Paper I: Misinterpreted and misjudged
1
The Babri Masjid: Its
inscriptions and date of construction
1.1. Mr Justice Sudhir Agarwal aims in his judgement to
prove that the Babri Masjid was built not during the reign of Babar, in
1528, but only under Aurangzeb (d. 1707), at any rate not very much before
Fr Joseph Tieffenthaler visited Ayodhya between 1740 and 1765 (paras
1645 and 1682). So the memory of the mosque being built over the
“demolished” fortress “called Ramcot” (Tieffenthaler’s words) was yet
fresh in the Hindu mind (cf para 1658) and that should be taken as
evidence for its being built after demolishing a temple marking Lord Ram’s
birthplace. Furthermore, Tieffenthaler, a little known traveller but
called by the learned judge “an intellectual giant and linguistic wizard”
(para 1591), did not refer to any inscriptions on the mosque; and
this means, in the eyes of Justice Agarwal, that these inscriptions were
not then in existence, this being the reason, in his opinion, that
Tieffenthaler could not decide between the two traditions, as to whether
Babar or Aurangzeb had built the mosque (paras 1591 and 4388).
This means, according to the judge, that the so-called
inscriptions were put up only after Tieffenthaler’s visit though before
Francis Buchanan’s visit to Ayodhya in 1810-11, since he obtained the copy
of an “inscription on its walls” that declared it to have been built by
Babar. Thus, in Justice Agarwal’s view, all the inscriptions so far
presented to the public are later forgeries, made between, say 1760 and
1810, despite their texts having been accepted as genuine by Fuhrer, AS
Beveridge, the Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement,
1965, and practically every historian and epigraphist dealing with them
till now. The contents themselves cannot be confirmed, the judge goes on
to hold, because Mir Baqi, the commandant, presented as the actual
builder, cannot be identified with anyone mentioned in the Baburnama
(see below under Section C: Mir Baqi). In reaching the conclusion over the
late construction of the Babri Masjid, Justice Sudhir Agarwal does not
appear to address other matters relating to the date of the building such
as its architectural design and technique of construction. But let us
first take up his arguments one by one.
A. Tieffenthaler and the mosque inscriptions
1.2. As to the significance of Tieffenthaler’s
not mentioning the inscriptions, it needs stressing that in history
negative inferences of this kind are hardly ever given credence. One
famous example is of that other famous “intellectual giant and linguistic
wizard”, Marco Polo’s failure to mention the hugely ancient Great Wall of
China. If Justice Sudhir Agarwal is ever asked to decide when the Great
Wall was built, he should immediately say, after Marco Polo’s travels i.e.
after 1300 AD! This shows the risks involved in Justice Agarwal’s approach
to history. Tieffenthaler merely recorded the tradition that either
Aurangzeb or Babar built the mosque; why should he have gone and tested it
by trying to decipher the mosque inscriptions?
Moreover, the Persian inscriptions were written in
ornate tughra-influenced nastaliq and so are hard to read
for any non-epigraphist, however conversant with Persian. Tieffenthaler’s
account of Allahabad suba has been published in translation by SN
Sinha, The Mid-Gangetic Region in the Eighteenth Century, Allahabad/
Delhi, 1976, and we can see there that he gives scant notice, if any, of
inscriptions found on buildings. Does it mean that the Mughal period
inscriptions at Allahabad and other cities not mentioned by him did not
exist before his time? The kind of inference Justice Agarwal draws from
just stressing one passage of a work shows how risky it is not to look at
the nature of the work one is examining. Unlike Tieffenthaler, it was a
part of the requirements of Buchanan’s survey that he should record
antiquarian remains. This he has done in respect of all the districts of
Bihar and Bengal, as well as Gorakhpur, that he surveyed, as one may see
if one examines not only Montgomery Martin’s abridgement of Buchanan’s
district-wise reports but also the reports themselves, those relating to
Bihar districts having been published practically in full by the
government of Bihar and Orissa in British times.
B. The texts of the Masjid inscriptions
1.3. Having disposed of the Tieffenthaler red herring,
let us now look at Justice Agarwal’s objections to the genuineness of the
mosque inscriptions (cf para 1484 et seq). He uses harsh
words to dismiss the evidence brought out in the official publication of
the Archaeological Survey of India, the Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and
Persian Supplement, 1965, where the Babri Masjid inscriptions are
given in text and translation on pages 58-62, with a plate facing page 59.
