Party spokesman, said the court order was part of judicial process for the final adjudication of the dispute.


=== 2005 === == Demolition ==
{{Main|Demolition of the Babri Masjid}}
{{Further|Ram Rath Yatra}}


In April 1984, the ] (VHP) initiated a campaign to gather public support for Hindu access to the Babri Masjid and other structures that had been allegedly built over Hindu shrines. To raise public awareness, VHP planned nationwide ''rath yatra''s (chariot processions<ref>*{{citation |last=Jaffrelot |first=Christophe |author-link=Christophe Jaffrelot|title=The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics |publisher=C. Hurst & Co. Publishers |year=1996 |isbn=978-1-85065-301-1 |page=417}}</ref>), the first of which took place in September–October 1984, from ] to Ayodhya. The campaign was temporarily suspended after the ], but was revived in 25 places on 23 October 1985. On 25 January 1986, a 28-year-old local lawyer named Umesh Chandra Pandey appealed to a court to remove the restrictions on Hindu worship in the Babri Masjid premises.<ref name="SGopal_1993" /> Subsequently, the ] government ordered the locks on the Babri Masjid gates to be removed. Earlier, the only Hindu ceremony permitted at the site was a Hindu priest performing an annual ]. After the ruling, all Hindus were given access to the site, and the mosque gained some function as a Hindu temple.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.outlookindia.com/article/what-if-rajiv-hadnt-unlocked-babri-masjid/224878 |title=What If Rajiv Hadn't Unlocked Babri Masjid? |work=] |date=23 August 2004 |access-date=20 June 2012 |first1=Koenraad |last1=Elst |archive-date=27 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160127100259/http://www.outlookindia.com/article/what-if-rajiv-hadnt-unlocked-babri-masjid/224878 |url-status=live }}</ref>
On ], ] five militants ] the disputed ] site. Security forces killed all five militants while a pilgrim guide Ramesh Pandey, was killed in the blast triggered by the militantts to breach the cordon wall. The attack, suspected to be the work of ], a designated organization fighting for Kashmir's secession from India, as well as the total islamization of the country, and the expulsion of the minority of Indian Jews, has once again put the town in the spotlight. See ].


Communal tension in the region worsened when the VHP received permission to perform a ''shilanyas'' (stone-laying ceremony) at the disputed site before the national election in November 1989. A senior ] (BJP) leader, ], started a '']'', embarking on a 10,000&nbsp;km journey starting from the south and heading towards Ayodhya. On 6 December 1992, BJP, VHP and ] (RSS) leaders gathered at the site to offer prayers and perform a symbolic '']''. At noon, a teenage ''Kar Sevak'' (volunteer) was "vaulted" on to the dome and that signalled the breaking of the outer cordon. Soon after, a large number of kar sevaks demolished the mosque.
<!--Commenting out picture until copyright information/restrictions are sortred out.
]
-->


== Babur == === Aftermath ===
Communal riots between Hindus and Muslims ensued across India immediately following demolition of the mosque. Rioting in the immediate aftermath resulted in the deaths of an estimated 2,000–3,000 people.<ref name="Haar Busuttil 2005">{{cite book | last1=Haar | first1=G.T. | last2=Busuttil | first2=J.J. | title=Bridge Or Barrier: Religion, Violence, and Visions for Peace | publisher=Brill | series=International Studies in Religion and Society | year=2005 | isbn=978-90-04-13943-5 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_cYI2EH0uHwC&pg=PA57 | access-date=2024-01-21 |quote=In the 1992 Babri Masjid incident, Hindu-Muslim massacres claimed at least 3,000 lives.| page=57}}</ref><ref name="Tablet Publishing Company">{{cite book | title=The Tablet | publisher=Tablet Publishing Company | year=2002 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=l2nhAAAAMAAJ | access-date=2024-01-21 | page=4|quote=Babri Masjid mosque at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh, the site of appalling communal vio- lence in 1992. In that year Hindu zealots tore down the 400 - year - old mosque, triggering violence which led to the deaths of 3,000 people.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11436552 | work=BBC News | title=Timeline: Ayodhya holy site crisis | date=30 September 2010 | access-date=20 June 2018 | archive-date=26 December 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181226123626/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11436552 | url-status=live }}</ref> Six weeks of riots further ], resulting in the deaths of an estimated 900 people.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-bookreview/the-mumbai-riots-in-historic-context/article3395359.ece |title=The Mumbai riots in historic context |newspaper=] |first1=Asghar Ali |last1=Engineer |access-date=21 January 2016 |archive-date=4 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200204135511/https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-bookreview/the-mumbai-riots-in-historic-context/article3395359.ece |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.rediff.com/news/column/jyoti-punwani-why-theres-no-noise-about-the-mumbai-riots/20140204.htm |title=Why there's no noise about the Mumbai riots |work=] |date=4 February 2014 |first1=Jyoti |last1=Punwani |access-date=21 January 2016 |archive-date=29 January 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129170545/https://www.rediff.com/news/column/jyoti-punwani-why-theres-no-noise-about-the-mumbai-riots/20140204.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>


Jihadist outfits like ] and ] have cited the demolition of Babri Masjid as justification for attacks directed against India.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.outlookindia.com/article/the-latest-indian-mujahideen-mail/268602 |title=The Latest 'Indian Mujahideen Mail' |first1=B. |last1=Raman |work=] |date=9 December 2010 |access-date=20 June 2012 |archive-date=22 October 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141022185833/http://www.outlookindia.com/article/The-Latest-Indian-Mujahideen-Mail/268602 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/blast-a-revenge-for-babri-mail/361167/1 |title=Blast a revenge for Babri: mail |newspaper=The Indian Express |date=14 September 2008 |access-date=20 June 2012 |first1=Amitabh |last1=Sinha |archive-date=25 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225031327/http://archive.indianexpress.com/static/sorry/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=Gordon /> ] Crime Boss ], wanted in India for his alleged ties to the ] which killed 257 people, is believed to have been infuriated by Babri Masjid's demolition.<ref name=Gordon />
It is generally thought that the mosque was built by ], because an inscription on the mosque records his name. Although we have a detailed account of the life of Babur in the form of his diary (]), the pages of the relevant period are missing in the diary. But it is alleged that the mosque already existed before Babur, who may only have renovated the building. The contemporary Tarikh-i-Babari records that Babar's troops "demolished many Hindu temples at Chanderi".


The site has since become a magnet for pilgrims.<ref name="eco">{{cite news|title=The unfinished Partition of India and Pakistan|url=https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21726729-seventy-years-after-two-countries-split-many-hindus-and-muslims-are-still-trying|access-date=19 August 2017|newspaper=]|date=17 August 2017|archive-date=19 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170819100557/https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21726729-seventy-years-after-two-countries-split-many-hindus-and-muslims-are-still-trying|url-status=live}}</ref> According to '']'', "Among its souvenir stalls, those doing the briskest trade are the ones playing videos on a loop of Hindu fundamentalists demolishing the mosque."<ref name="eco" />
== The Ayodhya Debate ==
Most Western, Indian Secular, and Muslim observers see the controversy surrunding this mosque within the framework of ] and ]. It was commonly believed by Hindus until about 1990 that the mosque stood on an ancient Hindu temple, though some commentators disagree and say that although the judiciary has been debating on the dispute of Babri Masjid (mosque) in Ayodhya for more than 40 years, it had remained a nonissue until the mid-1980s . The ] of 1989 reported that the Babri Mosque stood "on a site traditionally identified" as an earlier temple dedicated to Rama's birthplace. <ref>"Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple", 1989 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry "Ayodhya".{Template:Fact}</ref> According to their view, the ancient temple could have been destroyed on the orders of ] emperor Babur. This view is challenged by the ], ], Marxist <ref>e.g. Romila Thapar. Tom Bottomore: Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Blackwell, Oxford 1988, entry “Hinduism”.</ref> and mainstream Indian historians since the early 1990s.


