A review of the facts pertaining to the Ram Janmabhumi case makes it clear that the construction of the temple is the only viable solution to the dispute.
First things first, it is very important to address the doubts of skeptics who raise questions about the birthplace of Shri Ram.
sahasradhārāmārabhya yojanaṃ pūrvato diśi ।।
pratīci diśi tathaiva yojanaṃ samatovadhiḥ ।। 64 ।।
dakṣiṇottarabhāge tu sarayūtamasāvadhiḥ ।।
etatkṣetrasya saṃsthānaṃ harerantargṛhaṃ sthitam ।।
matsyākṛtiriyaṃ vipra purī viṣṇorudīritā ।। 65 ।।
‘Ayodhya is situated till one yojana to the East of Sahasradharateerth, till one yojana to the West of Samateerth, till one yojana to the South of river Saryu’s banks and till one yojana to the North of Tamasa river. This is the inner abode of Lord Vishnu. This city has been told to have a shape of a fish.’
[64,65 ayodhyāmāhātmya, vaiṣṇavakhaṇḍa, skandapurāṇa]
gateṣu pṛthivīśeṣu rājā daśarathastadā।
praviveśa purīṃ śrīmān puraskṛtya dvijottamān।।1.18.5।।
‘After the departure of the rulers, the exalted king Dasaratha preceded by the foremost of brahmins entered the city (of Ayodhya)’.
tato yajñe samāpte tu ṛtūnāṃ ṣaṭsamatyayu:।
tataśca dvādaśe māse caitre nāvamike tithau।।1.18.8।।
nakṣatre’ditidaivatye svoccasaṃstheṣu pañcasu।
graheṣu karkaṭe lagne vākpatāvindunā saha।।1.18.9।।
prodyamāne jagannāthaṃ sarvalokanamaskṛtam।
‘Six seasons (one year) passed after the completion of the sacrifice. In the twelfth month of Chaitra on the ninth day (of the bright fortnight), with Aditi as presiding deity when the star Punarvasu was in the ascendent and the five planets Sun, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and Venus, were exalted in their own house in karkata lagna, when Brihaspati was in conjunction with the Moon, Kausalya gave birth to a son: a facet of Visnu, Lord of the entire universe who received obeisance from all the worlds and was adorned with all auspicious signs, the venerable one to perpetuate the Ikshvaku race.’
[sarga 18, bālakāṇḍa, vālmīki rāmāyaṇa]
Thus, our religious scriptures (traditional sources) have accurately described the geographic position of Ayodhya as well as the birth of Shri Ram in the holy city.
Facts about a temple’s presence on Janmbhumi
A grand temple once stood on the birthplace of Lord Ram in Ayodhya but it was destroyed by the barbarian invaders and a building was erected on the site, which much later came to be known as ‘Babri mosque’.
In the tenth chapter of Report of Archeological Survey of India, North-West and Oudh(1889), page 67 mentions that Babri mosque “was built in AD 1528 by Mir Khan on the very spot where the old temple of Janmsthan of Ramchandra was standing.”
GPRS excavations done under Allahabad High Court monitoring and verification in 2002-03 established that a large temple of Vishnu Hari, who according to Hindu beliefs had killed demon king Dashanan, used to exist below the structure that came to be known as Babri mosque.
Ain-i-Akbari [III:334, 316-17] records Ayodhya as the birthplace of Shri Ram.
Mughal authorities issued a sanad in July, 1723 and the writer of the sanadstated in Persian that he was writing it from ‘maulud i.e. birthplace of Rama.’
In the first petition made to the British government by the mutawalli of Babri Masjid on 30th November, 1858, the disputed structure was referred as Masjid-e-janmasthan. On 21st January 1870, the structure was referred as Masjid Baburi Waqia Janmsthan.
Maulana Hakim Sayyid Abd al-Hayy in his work titled Jannah al-Mashriq wa Matla’an Nur al-Mashriq recorded mosque being built by Babur on the site where Shri Ram was born and a magnificent temple once stood here.
Foreign works of Urdu, Persian, Austria have recorded the same incident of the temple being razed and the subsequent erection of a structure by Babur.