This was part of an article (posthumous) by Maulvi M. Ashraf Husain,
entitled ‘Inscriptions by Emperor Babur’, the volume being edited by Dr ZA
Desai, the then superintendent, Persian and Arabic Inscriptions, ASI, and
a great authority among India’s Arabic and Persian epigraphists. Let us
see how Justice Agarwal castigates them:
“We are extremely perturbed by the manner in which
Ashraf Husain/ Desai have tried to give an impeccable authority to the
texts of the alleged inscriptions which they claim to have existed on the
disputed building though [they] repeatedly said that the original text has
disappeared. The fallacy and complete misrepresentation on the part of
author is writ large from a bare reading of the write-up. We are really at
pains(!) to find that such blatant fallacious kind of material has been
allowed to be published in a book under the authority of ASI, Government
of India, without caring about its accuracy, correctness and genuineness
of the subject” (para 1463).
One must respectfully state that this is not a fair
view of Ashraf Husain’s article nor a justifiable criticism of the
government of India, for reasons that we shall give below.
1.4. Ashraf Husain says clearly that the main four-line
inscription (the top containing the invocation and the remaining three
containing eight Persian couplets), placed on the central entrance of the
mosque, had not disappeared but was seen by him, and in Plate VII (c),
opposite page 59, he has reproduced a photograph of the inscription from
which one can check his decipherment (and, of course, translation). This
inscription remained in position on the entrance until December 6, 1992
when the kar sevaks carried out their act of demolition. If this
does not exist now, it is only owing to that “abominable” act (Justice
Agarwal’s own characterisation of it, para 4527,
which Justice Agarwal seems most of the time to ignore entirely). Two
photographs (see Plates 1 and 2) show the inscription above the entrance
before the demolition so that Justice Agarwal’s assertion stands easily
disproved.
1.5. Justice Agarwal also here overlooks the fact that
about 90 years before the Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian
Supplement, 1965, both the gate and the pulpit inscriptions of the
Babri Masjid had been mentioned in the Gazetteer of the Province of
Oudh, edited by WC Benett, issued as an official publication in
1877-78, Vol. I, pp. 6-7. “In two places in the Babri Mosque”, it says,
“the year in which it was built, 935 H., corresponding with 1528 AD, is
carved in stone along with inscriptions dedicated to the glory of the
Emperor.” It will be noticed that this is much older than Fuhrer’s reading
of the inscriptions but is quietly ignored in Justice Agarwal’s summary of
the reports on the inscriptions (para 1650). Benett’s statement is
confirmed in HR Nevill’s Fyzabad District Gazetteer, with Preface
dated 1905 (volume reprinted, 1920). On page 179 we are told: “The Mosque
has two inscriptions, one on the outside and the other on the pulpit and
bear the date 935 Hijri. Of the authenticity of the inscriptions there can
be no doubt.”
1.6. Thus two official reports clearly say that the
inscriptions on the entrance and the pulpit gave the date 935 Hijri (=1528
AD) and that they belonged to the reign of Babar. One of them goes on to
attest their undoubted authenticity.
1.7. The only disappearance that is mentioned in Ashraf
Husain’s article is with regard to the inscription(s) on the pulpit. The
supposition that there were two pulpit inscriptions came about
because of the confusion created by Fuhrer’s misreading of the single
pulpit inscription and his extracting out of it the impossible date 930 H
(=1523 AD), a year when Babar was not in possession of his Indian
dominions (the battle of Panipat took place in 1526). On Fuhrer’s
mistranscription and so mistranslation of the pulpit inscription, which
led Ashraf Husain to suppose that there were two pulpit inscriptions, not
one, see Note 1.1, annexed to this paper.
Ashraf Husain naturally thought that the pulpit
inscription seen by Fuhrer was different from the one everyone else
had read on the pulpit. (We have just seen that Benett and Nevill both
note that the pulpit inscription too gave the date of the mosque’s
construction as AH 935 = AD 1528). Moreover, when Mrs AS Beveridge, the
translator of Babar’s memoirs (published in 1921), received from the
deputy commissioner of Fyzabad copies of texts of the two mosque
inscriptions, one on the pulpit, the other on the outside, the
inscriptions were still in situ (as she tells us; Baburnama, tr. AS
Beveridge, Vol. II, Appendix IV, pp. lxxvii-lxxix); and the two texts
reproduced by her fully accord with those given by Ashraf Husain, the
pulpit one entirely and the one on the entrance in respect of the first
three couplets read by Mrs Beveridge’s informants who could not decipher
the further couplets, while Ashraf Husain has been able to read all of
them.