=== Regional impact ===
Muslim claims over the site are largely represented by the ], demanding the restoration of the site and the mosque. It also holds that the case should be decided by the courts and if it is proved that a Hindu Temple existed at the spot the same will be handed over to the Hindu party; while the Hindu parties have been asking the minority Muslims to show magnanimity by handing over the land for the construction of the temple.Some Muslim members of the Hindu nationalist party BJP do not share the views of the Babri Masjid Action Committee like Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, president of the so called Muslim Youth Conference, an organisation known for its cooperation with the Hindu parties but equally unpopular with the Muslims who believe he is not Muslim, he said:
Riots in the aftermath of Babri Masjid's demolition extended to ], where hundreds of shops, homes and temples of Hindus were destroyed.<ref>{{cite web|publisher=United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees |url=http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MARP,,BGD,,469f3869c,0.html |title=Refworld &#124; Chronology for Hindus in Bangladesh |date=16 October 1993 |access-date=20 June 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121018084907/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2CMARP%2C%2CBGD%2C%2C469f3869c%2C0.html |archive-date=18 October 2012 }}</ref> Widespread retaliatory attacks against scores of Hindu and Jain temples also took place across neighbouring ], with police not intervening.<ref name="NYT1992">{{cite news |title=Pakistanis Attack 30 Hindu Temples |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/08/world/pakistanis-attack-30-hindu-temples.html |newspaper=] |language=en |date=8 December 1992 |quote=In Lahore, Muslims used a bulldozer, hammers and hands to demolish the Jain Mandar temple near Punjab University. The police did not intervene. |access-date=2 February 2019 |archive-date=25 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225202434/https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/08/world/pakistanis-attack-30-hindu-temples.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Gordon">{{cite book|last1=Gordon|first1=Sandy|last2=Gordon|first2=A. D. D.|title=India's Rise as an Asian Power: Nation, Neighborhood, and Region|date=2014|publisher=Georgetown University Press|isbn=978-1-62616-074-3|pages=54–58|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xllmBAAAQBAJ&q=pakistan+hindu+temple+babri&pg=PA54|access-date=27 May 2017}}</ref> Reprisal attacks against Hindus in both countries, in turn, entered the discourse of ] ]s – for example, in 1995, the VHP appealed to the ] to protect Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan and ].<ref name=Gordon /> Babri Masjid's demolition and its violent repercussions have negatively affected relations between India and Pakistan, and remain strained until the present day.<ref name=Gordon />
"It is the duty of every nationalist Indian to protect the birthplace of Lord ] to save India's honour, prestige and cultural heritage.... Anti-national and communal activities of Muslim fundamentalists are a blot on the entire ]... It is the duty of all nationalist ]s to expose such designs and accept the truth.” (Indian Express, 21/9/1990.)


=== Liberhan Commission ===
Hindu parties have also cited that a Muslim scholar ] wrote: "The Muslims, in my opinion, should show magnanimity and a noble gesture of gifting away the mosque... (“Communalism and Communal Violence in India (Ajanta Publ., Delhi 1989), p.320.)However, a majority of Muslims question this idea saying as minority community and thereby deprived - they should themselves be shown magnanimity.
{{See also|Liberhan Commission#Findings}}
The ] set up by the Government to investigate the demolition later blamed 68 people including senior BJP, RSS and VHP leaders for the demolition.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/report_sequence_of_events_on_december_6.php |title=Report: Sequence of events on December 6 |publisher=Ndtv.com |access-date=20 June 2012 |archive-date=4 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131104100817/http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/report-sequence-of-events-on-december-6-11977 |url-status=live }}</ref> Among those criticised in the report were ], the party's chief LK Advani, and chief minister ].<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100131082341/http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/11/2009112454918803725.html |date=31 January 2010 }} Al-Jazeera English – 24 November 2009</ref> A 2005 book by the former ] (IB) Joint Director ] claimed the senior leaders of RSS, BJP, VHP and ] had planned the demolition 10 months in advance. He also suggested that the Indian National Congress leaders, including prime minister ] and home minister ], had ignored warnings about the demolition for deriving political benefits.<ref name="newindpress.com"> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202030501/http://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/babri-masjid-demolition-was-planned-10-months-in-advance-book/276473 |date=2 February 2017 }}, Outlook, 30 January 2005.</ref>


== Archaeological excavations ==
One option discussed was also to build the temple next to the mosque or to relocate the mosque to another site (many mosques in Islamic countries have been relocated for reasons such as road expansion).However, Indian Muslim parties claim that the place of prayer is what is constituted by the mosque and not the structure.
{{Main|Archaeology of Ayodhya}}


In 2003, by the order of an Indian court, the ] (ASI) was asked to conduct a more in-depth study and an excavation to ascertain the type of structure that was beneath the rubble.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Ratnagar |first=Shereen |date=April 2004 |title=Archaeology at the Heart of a Political Confrontation: The Case of Ayodhya |url=http://dro.dur.ac.uk/5696/1/5696.pdf |journal=Current Anthropology |volume=45 |issue=2 |pages=239–259 |doi=10.1086/381044 |jstor=10.1086/381044 |s2cid=149773944 |access-date=20 April 2018 |archive-date=24 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180724224106/http://dro.dur.ac.uk/5696/1/5696.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> The excavation was conducted from 12 March 2003 to 7 August 2003, resulting in 1360 discoveries. The ASI submitted its report to the Allahabad high court.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/22ayo.htm |title=ASI submits report on Ayodhya excavation |work=] |date=22 August 2003 |access-date=20 June 2012 |agency=PTI |archive-date=26 October 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121026011030/http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/22ayo.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>
A large number of prominent people, many of them Hindus, particularly those who are sympathisers of the Communist/Congress party oppose the destruction of the ] e.g. ], ], ] etc. But it is claimed by some other Hindus associated with the BJP led movement that at the time the structure was felled, it did touch a chord with millions of Hindus who looked to this incident as a fountainhead of Hindu religious nationalism in India. Muslims on the other hand regarded this as a black day for the Indian nationhood and Indian secularism. While Muslims observe December 6 , when this historic mosque and monument was felled as a Black day, Extremist Hindus observe this as the Shourya Divas - Victory Day.


The summary of the ASI report indicated what appears to be the presence of a 10th-century shrine under the mosque.<ref name="week">{{cite news |url=http://www.the-week.com/23sep07/events1.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050323101829/http://www.the-week.com/23sep07/events1.htm |last1=Prasannan |first1=R. |archive-date=23 March 2005 |date=7 September 2003 |title=Ayodhya: Layers of truth |work=]}}</ref><ref name="trib">{{cite news | url=http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030826/main6.htm | last=Suryamurthy | first=R | title=ASI findings may not resolve title dispute | newspaper=The Tribune | date=26 August 2003 | access-date=29 July 2007 | archive-date=11 April 2009 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090411193402/http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030826/main6.htm | url-status=live }}</ref> According to the ASI team, the human activity at the site dates back to the 13th century BC. The next few layers date back to the ] period (2nd-1st century BC) and the ] period. During the early medieval period (11–12th century), a short-lived structure of nearly 50 metres with north–south orientation was constructed. On the remains of this structure, another massive structure was constructed: this structure had at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it. The report concluded that it was over this construction that the disputed structure was constructed during the early 16th century.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/25ayo1.htm |title=Proof of temple found at Ayodhya: ASI report |work=Rediff.com |date=25 August 2003 |access-date=20 June 2012 |archive-date=26 September 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100926043755/http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/25ayo1.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>
Some Hindu observers claim that a large number of Hindu religious leaders do not subscribe to the policies of the BJP and the VHP. These seers and religious leaders are opposed to the politicizing of the ] and want to construct the new temple in a civilized manner. The Akharha Parishad, which is the supreme body of the sadhus of different Hindu sects, has not only boycotted BJP meetings but has also sharply criticized the RSS-BJP-VHP troika for politicizing and inflaming the issue. The ] and ] have made it clear that they have refused any affiliation with the ], which is a religious council set up by the VHP.