After the British takeover of the city, all official records have unanimously declared that the Babri structure occupied the Janmbhumi land.
Razing of the Ramjanmbhumi temple as described by Gosvami Tulsidas
The following excerpts have been taken from the book ‘Doha Shatak’ of Gosvami Tulsidas. It has been referred to by Jagadguru Rambhadracharya in Allahabad High Court and recorded on page 783 of the verdict.
maṃtra upaniṣada brāhmanahum̐ bahu purāna itihāsa ।
javana jarāye roṣa bhari kari tulasī parihāsa ॥ 85 ॥
Goswami Tulsidas Ji says that infuriated Yavans (barbarians /Mohammedans) burnt many texts/scriptures containing incantations, Upanishads, treatises like Brahmans (part of Veda-s), Puranas, Itihas (Valmiki Ramayana, Mahabharat) after ridiculing them.
sikhā sūtra te hīna kari bala te hindū loga ।
bhamari bhagāye deśa te tulasī kaṭhina kujoga ॥ 86 ॥
Goswami Tulsidas says that in hard and inappropriate times, forcible attempts are being made by Muslims to expel the followers of Hinduism from their own native place (country), forcibly divesting them of their Shikha (lock of hair on the crown of head) and ‘Yagyopaveet’ (sacrificial thread).
bābara barbara āike kara līnhe karavāla ।
hane pacāri pacāri jana tulasī kāla karāla ॥ 87 ॥
Describing the barbaric attack of Babur, Goswami Tulsidas says that he indulged in gruesome genocide of the natives of that place (followers of Hinduism) using sword after repeatedly calling out to them.
saṃvata sara vasu bāna nabha grīṣma ṛtu anumāni ।
tulasī avadhahiṃ jaḏ javana anaratha kiya anakhāni ॥ 88 ॥
Gowami Tulsi Das Ji says that countless atrocities were committed by foolish ‘Yavans’ (Mohammedans) in Awadh (Ayodhya) in and around the summer of Samvat 1585, that is, 1528 AD (Samvat 1585- 57=1528 AD).
rāma janama mahiṃ maṃdirahiṃ tori masīta banāya ।
javahiṃ bahuta hinduna hate tulasī kīnhī hāya ॥ 89 ॥
Describing the attack made by Yavans on Shri Ramjanambhumi temple, Goswami Tulsidas says that after a number of Hindus were mercilessly killed, Shri Ram Janmbhumi temple was broken and converted to a mosque. Looking at the ruthless killing of Hindus, Goswami Tulsidas says that his heart felt aggrieved, that is, it began to weep, and on account of the incident it continues to writhe in pain.
dalyo mīrabākī avadha mandira rāmasamāja ।
tulasī rovata hṛdaya hati trāhi trāhi raghurāja ॥ 90 ॥
Mir Baqi destroyed the temple in Ayodhya along with the idols of Ram, Sita, Bharata, Lakshmana, Shatrughna and Hanuman. Goswami Tulsidas says that he cries, beating his chest, “O the best amongst scions of Raghu dynasty! Save us!”
rāma janama maṃdira jahām̐ lasata avadha ke bīca ।
tulasī racī masīta taham̐ mīrabām̐ki khala nīca ॥ 91 ॥
Goswami Tulsidas says that the mosque was constructed by the wicked Mir Baqi after demolishing Sri Ram Janmbhumi temple, situated in the middle of Ayodhya.
rāmāyana ghari ghanṭa jaham̐ śruti purāna upakhāna ।
tulasī javana ajāna taham̐ kiyo kurāna ajāna ॥ 92 ॥
Tulsi Das Ji says that the Quran as well as Azaan call is heard from the holy place of Shri Ram Janam Bhumi, which once reverberated with discourses from Shrutis, Vedas, Puranas, Upnishads etc. and the sweet sound of temple bells.
Construction of a structure by Meer Baki on Ramjanmbhumi
Year 1528: In 1528, Babur’s commander Meer Baki destroyed the temple that once stood where Shri Ram was born. It was replaced by just a building and can’t be termed as a mosque because it lacked mandatory minarets and water pool wazu.