Justice Agarwal should have asked himself whether there
has been any long ancient or old inscription written in unfamiliar
characters (like Ashoka’s edicts or Samudragupta’s Allahabad inscription),
the words or clauses of which have not been differently read by
epigraphists during the last 150 years. Should they then be regarded as
forgeries though on all essential points they agree, as is the case with
the Babri Masjid inscriptions? Why should, then, Justice Agarwal tax
Ashraf Husain and Desai for not giving the genuine text of the pulpit
inscription(s) when their reading is manifestly the most accurate and
complete of all? Justice Agarwal’s accusations against Dr Ziyaud-Din
Desai, the chief epigraphist, ASI, of changing the meaning of its text (para
1654) is entirely uncalled for.
1.8. Justice Agarwal resorts to the most strained
reasoning for justifying his censures. Ashraf Husain says that though the
pulpit inscription was destroyed in the riot of 1934, he was able to
obtain an “inked rubbing” or estampage from Mr Sayyid Badrul Hasan of
Fyzabad. Mr Justice Agarwal declares his agreement with the opposing
(“Hindu”) party that no such person existed! No proof of such a claim is
offered. Nor does Justice Agarwal apparently know that estampages are
preferable to transcripts because they reproduce the original shape of
letters – essential from a palaeographic point of view. Justice Agarwal
holds that Ashraf Husain should have preferred a transcript to the
estampage (para 1467).
It will be seen from Plate XVII (b), opposite page 59,
of the Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement, 1965,
under discussion, that its writing again is tughra-influenced
nastaliq like that of the entrance inscription at Plate XVII (c). This
would not have been clear if Ashraf Husain had merely reproduced a
hand-transcribed text such as the one published by Beveridge or the copy
presumably made by Maulvi M. Shuaib for the ASI, Northern Circle, in
1906-07. Ashraf Husain duly cited the Annual Report of the Office of the
Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra, for 1906-07, which, if
Justice Agarwal had any doubts about the matter, the bench could have
called for from the government of India just as it had directed the
government of India to provide a translation of the extract from
Tieffenthaler. In any case, our photographs show that the original
inscription actually stood over the entrance before 1992 and the
photographed text accords with the plate published by Ashraf Husain. Its
mode of tughra-influenced nastaliq also proclaims its early
Mughal date.
C. Mir Baqi
1.9. It is difficult to understand why Justice Agarwal
is willing only to consider as preferable the reports about two
inscriptions in the mosque (one of these must be the faulty one
substituted in the pulpit for the original destroyed in 1934, reported by
Ashraf Husain), which were obtained by a court in 1946. One of these
inscriptions was quoted as saying that “by the order of Shah Babar, Amir
Mir Baki built the resting place of angles (sic) in 923 AH i.e. 1516-17” –
i.e. 10 years before Babar’s victory at Panipat! The other inscription
(presumably the entrance one) was so read as to tell us that “Mir Baki of
Isphahan in 935 AH i.e. 1528-29 AD” (sentence left incomplete in the
judgement) (para 1481). Justice Agarwal insists on the reading
“Isfahani” for the correct reading “Asaf-i sani”, as deciphered in the
Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement, 1965, and then by so
doing he cannot find ‘Mir Baqi Isfahani’ or ‘Mir Baqi’, exactly with that
name, in Babar’s memoirs (paras 1477 and 1583). And this helps him
to consider Mir Baqi as non-existent or unidentifiable (para 1477)
and the inscriptions as forgeries. It may be mentioned in
clarification that ‘Mir’ here is a mere abbreviation of amir
(noble) and that ‘Isfahani’ is a misreading of Asaf-i sani, the second
asaf (grand vizier of Solomon).