Muslim groups immediately disputed the ASI findings. The Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (Sahmat) criticised the report saying that it said that "presence of animal bones throughout as well as of the use of 'surkhi' and lime mortar" that was found by ASI are all characteristic of Muslim presence "that rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque." The report claimed otherwise on the basis of 'pillar bases' was contested since no pillars were found, and the alleged existence of 'pillar bases' has been debated by archaeologists.<ref name=thehindu-03Oct10>{{cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article809521.ece| title=Ayodhya verdict yet another blow to secularism: Sahmat|date =3 October 2010|newspaper=] |location=Chennai, India |access-date=1 November 2010 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101006063051/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article809521.ece| archive-date= 6 October 2010 | url-status= live}}</ref> Syed Rabe Hasan Nadvi, chairman of the ] (AIMPLB) alleged that ASI failed to mention any evidence of a temple in its interim reports and only revealed it in the final report which was submitted during a time of national tension, making the report highly suspect.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2019/stories/20030926005412900.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071117033841/http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2019/stories/20030926005412900.htm|url-status=usurped|archive-date=17 November 2007|author=Muralidharan, Sukumar|date=September 2003|title= Ayodhya: Not the last word yet|publisher=Frontline}}</ref>
Muslims on the other hand have claimed that this issue is just the crest of an iceberg.The Hindu parties whether shunning violence or doing it are just waiting for another moment to repatriate other Muslim places of worship.They cite many places where actions by the right wing Hindu party BJP and its affiliate religious and militant organisations have either led to the closure of these places of worship to the Muslims or partial curtailment of the prayers to a few days in a week or limiting the number of people who could perform the prayers.


The Allahabad High Court, however, upheld the ASI's findings.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-Allahabad-HC-exposed-experts-espousing-Masjid-cause/articleshow/6716643.cms |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121104114435/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-10-09/india/28254384_1_asi-excavations-experts-waqf-board |url-status=live |archive-date=4 November 2012 |title=How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause|newspaper=] |date=9 October 2010|first1=Abhinav |last1=Garg |access-date=1 November 2010}}</ref>
The situation regarding the RamJanmabhoomi has been compared to the Temple Mount controversies and claims in Israel by Jewish Scholar and Islam critic ] . In particular, Pipes writes:


== Title cases verdict ==
"Ayodhya prompts several thoughts relating to the Temple Mount. It shows that the Temple Mount dispute is far from unique. Moslems have habitually asserted the supremacy of Islam through architecture, building on top of the monuments of other faiths (as in Jerusalem and Ayodhya) or appropriating them (e.g. the Ka'ba in Mecca and the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople)."
A land title case on the site was lodged in the ], the verdict of which was pronounced on 30 September 2010. In their verdict, the three judges of The Allahabad High Court ruled that the {{convert|2+3/4|acre|ha|order=flip}} of Ayodhya land be divided into three parts, with one-third going to the ] or Infant Lord Rama represented by the ] for the construction of the Ram temple, one-third going to the Islamic ] and the remaining one-third going to ], a Hindu religious denomination. While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site.<ref> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928085435/http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ayodhyabench4.html |date=28 September 2011 }}</ref> The excavations by the ] were heavily used as evidence by the court that the predating structure was a massive Hindu religious building.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/ayodhyafiles/hondvsj-gist-vol1.pdf |title=Issues For Briefing |publisher=Allahabad High Court |access-date=11 June 2012 |archive-date=25 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225023953/http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/ayodhyafiles/hondvsj-gist-vol1.pdf%20 |url-status=live }}</ref>


The five judge ] bench heard the title dispute cases from August to October 2019. The Court observed that archaeological evidence from ASI shows that the Babri Masjid was constructed on a "structure", whose architecture was distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic.<ref name="BBC 2019" /><ref name=hindubusinessline-16Oct19 /> The court concluded that no evidence was found that the structure was specifically demolished for the construction of the Babri Masjid.<ref name="Daniyal 2019">{{cite web | last=Daniyal | first=Shoaib | title=No, the Supreme Court did not uphold the claim that Babri Masjid was built by demolishing a temple | website=Scroll.in | date=2019-11-11 | url=https://scroll.in/article/943337/no-the-supreme-court-did-not-uphold-the-claim-that-babri-masjid-was-built-by-demolishing-a-temple}}</ref> On 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court ordered the land to be handed over to a trust to build the Hindu temple. It also ordered the government to allot an alternative {{convert|5|acre|ha|0|order=flip|adj=on}} plot to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board to build a mosque,<ref name=timesofindia-09Nov19 /> which the government allotted in ], Ayodhya.<ref name=indiatoday-05Feb20>{{Cite news|title=Where is Dhannipur? All about the site allotted to Sunni Waqf Board for a mosque|url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/30-km-from-where-babri-masjid-stood-here-s-all-you-need-to-know-about-dhannipur-1643583-2020-02-05|date=5 February 2020|work=]|access-date=28 August 2020|archive-date=1 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200801101213/https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/30-km-from-where-babri-masjid-stood-here-s-all-you-need-to-know-about-dhannipur-1643583-2020-02-05|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=businessstandard-14Feb2020 />
==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>
*Communal Politics: myths versus facts. by RAM PUNIYANI. Sage Publications, 2003.
*Bacchetta, Paola. "Sacred Space in Conflict in India: The Babri Masjid Affair." ''Growth & Change''. Spring2000, Vol. 31, Issue 2.
*Baburnama: Memoirs of ], Prince and Emperor. 1996. Edited, translated and annotated by Wheeler M. Thacktson. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
*Swapan Dasgupta et al.: The Ayodhya Reference: Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries. 1995. New Delhi: Voice of India. ISBN 8185990301
*Ayodhya and the Future of India. 1993. Edited by Jitendra Bajaj. Madras: Centre for Policy Studies. ISBN 81-86041-02-8 hb ISBN 81-86041-03-6 pb
*Elst, Koenraad. 1991. Ayodhya and After: Issues before Hindu Society. 1991. New Delhi: Voice of India.
*Emmanuel, Dominic. 'The Mumbai bomb blasts and the Ayodhya tangle', ''National Catholic Reporter '' (Kansas City, ] ]).
*S.R. Goel: '']'', Voice of India, Delhi 1991.
*Harsh Narain. 1993. The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers.
*A.G. Noorani. 2003. The Babri Masjid Question, 1528-2003: 'A Matter of National Honour'. New Delhi: Tulika Books.
*Rajaram, N.S. (2000). Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New Delhi: Voice of India
*Romey, Kristin M., "Flashpoint Ayodhya." ''Archaeology'' Jul/Aug2004, Vol. 57, Issue 4.
*Thapar, Romila. 'A Historical Perspective on the Story of Rama' in Thapar (2000).
*Thapar, Romila. ''Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History'' (New Delhi: Oxford University, 2000) ISBN 0195640500.
*Ayodhya ka Itihas evam Puratattva— Rigveda kal se ab tak (‘History and Archaeology of Ayodhya— From the Time of the Rigveda to the Present’) by Thakur Prasad Varma and Swarajya Prakash Gupta. Bharatiya Itihasa evam Samskrit Parishad and DK Printworld. New Delhi.
*History versus Casuistry: Evidence of the Ramajanmabhoomi Mandir presented by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to the Government of India in December-January 1990-91. New Delhi: Voice of India.