It is a matter of speculation whether the structure was named after Babur, or as mentioned in his autobiography “Baburnama” on page 121, if it was named after Babri, a teenage boy he lusted after.
Year 1961: Interestingly, Sunni Wakf Board has recently begun a legal claim on this land from 1961. As per Shia Wakf, Babur came to Ayodhya for seven days and in such a short time, it was not possible for him to destroy Shri Ram temple, construct a site for offering namaz and declare himself as a Wakif. That is why the case should be fought by Shia Wakf Board and not Sunni. Meer Baki was a Shia Muslim and he wanted to construct a site where Shias could offer namaz.
Year 1992: Till 6th December, 1992, a structure called ‘Babri Mosque’ stood here.
Do a temple and a mosque hold similar positions in their respective religions?
The fallacy that a temple and a mosque have a comparable standing in their religious framework has been at the root of the failure to resolve this issue and this is also why Hindus have not been able to reclaim all of the temples where Islamic invaders built mosques to show their dominance over the native infidels.
Indian, International as well as Sharia laws consider mosque as a prayer hall to offer namaz. Dr. Subramanian Swamy provides multiple legal citations in ‘Rebuilding Ram temple at Ayodhya’. The Supreme Court constitutional Bench in Faruqi vs Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 376] has held that a mosque is not an essential part of Islamic religion and that namaz can be performed anywhere.
On page 416 para 80 of the report, the Supreme Court observed,
“It has been contended that a mosque enjoys a particular position In Muslim law and once a mosque is established and prayers are offered in such a mosque, the same remains for all time to come a property of Allah and any person professing Islamic faith can offer prayer in such a mosque, and even if the structure is demolished, the place remains the same where namaz can be offered.”
In para 82, the Constitution Bench rebutted it stating,
“The correct position may be summarized thus: Under Muslim law applicable in India, the title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession. A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India.”
Hindu temples, on the contrary, are constructed according to the Agama literature and after the consecration of Shri Vigrah, Bhagwan (deity) becomes the owner of the temple. Purely on the basis of the concept of incomparable sacredness, a temple has a superior claim on Ram Janmbhumi than any mosque.
Suit of 1885
In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das in a suit (no. 61/280 of 1885) filed in the court of Faizabad sub-judge against the Secretary of State for India prayed for the permission to build a temple on a plinth outside the mosque. His suit was dismissed in 1886.
However, in his order the sub-judge stated,
“It is most unfortunate that a mosque should have been built on the land specially held sacred by the Hindus.”
6th December 1992
On 6th December 1992, the dome of the superstructure known as Babri Masjid was brought down as an outcome of mob violence and thus a criminal case was filed in the courts. For the secularists, including a significant section of the educated class, it remains a matter of collective shame as they view the destruction of the structure as a criminal offense. But their colonized mentality does not allow them to see the facts of the case objectively and forces then to dismiss the traditional accounts of Indian history – Itihasa – as mere mythology devoid of any historical data whatsoever.
In the Farooqi Constitutional bench judgment of the Supreme Court [page 427-428], the Solicitor General is quoted by the Supreme Court Constitutional Bench as stating on affidavit as follows:
“If a Hindu temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished [babri] structure, government action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu community.”
This is also similar to the commitments made in 1991 by Muslim representatives of Babri Masjid Action Committee to the then Government. Prominent Muslim leaders made the following commitment, “…if these assertions were proved, the Muslims will voluntarily hand over the disputed shrine to the Hindus….”
This commitment/assurance is recorded in Government of India’s White Paper in paras 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.
In the report of the Archeological Survey of India, NW and Oudh in chapter 10, page 67, it is described that “Babri mosque was built in 1528 AD by Mir Khan on the very spot where the old temple of Janmsthan of Ramchandra was standing.”
GPRS excavations carried out under the supervision of Allahabad High Court establish that a large temple existed below where Babri mosque structure stood. The Sunni Wakf board doesn’t accept these findings as of any means or consequences. It doesn’t matter if all this was indeed so or not, since under Section 295 on Indian Penal Code[IPC] it is prescribed that “Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with the intention thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punishable with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
An offense under the criminal law is committed if a body of persons holds something as sacred. It doesn’t matter if the majority does or doesn’t hold so. Nor can a court decide what is sacred or what is not. Only a body of persons can identify what is sacred. The offense under Section 295 IPC is cognizable and non-bailable as well as non-compoundable.