1.10. It is strange that Justice Agarwal did not accord
due consideration to the following two entries in the Baburnama,
which alone are sufficient to show that Baqi was a historical personage
and actually Babar’s commandant of Awadh (Ayodhya). Being Babar’s
subordinate, Babar naturally does not call him amir or mir,
since it was not a part of his name, as in some other cases where the word
Mir occurs in personal names referred to by Babar. The passages concerned
occur in Eiji Mano’s edition of original Turki, Kyoto, 1995, on pp. 605-6;
Abdur Rahim Khankhanan’s Persian translation; in Beveridge’s English
translation, II, pp. 684-85; and in WM Thackston’s English translation of
the Baburnama, New York, 1996, pp. 443-444.
The entries make it clear that while Babar was on a
campaign crossing the Gomti and then the Ganga, ‘Baqi Tashkandi’ joined
his camp, coming with “the Awadh (Ayodhya) troops” (‘Awad chariki’),
on June 13, 1529. On June 20, ‘Baqi Shaghawal’ was given leave to
return along with his Awadh troops (Awad chariki). These references
(see Note 1.2, annexed to this paper, for full quotes) make it clear that
(1) Baqi was the commandant of troops at Awadh (Ayodhya), so that here the
Babri Masjid inscriptions stand confirmed; and (2) he was a native of
Tashkant and bore the official title of Shaghawal, so that contrary
to Justice Agarwal’s argument (para 1477), Baqi Tashkandi and Baqi
Shaghawal refer to the same person. The ‘shaghawal’ (Persian, sazawal)
used to be an official of rank who could not be impeded when
fulfilling royal orders by anyone, howsoever high. (Justice Agarwal admits
that an explanation of shaghawal as an officer was offered by
Professor Shireen Moosvi, an expert witness before the bench (para 1365),
but the justice obviously paid little heed to this).
1.11. It is thus clear from the above that Justice
Sudhir Agarwal’s line of reasoning is based on untenable assumptions. If,
according to him, Babar was not concerned with the construction of the
Babri Masjid, one wonders why the learned judge should hold forth at such
length on his weaknesses of character as a believing Muslim. We are told
by the justice that Babar was “a completely Islamic person and (so?)
lacked tolerance to the idol worshippers” (para 1563); and in (para
1570) he goes on to censure not only Babar but also the
historians who have written appreciatively about him. Finally, we have the
following judgement on medieval Indian history as a whole:
“Another surprising aspect was that the Indian
subcontinent was under the attack/ invasion by outsiders for almost a
thousand or more years in the past and had been continuously looted by
them. Massive wealth continuously was driven off from the Country”
(para 1611).
This sentence suggests a rather one-sided view of the
history of medieval India. Was India before the British ever governed from
outside of it, from a place to which wealth could be continuously
transferred? Whoever looted, whether sultans or rajas, lived within India.
D. Mosque dateable by style and technique
1.12. Suppose the inscriptions in the Babri Masjid did
not exist, could one then declare that it could have been built in
Aurangzeb’s time, as Mr Justice Agarwal concludes (paras 1601 and 1645)?
What Justice Agarwal does not seem to have taken into consideration is the
fact that there was considerable change in the styles of architecture,
including mosque architecture, between the times of Babar and Aurangzeb;
and it can easily be established, by the style and technique employed in a
building, whether it was built in the pre-Mughal or early Mughal times or
later. The Babri Masjid is recognisably built in the Sharqi style of
architecture (seen noticeably at Jaunpur) with the characteristic form
given to the propylon. The domes, though large, are flattish and heavy.
This style became obsolete soon after; and well before Aurangzeb’s time,
light (even bulbous) domes with free-standing minarets became the hallmark
of a mosque. (See Note 1.3, contributed by Dr S. Ali Nadeem Rezavi,
annexed to this paper.) It is impossible to conceive that a mosque built
in Aurangzeb’s time or later would have had the design or exhibit the
building technique of the Babri Masjid. All this is fatal to Justice
Sudhir Agarwal’s attempted late dating of the monument.
E. The evidence from the ASI’s report that the justice
overlooked
1.13. Justice Agarwal has high praise for the team of
ASI officials, their conduct of excavations and their report in which he
reposes full trust (see Paper III). One would therefore assume that
anything stated in this report should obtain his approval.