== See also ==
=== The Ayodhya Debate in fiction ===
{{Portal|India|Hinduism|Islam}}
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Explanatory notes ==
* The Babri riots are depicted in the 1995 film ].
{{notelist|30em}}
* ]: ]


===Further reading=== == References ==
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist|30em}}


=== General sources ===
* ] (ISBN 0670058580) by ]
* {{cite web|author=Allahabad High Court |title=Decision of Hon'ble Special Full Bench hearing Ayodhya Matters |date=30 August 2010 |url=http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/DisplayAyodhyaBenchLandingPage.do |access-date=27 December 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140827003623/http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/DisplayAyodhyaBenchLandingPage.do |archive-date=27 August 2014}}
* {{cite book |last=Jain |first=Meenakshi |author-link=Meenakshi Jain |title=Rama and Ayodhya |publisher=Aryan Books |location=New Delhi |year=2013 |isbn=978-8173054518 |ref={{sfnref|Jain, Rama and Ayodhya|2013}}}}
* {{citation |first=Kishore |last=Kunal |title=Ayodhya Revisited |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gKKaDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA335 |publisher=Prabhat Prakashan |year=2016 |isbn=978-81-8430-357-5 |ref={{sfnref|Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited|2016}}}}
* {{cite book |last=Narain |first=Harsh |title=The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources |location=Delhi |publisher=Penman Publishers |year=1993 |url=https://archive.org/details/TheAyodhyaTempleMosqueDisputeHarshNarain |ref={{sfnref|Narain, The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute|1993}}}}
* {{cite journal |last1=van der Veer |first1=Peter |title=Ayodhya and Somnath: Eternal Shrines, Contested Histores |journal=Social Research |date=1992 |volume=59 |issue=1 |pages=85–109 |jstor=40970685 |issn=0037-783X}}


==See also== == Further reading ==
* ]. ''Communal History and Rama's Ayodhya'', People's Publishing House (PPH), 2nd Revised Edition, September 1999, ]. Translated into ], ], ], ], ] and ]. Two versions in ].
*]
* ]: '']'', Voice of India, Delhi 1991.
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
==Research Papers==
*
*
*
*The Ayodhya Debate: Focus on the ‘No Temple’ Evidence; Two sides to the story
*
*


==External links== == External links ==
* {{commons category-inline}}
*
*
*
*, ''Film by Anand Patwardhan on Ayodhya issue''(] ]) Retrieved Friday, ], ] 11:19:08 PM
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*, ''BBC News'' (] ]). Retrieved ] ]
*, ''BBC News'' (] ]). Retrieved ] ]
*


] {{Mosques in India}}
{{Faizabad division topics}}
]
{{Authority control}}
]
]
]


]
]
] ]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 07:29, 2 January 2025

Destroyed mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India

Babri Masjid
Babri Masjid19th century photo by Samuel Bourne
Religion
AffiliationIslam
DistrictAyodhya
StatusDemolished
FateSite now occupied by the Ram Mandir temple; succeeded by Muhammad bin Abdullah Masjid
Location
MunicipalityAyodhya
State Uttar Pradesh
Country India
Babri Masjid is located in IndiaBabri MasjidLocation in India
Geographic coordinates26°47′44″N 82°11′40″E / 26.7956°N 82.1945°E / 26.7956; 82.1945
Architecture
StyleTughlaq
CreatorMir Baqi
Funded byBabur
Date established935 AH (1527-1528; 497 years ago (1528))
Demolished6 December 1992; 32 years ago (1992-12-06)
Ayodhya dispute
Organizations

Babri Masjid (ISO: Bābarī Masjida; meaning Mosque of Babur) was a mosque in Ayodhya, India. It has been claimed to have been built upon the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the legendary birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism. It has been a focus of dispute between the Hindu and Muslim communities since the 19th century. According to the mosque's inscriptions, it was built in 1528–29 (935 AH) by Mir Baqi, a commander of the Mughal emperor Babur. Before the 1940s, the masjid was officially known as "Masjid-i-Janmasthan" ("the mosque of the birthplace"). The mosque was attacked and demolished by a Hindu nationalist mob in 1992, which ignited communal violence across the Indian subcontinent.

The mosque was located on a hill known as Ramkot ("Rama's fort"). According to Hindu nationalists, Baqi destroyed a pre-existing temple of Rama at the site. The existence of this temple is a matter of controversy. The Archaeological Survey of India conducted an excavation of the disputed site on the orders of the Allahabad High Court. The excavation period was short due to court time constraints, lasting only 15 days. The report of the excavation concluded that there were ruins of "a massive structure" beneath the ruins of the mosque which was "indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India", but found no evidence that the structure was specifically demolished for the construction of the Babri Masjid. The report received both praise and criticism, with some other archaeologists contesting the results of the report.

Starting in the 19th century, there were several conflicts and court disputes between Hindus and Muslims over the mosque. In 1949, idols of Rama and Sita were placed inside the mosque, after which the government locked the building to avoid further disputes. Court cases were filed by both Hindus and Muslims asking for access.

On 6 December 1992, a large group of Hindu activists belonging to the Vishva Hindu Parishad and allied organisations demolished the mosque, triggering riots all over the Indian subcontinent, resulting in the death of around 2,000–3,000 people.

In September 2010, the Allahabad High Court upheld the claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Rama's birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the construction of a Rama temple. Muslims were also awarded one-third area of the site for the construction of a mosque. The decision was subsequently appealed by all parties to the Supreme Court, wherein a five judge bench heard a title suit from August to October 2019. On 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court quashed the lower court's judgement and ordered the entire site (1.1 hectares or 2+3⁄4 acres land) to be handed over to a trust to build the Hindu temple. It also ordered the government to give an alternative 2-hectare (5-acre) plot to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board to replace the Babri Masjid that was demolished in 1992. The government allotted a site in the village of Dhannipur, in Ayodhya District, 18 kilometres (11 mi) from Ayodhya City and 30 kilometres (19 mi) by road from the site of the original Babri Masjid. The construction of the mosque started on 26 January 2021.

Etymology

The name "Babri Masjid" comes from the name of the Mughal emperor Babur, who is said to have ordered its construction. Before the 1940s, it was called Masjid-i Janmasthan ("mosque of the birthplace") including in official documents.

Architecture

Background

Main article: Indo-Islamic architecture

The rulers of the Delhi Sultanate and their successors, the Mughals, were great patrons of art and architecture and constructed many fine tombs, mosques and madrasas. These have a distinctive style which bears influences of "later Tughlaq" architecture. Mosques all over India were built in different styles; the most elegant styles developed in areas where indigenous art traditions were strong and local artisans were highly skilled. Thus regional or provincial styles of mosques grew out of local temple or domestic styles, which were conditioned in their turn by climate, terrain, materials, hence the enormous difference between the mosques of Bengal, Kashmir and Gujarat. The Babri Mosque followed the architectural school of Jaunpur Sultanate. When viewed from the west side, it resembled the Atala Masjid in Jaunpur.

Architectural style

Site map of Babri Masjid

The architecture of the mosque is completely a replica of the mosques in the Delhi Sultanate. Babri was an important mosque of a distinct style, preserved mainly in architecture, developed after the Delhi Sultanate was established, seen also in the Babari Mosque in the southern suburb of the walled city of Gaur, and the Jamali Kamili Mosque built by Sher Shah Suri. This was the forerunner of the Mughal architecture style adopted by Akbar.

Acoustics

"A whisper from the Babri Masjid mihrab could be heard clearly at the other end, 200 feet away and through the length and breadth of the central court" according to Graham Pickford, architect to Lord William Bentinck (1828–33). The mosque's acoustics were mentioned by him in his book Historic Structures of Oudhe where he says "for a 16th-century building the deployment and projection of voice from the pulpit is considerably advanced, the unique deployment of sound in this structure will astonish the visitor".

History

Construction

The date of construction of the Babri Masjid is uncertain. The inscriptions on the Babri Masjid premises found in the 20th century state that the mosque was built in 935 AH (1528–29) by Mir Baqi in accordance with the wishes of Babur. However, these inscriptions appear to be of a more recent vintage.

There are no records of the mosque from this period. The Baburnama (Chronicles of Babur) does not mention either the mosque or the destruction of a temple. The Ramcharitamanas of Tulsidas (1574) and Ain-i Akbari of Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak (1598) made no mention of a mosque either. William Finch, the English traveller who visited Ayodhya around 1611, wrote about the "ruins of the Ranichand castle and houses" where Hindus believed the great God "took flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world." He found pandas (Brahmin priests) in the ruins of the fort, recording the names of pilgrims, but there was no mention of a mosque. Thomas Herbert described in 1634 the "pretty old castle of Ranichand built by a Bannyan Pagod of that name" which he described as an antique monument that was "especially memorable". He also recorded the fact of Brahmins recording the names of pilgrims.