On 30th September, 2010, Allahabad High Court divided the Janmbhumi land into three parts and providing the claim to Hindu Mahasabha, Nirmohi Akhada and Sunni Wakf Board. But immediately in December 2010, Hindu Mahasabha and Sunni Wakf Board challenged High court’s decision in Supreme Court. Supreme Court accepted it on 9th May 2011 giving a stay on High Court’s orders.
Considering Shahbano case as an example, the government should bring amendments in “Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act of 1993” which will ensure that apart from Shri Ram temple, no other construction can be done on Janmbhumi site.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy had requested a day-to-day hearing in the court but the court said it couldn’t be done. In the trial on Ram Mandir on 5thDecember in the Supreme court, a three-judge bench of CJI Dipak Misra and Judges Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer have deferred the hearing till 8thFebruary 2018 after the petitioners asked for reasonable time to get the documents ready.
In pursuance of the apex court’s earlier direction, the Yogi Adityanath government has submitted English translation of exhibits and documents likely to be relied upon, as these were in eight different languages. The apex court said that this would be the last opportunity to get papers ready and no further details would be entertained.
The Sunni Waqf Board, arguing for a postponement in the hearing till after 2019 general election, says the proceedings in the Babri case would span over the entire next year. Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal appeared as a lawyer of Sunni Wakf Board and advocated their stand. The Supreme Court, however, says when original suit was finished in 90 days by the Allahabad High Court, why should it take longer here? Sunni Wakf Board also wanted to the case to be heard by a five-judge or seven-judge Constitution bench. The Supreme Court questioned why a title dispute should be heard by a seven-judge bench. The current Chief Justice is retiring in October, 2018 so even he would probably want to settle the most burning case of India.
Where Sunni Wakf board is fighting for the possession of land, Dr. Subramanian Swamy is fighting for the fundamental right to worship which makes his case stronger. Shia Wakf board had accepted that they are in favour of leaving the Janmbhumi land and build a mosque someplace else.
In the 2014 election manifesto of Bhartiya Janta Party, the party declares:
“BJP reiterates its stand to explore all possibilities within the framework of constitution to facilitate the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya.”
Hindus continue to question whether BJP was stronger in 1992 when India had a Congress Prime Minister or is it stronger now with the central government and majority states in hand. Uttar Pradesh, which has been a witness to this landmark case for twenty-five years, has given most of the seats to BJP – Varanasi to Prime Minister, Lucknow to Home Minister, Gorakhpur to Chief Minister, 7 seats to Cabinet Ministers,73 seats to Member of Parliament, 324 seats to Member of Legislative Assembly and 14/16 seats to Mayors. We hope that BJP takes a strong stand in favor of Ram temple as it has been four years with them being in Center and no major progress has been made yet.
References / Footnotes
Hearing of civil appeals in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute in the Supreme Court on 5th December 2017
‘Rebuilding Shri Ram temple in Ayodhya’ – Dr. Subramanian Swamy
A book titled ‘History of India’ was written by James Mill and Charles Grant from East India’s Haileybury College in 1813 where they classified most of the literature of India as mythological. Many Indian students in an Anglo-Indian educational system just repeated the fallacies like trained parrots. The present-day leftists associated with Jawaharlal Nehru University such as Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra and S. Gopal argued that there was no mention of dismantling a temple before the nineteenth century. Some of the historians, who appeared in Babri Masjid Action Committee, like Irfan Habib, R.S. Sharma, Athar Ali, D.N. Jha and Suraj Bhan too joined them. This led to a derailment of a possibly peaceful resolution of the issue, as claimed by Dr. K.K. Muhammad, former regional director of the ASI. Later, Kishore Kunal, Officer on Special duty (Ayodhya) and a former student of R.S. Sharma and D.N. Jha, extensively debunked these leftist claims.