1.14. In the report in Chapter VIII, under the caption
“Arabic Inscription (sic)”, on pages 205-6, there are described two Arabic
inscriptions on slabs, both taken, so we are told, from “debris lying
above the topmost floor of the disputed structure”, the ASI’s euphemism
for the Babri Masjid. One contains parts of verses from the Koran and the
other, the single word “Allah”. In the case of both it is stated that they
are written “in relief Naskh style (of calligraphy) of early sixteenth
century AD”.
1.15. Now, how could these inscriptions, assigned by
the ASI to the early 16th century (so of around
1528, the date of construction of the Babri Masjid), come to be there if
the mosque was constructed not in 1528 AD, during Babar’s time, but in the
reign of Aurangzeb, 1659-1707 AD, some 150 or more years later? To
rephrase a question Justice Agarwal has asked of others: What motive could
Messrs Manjhi and Mani have had in revealing the above inscriptions that
so cruelly puncture the bubble of a convenient speculation?
1.16. There is the further matter of a carbon date. We
do not have the same trust in the ASI’s report that Justice Agarwal
reposes; and by its depth (47cm) it seems certain that in Trench G6 the
charcoal sample that was sent for carbon dating was below Floor 2, not
above it. However, for the present let us quote the ASI’s report’s
commentary on it (p. 54):
“The C-14 date from the contemporary deposit of the
foundation of the disputed structure [Babri Masjid] is 450± 110 BP
(1500±110 AD) which is quite consistent, as determined from the charcoal
sample from trench 6G.”
This means that the construction of the Babri Masjid
cannot be later than AD 1600 and should normally be placed much closer to
AD 1500. So where, if the ASI’s word is sacrosanct, does it leave the
attribution of the alleged destruction of the Ram temple and foundation of
the Masjid to the hand of Aurangzeb who ruled from 1659 to 1707?
The ASI’s report on this carbon date is quoted by
Justice Agarwal himself in para 3924 of his judgement but
apparently its implications escaped his notice or he simply failed to read
what had been transcribed at his direction.
1.17. It may be mentioned, finally, that the authors of
the ASI report directly date the foundation of the Babri Masjid to the
“early sixteenth century” (Report, p. 270); since Justice Agarwal would
not allow any “objections against ASI” (para 3989), why should this
finding be rejected?
Conclusion
No consciousness among Babri Masjid builders of
having demolished a temple at the site
1.18. The attack of the ‘Hindu’ parties on the
genuineness of the Babri Masjid inscriptions – never doubted until the
present litigation, nor by any historian or epigraphist till the current
day – has this advantageous consequence for them, that they become
absolved from considering the implications of the texts of the two
inscriptions, the gateway inscription being fairly long. If a
temple had been demolished for the glory of Islam and the religious merit
of the builders, would they not have first of all proclaimed the fact in
these inscriptions? Given the alleged circumstances, it seems
extraordinarily unnatural that they should have lamentably failed so to
do. There is the example of the Qubbatul Islam (vulg. Quwwatul Islam)
mosque at Qutb-Delhi, where a well-known inscription proclaims such a fact
(see YD Sharma, Delhi and its Neighbourhood, ASI publication,
Delhi, 1974/1990, p. 52). Why then should the builders of the Babri Masjid
have been so silent and withdrawing about their act of temple demolition?
Clearly, the answer must be that they were not aware that they had
destroyed any temple either because they had built the mosque on vacant
land or, as from the archaeological excavations, as we learn now (see
Paper III), the land was already under an idgah or qanati mosque
along with some open ground.
No theory of the construction of the Babri Masjid can
be acceptable to any impartial person unless this vital piece of evidence
in the form of the Masjid inscriptions is given due importance.
Note 1.1
Note on Fuhrer’s texts and translations of the Babri Masjid
inscriptions in his The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur, Calcutta,
1889, pages 67-68
1.1.1. Fuhrer’s transcriptions and translations of the
two inscriptions in Persian (forming his Nos. XLI and XLII) are obviously
full of errors and wrong conclusions have been drawn from them by him.