The earliest map of Ram Janmasthan at Ayodhya (1717 CE)

The earliest record of a mosque at the site traditionally believed by Hindus to be the birthplace of Rama comes from Jai Singh II (or "Sawai Jai Singh") – a Rajput noble in the Mughal court who purchased land and established a Jaisinghpura in the area surrounding the mosque in 1717 (as he had also done in several other Hindu religious places). The documents of Jai Singh preserved in the Kapad-Dwar collection in the City Palace Museum of Jaipur, include a sketch map of the Babri Masjid site. The map shows an open court yard and a built structure with three temple spires (sikharas) resembling today's Babri Masjid with three domes. The courtyard is labelled janmasthan and shows a Ram chabutra. The central bay of the built structure is labelled chhathi, which also denotes birthplace.

Joseph Tiefenthaler, a European Jesuit missionary who lived and worked in India for 38 years (1743–1785), visited Ayodhya in 1767. He noted one Ramkot fortress — comprising the house that was considered as the birthplace of Rama by Hindus — to have been demolished by Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707); however, "others" said it to have been demolished by Babar. A mosque with three domes was constructed in its place but Hindus continued to offer prayers at a mud platform that marked the birthplace of Rama.

Inscriptions

The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry by Sushil Srivastava mentions that The Babri Masjid has three inscriptions in Persian, in different styles of calligraphy, two outside and one inside the mosque-just above the pulpit. A.S. Beveridge's translation of the inscription inside the mosque, mentions that by the order of Babar, Mir Baqi constructed the mosque in the year AH 935 (AD 1529). Only six lines of one of the two external inscriptions are legible. The legible inscription has apparently been written in praise of God, The Prophet and Babar, who has been called a qalandar.

Francis Buchanan-Hamilton (Buchanan) did a survey of the Gorakhpur Division in 1813–14 on behalf of the British East India Company. His report was never published but partly reused by Montgomery Martin later. Kishore Kunal examined the original report in the British Library archives. It states that the Hindus generally attributed destruction "to the furious zeal of Aurangzabe". Yet, it was ascertained to have been built by Babur by reying upon "an inscription on its walls". The said inscription in Persian was said to have been copied by a scribe and translated by a Maulvi friend of Buchanan. The translation however contained five pieces of text, including two inscriptions. The first inscription said that the mosque was constructed by Mir Baqi in the year 935 AH or 923 AH. The second inscription narrated the genealogy of Aurangzeb. In addition to the two inscriptions and their monograms (tughras), a fable concerning a dervish called Musha Ashiqan was also included. The translator doubted that the fable was part of the inscription but recorded that the scribe "positively says that the inscription was executed at the erection of this building". The translator also had a difficulty with the anagram for the date, because one of the words was missing, which would have resulted in a date of 923 AH rather than 935 AH. These incongruities and mismatches made no impression on Buchanan, who maintained that the mosque was built by Babur.

In 1877, Syed Mohammad Asghar the Mutawalli (guardian) of the "Masjid Baburi at Janmasthan" filed a petition with the Commissioner of Faizabad asking him to restrain the Hindus that raised a chabutara on the spot regarded as the birthplace of Rama. In the petition, he stated that Babur had inscribed one word "Allah" above the door. The district judge and the sub-judge visited the mosque in the presence of all parties and their lawyers and confirmed this fact. No other inscriptions were recorded. In 1889, archaeologist Anton Führer visited the mosque and found three inscriptions. One was a Quranic verse. The inscription XLI was Persian poetry in the metre Ramal, which stated that the mosque was erected by a noble 'Mir Khan' of Babur. The inscription XLII was also Persian poetry in metre Ramal, and said that the mosque was founded in year 930 AH by a grandee of Babur, who was (comparable to) "another King of Turkey and China". The year 930 AH corresponds to 1523, three years before Babur's conquest of Hindustan. Despite the apparent contradiction, Führer published the date of "A. H. 930 during the reign of Babar", in his book of 1891.

Writer Kishore Kunal states that all the inscriptions claimed were fake. They were affixed almost 285 years after the supposed construction of the mosque in 1528, and repeatedly replaced. His own assessment is that the mosque was built around 1660 by governor Fedai Khan of Aurangzeb, who demolished many temples in Ayodhya. Lal Das, who wrote Awadh-Vilasa in 1672 describes the janmasthan (Rama's birthplace) accurately but does not mention a temple at the site.

These developments were apparently known to local Muslims. In mid-nineteenth century, the Muslim activist Mirza Jan quoted from a book Sahifa-I-Chihil Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, which was said to have been written by a daughter of the emperor Bahadur Shah I (and granddaughter of Aurangzeb) in the early 18th century. The text mentions mosques having been constructed after demolishing the "temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh etc." Hindus are said to have called these demolished temples in Awadh "Sita Rasoi" (Sita's kitchen) and "Hanuman's abode." While there was no mention of Babur in this account, the Ayodhya mosque had been juxtaposed with those built by Aurangzeb at Mathura and Banaras. The manuscript, Sahifa-I-Chihil Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, has not yet been found, and scholar Stephan Conermann has stated that Mirza Jan book, Hadiqa-yi shuhada, is not reliable. Some historians like R.S. Sharma, M. Athar Ali, D.N. Jha and Archeologist Suraj Bhan have concluded in their work, A Historians' Report to the Nation, that It is very likely, that the work (Sahifa-I-Chihil Nasaih Bahadur Shahi) or the passage (quoted above in this paragraph) was a figment of Mirza Jan's imagination.

1880s temple construction attempts

In 1853, a group of armed Hindu ascetics from Hanuman Garhi temple occupied the Babri Masjid. Periodic violence erupted in the next two years, and the civil administration had to step in, refusing permission to build a temple or to use it as a place of worship. Gulam Hussain led a group of Sunni Muslims who asserted that the mosque site was home to the Hanuman temple in 1855. After a Hindu-Muslim clash, a boundary wall was constructed to avoid further disputes. It divided the mosque premises into two courtyards; the Muslims offered prayers in the inner courtyard. In 1857, the mahant of the Hanuman Garhi temple erected a raised platform and marked the site of Rama's birth. The Hindus offered their prayers on a raised platform, known as "Ram Chabutara", in the outer courtyard.

In 1883, the Hindus launched an effort to construct a temple on the platform. After Muslim protests, the deputy commissioner prohibited any temple construction on 19 January 1885. On 27 January 1885, Raghubar Das, the Hindu mahant (priest) of the Ram Chabutara filed a civil suit before the Faizabad Sub-Judge. In response, the mutawalli (Muslim trustee) of the mosque argued that the entire land belonged to the mosque. On 24 December 1885, the Sub Judge Pandit Hari Kishan Singh dismissed the suit. On 18 March 1886, the District Judge F.E.A. Chamier also dismissed an appeal against the lower court judgment. He agreed that the mosque was built on the land considered sacred by the Hindus, but ordered maintenance of status quo, since it was "too late now to remedy the grievance". A subsequent appeal before the Judicial Commissioner W. Young was also dismissed on 1 November 1886.

On 27 March 1934, a Hindu–Muslim riot occurred in Ayodhya, triggered by cow slaughter in the nearby Shahjahanpur village. The walls around the Masjid and one of the domes of the Masjid were damaged during the riots. These were reconstructed by the British Indian government.

Shia–Sunni dispute

In 1936, the United Provinces government enacted U.P. Muslim Waqf Act for the better administration of waqf properties in the state. In accordance with this act, the Babri Masjid and its adjacent graveyard (Ganj-e-Saheedan Qabristan) were registered as Waqf no. 26 Faizabad with the UP Sunni Central Board of Waqfs. The Shias disputed the Sunni ownership of the mosque, claiming that the site belonged to them because Mir Baqi was a Shia. The Commissioner of Waqfs initiated an inquiry into the dispute. The inquiry concluded that the mosque belonged to the Sunnis, since it was commissioned by Babur, who was a Sunni. The concluding report was published in an official gazette dated 26 February 1944. In 1945, the Shia Central Board moved to court against this decision. On 23 March 1946, Judge S. A. Ahsan ruled in favour of the UP Sunni Central Board of Waqfs.

Placement of Hindu idols

In December 1949, the Hindu organisation Akhil Bharatiya Ramayana Mahasabha organised a non-stop nine-day recitation of the Ramacharitamanas just outside the mosque. At the end of this event, on the night of 22–23 December 1949, a group of 50–60 people entered the mosque and placed idols of Rama there. On the morning of 23 December, the event organisers asked Hindu devotees to come to the mosque for a darshan. As thousands of Hindus started visiting the place, the Government declared the mosque a disputed area and locked its gates.

Home Minister Vallabhbhai Patel and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru directed the state's Chief Minister Govind Ballabh Pant to remove the idols, however Pant was not willing to remove the idols. Pant wrote in response that "there is a reasonable chance of success, but things are still in a fluid state and it will be hazardous to say more at this stage". By 1950, the state took control of the structure under section 145 CrPC and allowed Hindus, not Muslims, to perform their worship at the site.

On 16 January 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad filed a civil suit in the Faizabad Court, asking that Hindus be allowed to worship Rama and Sita at the place. In 1959, the Nirmohi Akhara filed another lawsuit demanding possession of the mosque. On 18 December 1961, the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board also filed a lawsuit, demanding possession of the site and removal of idols from the mosque premises.

Demolition

Main article: Demolition of the Babri Masjid Further information: Ram Rath Yatra

In April 1984, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) initiated a campaign to gather public support for Hindu access to the Babri Masjid and other structures that had been allegedly built over Hindu shrines. To raise public awareness, VHP planned nationwide rath yatras (chariot processions), the first of which took place in September–October 1984, from Sitamarhi to Ayodhya. The campaign was temporarily suspended after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, but was revived in 25 places on 23 October 1985. On 25 January 1986, a 28-year-old local lawyer named Umesh Chandra Pandey appealed to a court to remove the restrictions on Hindu worship in the Babri Masjid premises. Subsequently, the Rajiv Gandhi government ordered the locks on the Babri Masjid gates to be removed. Earlier, the only Hindu ceremony permitted at the site was a Hindu priest performing an annual puja. After the ruling, all Hindus were given access to the site, and the mosque gained some function as a Hindu temple.

Communal tension in the region worsened when the VHP received permission to perform a shilanyas (stone-laying ceremony) at the disputed site before the national election in November 1989. A senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, L K Advani, started a rath yatra, embarking on a 10,000 km journey starting from the south and heading towards Ayodhya. On 6 December 1992, BJP, VHP and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leaders gathered at the site to offer prayers and perform a symbolic kar seva. At noon, a teenage Kar Sevak (volunteer) was "vaulted" on to the dome and that signalled the breaking of the outer cordon. Soon after, a large number of kar sevaks demolished the mosque.

Aftermath

Communal riots between Hindus and Muslims ensued across India immediately following demolition of the mosque. Rioting in the immediate aftermath resulted in the deaths of an estimated 2,000–3,000 people. Six weeks of riots further erupted in Bombay, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 900 people.

Jihadist outfits like Indian Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba have cited the demolition of Babri Masjid as justification for attacks directed against India. D-Company Crime Boss Dawood Ibrahim, wanted in India for his alleged ties to the 1993 Bombay bombings which killed 257 people, is believed to have been infuriated by Babri Masjid's demolition.

The site has since become a magnet for pilgrims. According to The Economist, "Among its souvenir stalls, those doing the briskest trade are the ones playing videos on a loop of Hindu fundamentalists demolishing the mosque."

Regional impact

Riots in the aftermath of Babri Masjid's demolition extended to Bangladesh, where hundreds of shops, homes and temples of Hindus were destroyed. Widespread retaliatory attacks against scores of Hindu and Jain temples also took place across neighbouring Pakistan, with police not intervening. Reprisal attacks against Hindus in both countries, in turn, entered the discourse of right-wing Hindu nationalists – for example, in 1995, the VHP appealed to the United Nations to protect Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Kashmir. Babri Masjid's demolition and its violent repercussions have negatively affected relations between India and Pakistan, and remain strained until the present day.

Liberhan Commission

See also: Liberhan Commission § Findings

The Liberhan Commission set up by the Government to investigate the demolition later blamed 68 people including senior BJP, RSS and VHP leaders for the demolition. Among those criticised in the report were Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the party's chief LK Advani, and chief minister Kalyan Singh. A 2005 book by the former Intelligence Bureau (IB) Joint Director Maloy Krishna Dhar claimed the senior leaders of RSS, BJP, VHP and Bajrang Dal had planned the demolition 10 months in advance. He also suggested that the Indian National Congress leaders, including prime minister P V Narasimha Rao and home minister S B Chavan, had ignored warnings about the demolition for deriving political benefits.

Archaeological excavations

Main article: Archaeology of Ayodhya

In 2003, by the order of an Indian court, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was asked to conduct a more in-depth study and an excavation to ascertain the type of structure that was beneath the rubble. The excavation was conducted from 12 March 2003 to 7 August 2003, resulting in 1360 discoveries. The ASI submitted its report to the Allahabad high court.

The summary of the ASI report indicated what appears to be the presence of a 10th-century shrine under the mosque. According to the ASI team, the human activity at the site dates back to the 13th century BC. The next few layers date back to the Shunga period (2nd-1st century BC) and the Kushan period. During the early medieval period (11–12th century), a short-lived structure of nearly 50 metres with north–south orientation was constructed. On the remains of this structure, another massive structure was constructed: this structure had at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it. The report concluded that it was over this construction that the disputed structure was constructed during the early 16th century.

Muslim groups immediately disputed the ASI findings. The Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (Sahmat) criticised the report saying that it said that "presence of animal bones throughout as well as of the use of 'surkhi' and lime mortar" that was found by ASI are all characteristic of Muslim presence "that rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque." The report claimed otherwise on the basis of 'pillar bases' was contested since no pillars were found, and the alleged existence of 'pillar bases' has been debated by archaeologists. Syed Rabe Hasan Nadvi, chairman of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) alleged that ASI failed to mention any evidence of a temple in its interim reports and only revealed it in the final report which was submitted during a time of national tension, making the report highly suspect.

The Allahabad High Court, however, upheld the ASI's findings.

Title cases verdict

A land title case on the site was lodged in the Allahabad High Court, the verdict of which was pronounced on 30 September 2010. In their verdict, the three judges of The Allahabad High Court ruled that the 1.1 hectares (2+3⁄4 acres) of Ayodhya land be divided into three parts, with one-third going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Lord Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, one-third going to the Islamic Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board and the remaining one-third going to Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious denomination. While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site. The excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India were heavily used as evidence by the court that the predating structure was a massive Hindu religious building.

The five judge Supreme Court bench heard the title dispute cases from August to October 2019. The Court observed that archaeological evidence from ASI shows that the Babri Masjid was constructed on a "structure", whose architecture was distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic. The court concluded that no evidence was found that the structure was specifically demolished for the construction of the Babri Masjid. On 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court ordered the land to be handed over to a trust to build the Hindu temple. It also ordered the government to allot an alternative 2-hectare (5-acre) plot to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board to build a mosque, which the government allotted in Dhannipur, Ayodhya.