1.1.2. Fuhrer himself says of his Inscription No. XLI,
“written in Persian poetry”, that “the letters of this inscription have
been mixed together by the copyist” – i.e. by his copyist and not
the original scribe. In the very second hemistich the initial words
ba-shane kih ba, as read by the Fuhrer copyist, show his
illiteracy in reading Persian verse. This cannot now be corrected even by
reading basane kih ba, in the manner suggested in the Epigraphia
Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement, 1965 (henceforth referred to as
EI (AP), 1965), p. 60, or by the latter’s editor’s suggestion,
bina-i kih ba. This is because the word ba (with) under all
these constructions remains absolutely meaningless. EI (AP), 1965’s
own first inscription from the Babri Masjid (on p. 59) shows that ba
could only be used if the edifice was meeting something, like gardun
(sky). In Fuhrer’s version the edifice is marching towards the sky not
meeting ‘with’ the sky! Similarly, the third hemistich in Fuhrer’s reading
is wrong, since it reads bina karda-i in khana-i paidar, which has
one syllable extra. Compare the third hemistich in the above-mentioned
EI (AP), 1965’s first inscription: Bina karda in mahbit-i qudsiyan
ra, which by the use of the terminal word ra avoids the
izafat after karda.
The above comparisons with EI (AP), 1965’s first
inscription bring one to the irresistible conclusion that Fuhrer’s reading
of the six hemistiches is not only extensively wrong but that the
inscription he was reading is really identical with EI (AP), 1965’s
own first inscription. It is curious that the EI (AP), 1965’s
editor missed the fact that both inscriptions, supposed to be distinct
ones, occupied the same position in the mosque: the one read by
Fuhrer is said to be “on the mimbar, right-hand side of the masjid”
while Inscription No.1 of the EI (AP), 1965 is said to have been
“built into the southern side of the pulpit of the mosque”. In other
words, we have here the same mimbar or pulpit inscription. This is
also confirmed by the fact that both the Gazetteer of the Province of
Oudh, 1877-78, and Nevill’s Fyzabad District Gazetteer, 1905,
have spoken only of two Persian inscriptions at the mosque. It may
be seen that the EI (AP), 1965’s pulpit inscription gives the date
in the chronogram “buwad khair baqi” (giving the value 935
(AH) = AD 1528; which is missed by Fuhrer).
1.1.3. One can see how Fuhrer’s copyist created a very
erroneous text of the pulpit inscription. Having read some words
correctly, while totally at a loss with others, he sought to make up a
rhyming text as best he could. Having wrongly read ki adlash as
khadiv-i jahan he read inan (at the end of the second
hemistich), forgetting that with the word ba, which he had
correctly read, this was inadmissible. He was totally floored by
mahbit-i qudsiyan ra in the third hemistich and inserted the mundane
words khana-i paidar instead, forgetting that the izafat
this would require after the word karda would make it violate the
rhyme. He could not make anything of the word Baqi at the end of
the fourth hemistich and so put in khan after it, to rhyme with
inan, his misreading of the terminal word of the second hemistich.
1.1.4. A similar string of errors abounds in Fuhrer’s
copyist’s reading of the gate inscription, written, like the pulpit one,
in the now archaic tughra-influenced style of writing. This is
given as Plate XVII (c) in EI (AP), 1965, opposite p. 59. Here
Fuhrer’s copyist gave up on the first hemistich and in the second read
kunad (‘does’) for kih and then read qalam instead of
alam and tried to make up some sense by reading jawidani
instead of lamakani. He gave up on the third to sixth hemistiches
but his reading of the seventh and eighth hemistiches is not only wrong
but ungrammatical, since the sentence remains incomplete without the
necessary verb (from chunan shahinshah to misal-i shadmani).
In the EI (AP), 1965’s version not only are the words correctly
read but the verb dar girifta is duly supplied. The Fuhrer reading
of the tenth hemistich (ki khaqan-i daulat o faghfur-i sani) is
absurd because no noble, however great (mir-i muazzam), could be
declared an emperor (khaqan, faghfur). The correct reading is given
in EI (AP), 1965, page 61: ki namash Mir Baqi Asaf-i sani
meaning: “whose name is Mir Baqi, a second Asaf
(minister to King Solomon)”. Even the hemistich containing the date is
wrongly read by Fuhrer: ki nuhsad si (930) buwad Hijarat bi-dani.
The word ‘Hijri’ (though generally regarded as superfluous, like ‘AD’
today), not ‘Hijarat’, is used for the Hijri date. Not only is the
use of Hijarat here a piece of illiteracy but its position after buwad
is ungrammatical. The correct reading is given in EI (AP), 1965: ki
nuhsad si panj (935) buwad nishani. In other words, the date is 935
AH, not 930.
1.1.5. The erroneous readings of Fuhrer’s copyist are
obvious from the very fact that his date 930 corresponds to 1523 AD while
both the inscriptions as read by (or for) Fuhrer himself give the name of
Babar as the ruling king. Fuhrer’s consequential statement (p. 67) that
“Babar’s masjid at Ayodhya was built in AH 930 or AD 1523 by Mir Khan” is
absurd, since Babar did not even occupy Delhi until 1526. We have already
shown that “Mir Khan” is a patent misreading by Fuhrer’s copyist for “Mir
Baqi”.
1.1.6. Here it may be mentioned that much earlier than
Fuhrer, the dates were correctly read in these two inscriptions in
the mosque. The Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh, edited by WC
Benett and published in 1877-78, in Vol. I, at pages 6-7, states in its
entry on Ayodhya in its paragraph on ‘Babar’s mosque’:
“In two places in the Babari mosque, the year in
which it was built, 935 H., corresponding with 1528 AD is carved in stone
along with inscriptions dedicated to the glory of the Emperor” (italics
ours).
This statement was wrongly and vainly contested by
Fuhrer (The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur, p. 68, note 1) – mainly
because of his own copyist’s misreadings.
1.1.7. Nor was Fuhrer’s version of the inscriptions
accepted by any official source after the publication of his work in 1889.
In HR Nevill’s Fyzabad District Gazetteer, Preface dated 1905
(reprinted, 1920), p. 179, it is clearly stated, under the entry on
Ajodhya, in respect of the Babri Masjid:
“The mosque has two inscriptions, one on the outside
and the other on the pulpit; both are in Persian and bear the date 935
Hijri. Of the authenticity of the inscriptions there can be no doubt…”
(Annexure 2) (italics ours).
The details in this statement show that the information
is not borrowed from the earlier Oudh Gazetteer but is based on
independent scrutiny.
1.1.8. It may further be observed that Mrs AS Beveridge,
writing in 1921 in her translation of Babar’s memoirs, by and large
correctly read the text of the pulpit inscription (as in EI (AP), 1965)
and partly read (correctly) the other inscription (AS Beveridge,
Baburnama, II, pp. lxxvii-lxxix). She too was informed only of the
existence of two (not three) Persian inscriptions in the
mosque.
Conclusions
1.1.9. (1) There were only two Persian
inscriptions in the mosque, one on the pulpit, the other on the outside.
(2) As recorded by the Oudh Gazetteer, 1877-78,
both of these contained the date 935 (AH = 1528 AD).
(3) Fuhrer’s copyist misread the texts of both the
inscriptions in 1889, being obviously unfamiliar with its stylised
nastaliq writing. The text of the pulpit inscription was correctly
read by Mrs Beveridge (1921) and by the editor of these inscriptions in
Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement, 1965, from an
estampage. Fuhrer’s reading ‘Mir Khan’ is an obvious error for ‘Mir Baqi’
in the pulpit inscription. He also misread the verse in the other
inscription, which actually gave the date as 935, not 930, the one
read by Fuhrer.
(4) Fuhrer’s conclusion that ‘Babar’s mosque’ was
constructed in 930 (AD 1523) by one Mir Khan is absurd, since Babar was
not in possession of this area in 1523 (he won the battle of Panipat only
in 1526). Since the name ‘Mir Khan’ is the product of a copyist’s
misreading, it is needless to say that no person bearing this name is
mentioned among Babar’s nobles in any historical source.
Note 1.2
Two references to Mir Baqi, builder of the Babri Masjid, in Babar’s
memoirs
1.2.1 (1) Eiji Mano’s edition of Baburnama,
Kyoto, 1995, pp. 605-6:
Page 605: Maqam boldi Baqi Tashkandi Awad chariki
bila aushaul…
Page 606: Namaz-i digar Baqi Shaghawal bila Awad
chariki ka rukhsat bir yaldi.
(1A) Abdur Rahim Khankhanan’s Persian version, British
Museum MS Or. 3714:
Folio 517b: Baqi Tashkandi ba lashkar-i Awadh haman
roz amda mulazimat kard.
Folio 518a: namaz-i digar Baqi Shaghawal ra ba
lashkar-i Awad rukhsat dada shud.