See also

Explanatory notes

  1. Professor R. Nath, who has examined these records, concludes that Jai Singh had acquired the land of Rama Janmasthan in 1717. The ownership of the land was vested in the deity. The hereditary title of the ownership was recognised and enforced by the Mughal State from 1717. He also found a letter from a gumastha Trilokchand, dated 1723, stating that, while under the Muslim administration people had been prevented from taking a ritual bath in the Saryu river, the establishment of the Jaisinghpura has removed all impediments.
  2. Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited 2016, pp. xvi quotes from Tiefenthaler's Descriptio Indiae (c. 1772): "Emperor Aurangzeb got the fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that it was constructed by 'Babor'. Fourteen black stone pillars of 5 span high, which had existed at the site of the fortress, are seen there. Twelve of these pillars now support the interior arcades of the mosque. Two (of these 12) are placed at the entrance of the cloister. The two others are part of the tomb of some 'Moor'.... On the left is seen a square box, raised five inches from the ground, with borders made of lime, with a length of more than 5 ells and a maximum width of about 4. The Hindus call it Bedi, i.e., 'the cradle'. The reason for this is that once upon a time, here was a house where Beschan was born in the form of Ram. It is said that his three brothers too were born here. Aurangzeb or Babor, according to others, got this place razed in order to deny them the noble people, opportunity of practising their superstitions..."
  3. Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited 2016, Chapter 5: "By order of King Babur whose justice is a building reaching to the mansions of heaven, this alighting place of the angels was erected by Meer Baquee a nobleman impressed with the seal of happiness. This is lasting Charity in the year of its construction what declares in manifest "that good works are lasting." The anagram "good works are lasting" represented the year 935. "From the Tughra: There is no God but God, and Mohammad is the Prophet of God. Say, O'Mohammad, that God is one, that God is holy, unbegetting and unbegotten, and that he hath no equal."
  4. Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited 2016, Chapter 5:"The victorious lord, Mooheyoo Din, Aulumgir, Badshah, the destroyer of infidels, the son of Shah Juhan, the son of Juhangeer Shah; the son of Ukbar Shah; the son of Humayoon Shah, the son of Babur Shah; the son Oomer Sheikh Shah; the son of Soolatan Uboo Saeed; the son of Soolatan Moohammad Shah; the son of Meeran Shah, the son of Shaib-i-Qiran Meer Tymoor." "From the Tughra: In the name of God, most merciful I testify that there is no God but God. He is one, and without equal. I also testify that Mohammad is his Servant and Prophet." "Upon the propitious date of this noble erection, by this weak slave Moohummud Funa Ullah."
  5. Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited 2016, p. 168:
    1. By the order of Babur, the king of the world;
    2. This firmament-like, lofty;
    3. Strong building was erected;
    4. By the auspicious noble Mir Khan;
    5. May ever remain such a foundation;
    6. And such a king of the world.
  6. Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited 2016, p. 169:
    1. In the name of God, the merciful, the clement.
    2. In the name of him who...; may God perpetually keep him in the world.
    3. ....
    4. Such a sovereign who is famous in the world and in person of delight for the world.
    5. In his presence one of the grandees who is another King of Turkey and China.
    6. Laid this religious foundation in the auspicious Hijra 930.
    7. O God! May always remain the crown, throne and life with the king.
    8. May Babar always pour the flowers of happiness; may remain successful.
    9. His counsellor and minister who is the founder of this fort masjid.
    10. This poetry, giving the date and eulogy, was written by the lazy writer and poor servant Fath-Allah-Ghori, composer.