(2) AS Beveridge’s translation of Baburnama,
Vol. II, p. 684:
Page 684: (June 13 [1529]): Today, Baqi Tashkindi
came in with the army of Aud (Ayodhya) and waited on me.
Page 685 (June 20) …At the Other Prayer of the same
day, leave was given to Baqi and the army of Aud (Ayodhya).
Note: By a slip, Mrs Beveridge omits to write ‘Baqi the
shaghawal’ instead of Baqi in the same passage.
(3) WM Thackston’s translation of Baburnama, pp.
443-444:
Page 443: Baqi Tashkandi came with the Oudh army that
day to pay homage.
Page 444: That afternoon Baqi Shiqavul and the Oudh
army were dismissed.
Note: ‘Oude’, or ‘Oudh’, represented the name ‘Awadh’
which, in popular and Indo-Persian use, was a variant of Ayodhya. Compare
Tulsidas’s ‘Awadhpuri’ for Ayodhya.
Note 1.3
Design and building techniques of the Babri Masjid, Ayodhya
Contributed by S. Ali Nadeem Rezavi
1.3.1. The basic plan of the Babri Masjid is
reminiscent of the Tughlaq, Lodi and Sharqi architectural traditions. It
consists of a western liwan (prayer chamber) divided into aisles
and a central nave. All the three are single-bayed, fronted with arched
openings and covered with domes. The nave is comparatively larger than the
flanking aisles. To the east is a small courtyard which at some later
stage was further enlarged with the placement of an outer screen and a
gateway.
1.3.2. The whole structure, as was common in the
Tughlaq and Lodi periods, was built of rubble stone masonry overlaid with
a thick veneer of lime plaster. As visible from a photograph of the
western wall of the mosque, rubble stones alternated with layers of
calcrete and sandstone blocks. Similar type of construction is witnessed
in other 13th to 15th century structures located in and near Ayodhya. An
example can be given of the two very large ‘graves’ of the ‘prophets’ –
one near the palace of the raja of Ayodhya and the other at the old
cemetery on the outskirts of Ayodhya, and the medieval monuments around
them.
1.3.3. The nave of the western liwan is fronted
with a high propylon, reminiscent of the architecture of the Sharqi
period.
1.3.4. The propylon is provided with a trabeated
opening covered with a drooping eave resting on heavy stone brackets. The
sides of the pylon are decorated with heavy stone projected balconies and
a series of niches in the form of arch-and-panel articulation with floral
medallions embossed within.
1.3.5. The arches employed throughout the structure are
pointed arches which were generally preferred during the period before the
establishment of the Mughal mode of architecture under Akbar. The Mughals,
from the period of Akbar onwards, preferred the four-centred Iranian arch
which, due to its profuse use, came to be known as the ‘Mughal Arch’.
1.3.6. The domes of the Babri Masjid were typical
‘Lodi-style’ domes, raised with the help of stalactite pendentives (as
against squinches), resting on octagonal heavy necks and topped with
inverted lotus crestings. The domes of the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya were
similar to the domes of the ‘Moth ki Masjid’ in Delhi, constructed during
the reign of Sikandar Lodi (1498-1517) by his prime minister, Miyan Bhuwa.
1.3.7. From the period of Akbar onwards, the style of
mosque architecture drastically changed: Now the preferred style was the
mosque having a centrally located courtyard surrounded on all sides by the
riwaqs (cloisters) and the liwan. The cusped arches,
baluster columns and other intricate decorative features were also added.
1.3.8. By Shahjahan’s time a further innovation took
place – the minaret started emerging as a part of the mosque complex and
by the period of Aurangzeb it became almost an essential feature.
1.3.9. The mosques built under Aurangzeb and later
Mughals were of a totally different kind as compared to the plan and
elevation of the Babri Masjid. Almost all of them incorporate
architectural features developed and used by the architects of Shahjahan.
Thus nearly all of them have bulbous domes (a fair number of which were
ribbed and of marble) resting on constricted necks; the preferred arch
type was that of the multifoliated cusped arches and tall domineering two
or four minarets – almost all the mosques from this period onwards had the
minarets as an essential architectural feature. Examples can be given of
such imperial mosques as the Badshahi mosque at Lahore, the Jami Masjid
and the Idgah mosque of Mathura, the Gyanvapi and the Jami mosques of
Varanasi as well as the Jami Masjid of Muhammad Shah at Aligarh.
|