References

Citations

  1. "Babri Masjid". Britannica. 21 October 2024. Retrieved 30 November 2024.
  2. "BBC". 16 October 2019. Retrieved 8 September 2023.
  3. "Timeline: Ayodhya holy site crisis". BBC News. 6 December 2012. Archived from the original on 10 December 2019. Retrieved 8 August 2020.
  4. Stähler, Axel; Stierstorfer, Klaus (27 May 2009). Writing Fundamentalism. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 63. ISBN 9781443811897.
  5. Gilly, Thomas Albert; Gilinskiy, Yakov; Sergevnin, Vladimir (2009). The Ethics of Terrorism: Innovative Approaches from an International Perspective (17 Lectures). Charles C Thomas Publisher. p. 25. ISBN 9780398079956.
  6. Hiltebeitel, Alf (2009), Rethinking India's Oral and Classical Epics: Draupadi among Rajputs, Muslims, and Dalits, University of Chicago Press, pp. 227–, ISBN 978-0-226-34055-5
  7. Udayakumar, S.P. (August 1997). "Historicizing Myth and Mythologizing History: The 'Ram Temple' Drama". Social Scientist. 25 (7): 11–26. doi:10.2307/3517601. JSTOR 3517601.
  8. Jaffrelot, Christophe (7 December 2015). "Ayodhya Issue". In Smith, Anthony D; Hou, Xiaoshuo; Stone, John; Dennis, Rutledge; Rizova, Polly (eds.). The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism (1 ed.). Wiley. pp. 1–3. doi:10.1002/9781118663202.wberen644. ISBN 978-1-4051-8978-1.
  9. Varghese, Rachel A (19 July 2023). "Archaeology for the courtroom: the Ayodhya Case and the fashioning of a hybrid episteme". Journal of Social Archaeology. 24 (2): 109–129. doi:10.1177/14696053231190374. ISSN 1469-6053.
  10. Etter, Anne-Julie (14 December 2020). "Creating Suitable Evidence of the Past? Archaeology, Politics, and Hindu Nationalism in India from the End of the Twentieth Century to the Present". South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal (24/25). doi:10.4000/samaj.6926. ISSN 1960-6060.
  11. van der Veer (1992), pp. 98–99.
  12. "Tracing The History of Babri Masjid". Outlook (Indian magazine). 1 December 2017. Archived from the original on 2 February 2019. Retrieved 3 September 2020.
  13. ^ Haar, G.T.; Busuttil, J.J. (2005). Bridge Or Barrier: Religion, Violence, and Visions for Peace. International Studies in Religion and Society. Brill. p. 57. ISBN 978-90-04-13943-5. Retrieved 21 January 2024. In the 1992 Babri Masjid incident, Hindu-Muslim massacres claimed at least 3,000 lives.
  14. ^ The Tablet. Tablet Publishing Company. 2002. p. 4. Retrieved 21 January 2024. Babri Masjid mosque at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh, the site of appalling communal vio- lence in 1992. In that year Hindu zealots tore down the 400 - year - old mosque, triggering violence which led to the deaths of 3,000 people.
  15. Fuller, Christopher John (2004), The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India, Princeton University Press, p. 262, ISBN 0-691-12048-X
  16. Guha, Ramachandra (2007). India After Gandhi. MacMillan. pp. 582–598.
  17. Khalid, Haroon (14 November 2019). "How the Babri Masjid Demolition Upended Tenuous Inter-Religious Ties in Pakistan". The Wire. Archived from the original on 15 August 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  18. "As a reaction to Babri Masjid demolition, What had happened in Pakistan and Bangladesh on 6 December, 1992". The Morning Chronicle. 6 December 2018. Archived from the original on 3 February 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  19. The Three Way Divide Archived 18 October 2019 at the Wayback Machine, Outlook, 30 September 2010.
  20. ^ "Ayodhya dispute: The complex legal history of India's holy site". BBC News. 16 October 2019. Archived from the original on 17 October 2019. Retrieved 16 October 2019.
  21. ^ "Supreme Court hearing ends in Ayodhya dispute; orders reserved". The Hindu Business Line. Press Trust of India. 16 October 2019. Archived from the original on 23 October 2019. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
  22. ^ "Ram Mandir verdict: Supreme Court verdict on Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case". The Times of India. 9 November 2019. Archived from the original on 9 November 2019. Retrieved 9 November 2019.
  23. ^ "Where is Dhannipur? All about the site allotted to Sunni Waqf Board for a mosque". India Today. 5 February 2020. Archived from the original on 1 August 2020. Retrieved 28 August 2020.
  24. ^ Sharma, Ritwik (14 February 2020). "The mood in Dhannipur, a village in Ayodhya, chosen for the 'Babri Masjid'". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 31 July 2020. Retrieved 28 August 2020.
  25. Razak, Hanie Abdul (19 January 2021). "Construction of Ayodhya mosque to begin with flag-hoisting on Republic Day". The Siasat Daily. Archived from the original on 31 January 2021. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  26. "Ayodhya Mosque Work Starts On Republic Day With Tricolour Hoisting". NDTV.com. Archived from the original on 26 January 2021. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  27. Flint, Colin (2005). The geography of war and peace. Oxford University Press. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-19-516208-0. Archived from the original on 14 April 2023. Retrieved 15 August 2016.
  28. Multiple sources state this fact:
  29. Asgharali Engineer, ed. (1990). Babri-Masjid Ramjanambhoomi controversy. Ajanta Publications. p. 37. ISBN 9788120202832.
  30. Harle, J.C., The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, p. 421, 2nd edn. 1994, Yale University Press Pelican History of Art, ISBN 0300062176
  31. Shankar, Ravi (4 October 2010). "Memoirs of a Mosque". India Today. Archived from the original on 20 April 2017. Retrieved 19 April 2017.
  32. Javaid, Azaan (9 December 2014l). "Young girls rally to safeguard secularism". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 19 November 2018. Retrieved 19 April 2017.
  33. Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited 2016, p. xxix.
  34. ^ Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited 2016, Chapter 5.
  35. K. Elst (1995). "The Ayodhya Debate". In Gilbert Pollet (ed.). Indian Epic Values: Rāmāyaṇa and Its Impact. Peeters Publishers. pp. 28–29. ISBN 9789068317015.
  36. Narain, The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute 1993, p. 17.
  37. Jain, Rama and Ayodhya 2013, pp. 165–166.
  38. Jain, Rama and Ayodhya 2013, p. 9, 120, 164.
  39. Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited 2016, p. xv.
  40. Jain, Rama and Ayodhya 2013, pp. 112–114.
  41. Jain, Rama and Ayodhya 2013, pp. 112–115.
  42. Robert Layton and Julian Thomas (2003). Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 2–9. ISBN 978-1-134-60498-2.
  43. Tiefenthaler, Joseph (1786). Description historique et géographique de l'Inde (in French). Vol. 1. La Géographie de l'Indoustan. Translated by Bernoulli, Jean. Berlin. pp. 253–254.
  44. Noorani, A.G. (ed.). The Babri Masjid Question, 1528-2003: 'A Matter of National Honour'. Vol. 1. Tulika Books. p. 54. ISBN 9789382381457.
  45. Srivastava, Sushil (1991). The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications.
  46. Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited 2016, p. 143.
  47. Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited 2016, p. xxvii.
  48. Narain, The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute 1993, pp. 23–25.
  49. Robert Layton and Julian Thomas (2003). Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-134-60498-2.
  50. "Muslimische Quellen in der Ram Janmabhumi Mandir-Babri Masjid Debatte". Internationales Asienforum. 1994. Archived from the original on 8 October 2019. Retrieved 20 August 2019.
  51. Noorani, A.G. (ed.). The Babri Masjid Question, 1528-2003: 'A Matter of National Honour'. Vol. 1. Tulika Books. p. 45. ISBN 9789382381457.
  52. ^ Chatterji, Roma (2014), Wording the World: Veena Das and Scenes of Inheritance, Fordham University Press, p. 406, ISBN 978-0-8232-6187-1: "British administrative records show that the dispute began around 1853, when armed Hindu ascetics occupied the birthplace."
  53. Ludden, David (1996). Contesting the nation : religion community, and the politics of democracy in India. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 38. ISBN 0-8122-1585-0.
  54. ^ Sarvepalli Gopal (1993). Anatomy of a Confrontation: Ayodhya and the Rise of Communal Politics in India. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 64–77. ISBN 978-1-85649-050-4.
  55. Godbole, M. (1996). Unfinished Innings: Recollections and Reflections of a Civil Servant. Orient Longman. pp. 332–333. ISBN 978-81-250-0883-5. Retrieved 4 January 2024.
  56. Gehlot, N.S. (1998). Current Trends in Indian Politics. Deep & Deep Publications. p. 203. ISBN 978-81-7100-798-1.
  57. Chatterji, Roma (2014). Wording the World: Veena Das and Scenes of Inheritance. Forms of Living. Fordham University Press. p. 408. ISBN 978-0-8232-6187-1.
  58. *Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, p. 417, ISBN 978-1-85065-301-1
  59. Elst, Koenraad (23 August 2004). "What If Rajiv Hadn't Unlocked Babri Masjid?". Outlook (Indian magazine). Archived from the original on 27 January 2016. Retrieved 20 June 2012.
  60. "Timeline: Ayodhya holy site crisis". BBC News. 30 September 2010. Archived from the original on 26 December 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
  61. Engineer, Asghar Ali. "The Mumbai riots in historic context". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 4 February 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  62. Punwani, Jyoti (4 February 2014). "Why there's no noise about the Mumbai riots". Rediff.com. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  63. Raman, B. (9 December 2010). "The Latest 'Indian Mujahideen Mail'". Outlook (Indian magazine). Archived from the original on 22 October 2014. Retrieved 20 June 2012.
  64. Sinha, Amitabh (14 September 2008). "Blast a revenge for Babri: mail". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 25 December 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2012.
  65. ^ Gordon, Sandy; Gordon, A. D. D. (2014). India's Rise as an Asian Power: Nation, Neighborhood, and Region. Georgetown University Press. pp. 54–58. ISBN 978-1-62616-074-3. Retrieved 27 May 2017.
  66. ^ "The unfinished Partition of India and Pakistan". The Economist. 17 August 2017. Archived from the original on 19 August 2017. Retrieved 19 August 2017.
  67. "Refworld | Chronology for Hindus in Bangladesh". United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 16 October 1993. Archived from the original on 18 October 2012. Retrieved 20 June 2012.
  68. "Pakistanis Attack 30 Hindu Temples". The New York Times. 8 December 1992. Archived from the original on 25 February 2021. Retrieved 2 February 2019. In Lahore, Muslims used a bulldozer, hammers and hands to demolish the Jain Mandar temple near Punjab University. The police did not intervene.
  69. "Report: Sequence of events on December 6". Ndtv.com. Archived from the original on 4 November 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2012.
  70. Uproar over India mosque report: Inquiry into Babri mosque's demolition in 1992 indicts opposition BJP leaders Archived 31 January 2010 at the Wayback Machine Al-Jazeera English – 24 November 2009
  71. Babri Masjid demolition was planned 10 months in advance – PTI Archived 2 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Outlook, 30 January 2005.
  72. Ratnagar, Shereen (April 2004). "Archaeology at the Heart of a Political Confrontation: The Case of Ayodhya" (PDF). Current Anthropology. 45 (2): 239–259. doi:10.1086/381044. JSTOR 10.1086/381044. S2CID 149773944. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 July 2018. Retrieved 20 April 2018.
  73. "ASI submits report on Ayodhya excavation". Rediff.com. PTI. 22 August 2003. Archived from the original on 26 October 2012. Retrieved 20 June 2012.
  74. Prasannan, R. (7 September 2003). "Ayodhya: Layers of truth". The Week (Indian magazine). Archived from the original on 23 March 2005.
  75. Suryamurthy, R (26 August 2003). "ASI findings may not resolve title dispute". The Tribune. Archived from the original on 11 April 2009. Retrieved 29 July 2007.
  76. "Proof of temple found at Ayodhya: ASI report". Rediff.com. 25 August 2003. Archived from the original on 26 September 2010. Retrieved 20 June 2012.
  77. "Ayodhya verdict yet another blow to secularism: Sahmat". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 3 October 2010. Archived from the original on 6 October 2010. Retrieved 1 November 2010.
  78. Muralidharan, Sukumar (September 2003). "Ayodhya: Not the last word yet". Frontline. Archived from the original on 17 November 2007.
  79. Garg, Abhinav (9 October 2010). "How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 4 November 2012. Retrieved 1 November 2010.
  80. Ram Janm Bhumi Babri Masjid: Gist of Judgments Archived 28 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  81. "Issues For Briefing" (PDF). Allahabad High Court. Archived from the original on 25 December 2018. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
  82. Daniyal, Shoaib (11 November 2019). "No, the Supreme Court did not uphold the claim that Babri Masjid was built by demolishing a temple". Scroll.in.

General sources

Further reading

External links

  Mosques in India  
Bihar
Delhi
Gujarat
Ahmedabad
Elsewhere
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu and Kashmir
Srinagar
Elsewhere
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Puducherry
Punjab
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Hyderabad
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Elsewhere
Former
Ayodhya division topics
General
Mythology, history
Districts
Rivers, dams, lakes
Languages, people
Transport
Lok Sabha constituencies
See also
Other Divisions
Categories: