10-02-2010, 03:44 AM
Dear Ramana, first of all, I have to rely on the reliability of the Mir Baqi inscription. Starting with that, the inscription needs some explanations.
Baburnama hiati
Beveridge in her English translation of the Baburnama says that Babar reached the Ayodhya vicinity on March 28, 1528, and camped there for a short period to settle the affairs of Awadh=Ayodhya: "On Saturday, the 7th of Rajeb, I encamped two or three kos above Oudh, at the juncÃÂtion of the Gogra and Saru. Till that day, Sheikh Bayezëd had kept his station, not far from* Oudh, on the other side of the Saru. ...
I halted some days in this station, for the purpose of settling the affairs of Oudh and the neighbouring country, and for making the necessary arrangements. ... On Thursday, the 12th, I mounted, to set off on a hunting party." [april 2]
Babur could never have built a mosque with three domes from scratch or ruins in less than 4,5 months (april 2 till august 18)!! All he could have done was desecrating (breaking idols, killing cows etc.), damaging (removing paintings and ancient inscriptions) and repair it as a new symbol of the might of Islam.
The Baburnama misses the data concerning 2 april to 18 september 1528 = great part of AH 934 and 3 days of AH 935. AH 935 = 15 september 1529 to 5 september 1529.
Mir Baqi may be the Amir or Mir called Baqi Beg Tashkandi. But I have to check this.
Mir Baqi Inscription
1. Ba farmuda-i-Shah Babur ki adilsash Bama'ist ta kakh-i-gardun mulaqi
2. Banaa kard in mubhit-i-qudsiyaan Amir-i-sa'adat-nishaan Mir Baqi
3. Bavad khair baaqi! chu saal-i-banaish Iyaan shud ki guftam, Bavad khair baaqi!
The translation:
1. By the command of the Emperor Babur whose justice is an edifice reaching up to the very height of the heavens,
2. The good-hearted Mir Baqi built this alighting place of angels;
3. Bavad khair baqi! (May this goodness last forever!) (Beveridge 1921)
The number AH 935 (= 1528 CE) does not literally appear in the inscription. Beveridge gets that number by adding up the numerical values in the phrase "Bavad khair baqi" to 935. The letters forming it by their numerical values represent the number 935, thus:
B=2, v=6, d=4 total 12
Kh=600, ai=10, r=200 total 810
B=2, a=1, q=100 i=10 total 113
Total 935 (Beveridge 1921)
Thus the inscription may date from 15 to 18 september 1528 to correspond to the information of the missing pages of the Baburnama and also corresponding to AH 935. The habit is to make inscriptions at the end of a construction or repairing project. This means that Babur visited or stormed into Ayodhya in AH 934 in the first half of 2 april to 15 september 1528. The temple must have been desecrated closer to 2 april 1528 in order to do the (minor) vandalizing changes to finish at the date of 15 to 18 september for the inscription and end of this episode in the Baburnama.
Deduction
- If the Mir Baqi inscription is genuine, which it seems it is, the governor Mir Baqi clearly claims to have acted according to the orders of Babur with reference to the three-domed structure functioning as a temple.
- He was ordered to construct a lofty edifice at that place, a 'place of angels', which points to a mosque.
- If he had to construct a lofty edifice on that holy spot, Ghazi Babur must have seen the three-domed temple and he had planned its desecration and conversion for creating a lofty structure adapted to Muslim flavour to show his triumph over locals = Hindus. This he meant with settling affairs in Awadh in his biography.
- That there was hardly time to construct a lofty edifice, not even on top of an harrassed structure, indicates that the three-domed structure functioning as a temple could only be converted with minor cosmetical changes into a lofty edifice worth the command of Babur. In his own eyes he succeeded in this, that he proudly mentions that this lofty edifice was an alighting place of angels. (this points at the structure equalling in status to that of mosques)
- the new situation of the three-domed struture through Mir Baqi on the command of Babur, was that it had stopped to function as a Hindu temple (at that time). This was the main aim, besides showing the non-Muslims the triumph of Islam over them. Desecrating and converting was ment to cause a permanent situation.
- then it must have been regained by Hindus when foreigner Humayun, Babur's son, was ousted from India by India-born Sher Shah Suri whose army included some Hindu generals. (that is perhaps also a reason why there is no reference in the Tulasi Ramacharitamanasa, because in his time the structure must have been regained by Hindus)
- the structure had to function as a mosque as per Padishahi order during Aurangzeb. Thus, the recaptured three-domed structure, was again desecrated by Mughals. See below.
Origin of the name
Why this three-domed structure was called Baburi Masjid? In itself it doesn't make sense, as it possibly did not function (perhaps at all, but sure not for long) as Masjid during Babur's reign. Neither can we trace this name in the inscription. It must have been attached to the structure somewhere during some later Mughal ruler, at least after Akbar. That fact and that the structure was recaptured by Hindus shortly after Babur's act, is why the court works of Akbar's historians are silent about this.
The name Masjid-i Janamsthan makes sense, as that is the literal translation for Muslims to understand the functional name (Rama)Janmasthana Mandira. If this Masjid(-i Janamsthan) was considered by Mir Baqi now to belong to the new political and religious 'overlord' of the Lord of the Hindus, the name was considered as Baburi Masjid(-i Janamsthan). But this last is just a suggestion.
Conclusion
Babur is directly responsible for the damaging of the former Hindu temple. If he is not directly responsible for converting the damaged temple into a 'place of angels', he indeed is indirectly, having given orders, as per Mir Baqi's inscription. The former temple was, due to shortage of time, cosmetically converted in such a way that most icons of the presence of a Hindu temple were erased. And the temple was stopped from being used by Hindus, as was the case with most temples or structures.
This situation must have been temporarily, as shortly hereafter the political situation had drastically changed. The foreign Mughal ruler had been ousted from the country by local Pathan and Hindu forces. Hindus must have reclaimed the possession of the structure, and possibly the Mir Baqi inscription was removed in this time.
The situation was changed again during Aurangzeb, as he was clearly an iconoclast. Joseph Tiefenthaler, an Austrian Jesuit priest who stayed in Awadh in 1766-1771 (just 50 years after the death of Aurangzeb) states in his History and Geography of India: "The Emperor Aurangzeb destroyed a fortress called Ramkot and built at the same place a Muhammedan temple with three domes. Others say it has been built by Babar. one can see 14 columns made of black stone 5 span in height which occupy the site of the fortress. 12 of these columns now support the inside arcades of the mosque."
Tiefenthaler's source is from hear-say, but connects both Babur and Aurangzeb to the damaging of the temple and Ramkot fort. In that case, he didn't see the Mir Baqi inscription, if it was still there, be because his source forgot to tell him. Or it was already removed earlier.
Aurangzeb's daughter has this to confirm the functioning of the temple as mosque on Aurangzeb's order: "... the mosques built on the basis of the king's orders (ba farman-i Badshahi) have not been exempted from the offering of the namaz and the reading of the Khutba [therein]. The places of worship of the Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh, etc., in which the Hindus (kufar) have great faith - the place of the birthplace of Kanhaiya, the place of Rasoi Sita, the place of Hanuman, who, according to the Hindus, was seated by Ram Chandra over there after the conquest of Lanka - were all demolished for the strength of Islam, and at all these places
mosques have been constructed. These mosques have not been exempted from juma and jamiat (Friday prayers). Rather it is obligatory that no idol worship should be performed over there and the sound of the conch shell should not reach the ear of the Muslims ..."
Mirza Jan: Hadiqa-i Shahada, 1856, Lucknow, pp. 4-7 (reproducing Nasihat-i Bist-o-Panjam Az Chahal Nisaih Bahadur Shahi of 1816 AD, which contain 25 of the Chahal Nasaih ("Forty Advices") of Aurangzeb's granddaughter.)
Mirza Jan who claims in his Hadiqa-i Shahada to have gone through various old sources says in his own account also that Babur was involved in the damaging and conversion of the Ram temple in Ayodhya: "The past Sultans encouraged the propagation and glorification of Islam and crushed the forces of the unbelievers (kufar), the Hindus. Similarly, Faizabad and Awadh were also purged of this mean practice [of kufr]. This [Awadh] was a great worshipping centre and the capital of [the kingdom of] Rama's father. Where there was a large temple, a big mosque was constructed and where there was a small mandaf, there a small kanati masjid was constructed.
The temple of Janmasthan was the original birthplace (masqat) of Ram, adjacent to which is Sita Ki Rasoi, Sita being the name of his wife. Hence at that site, a lofty (sarbaland) mosque has been built by Babar Badshah under the guidance of Musa Ashikan ... That mosque is till date popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi..."
Here Mirza Jan claims that Babar indeed wanted to built a mosque on the holy spot.
Anyway, between Aurangzeb and Vajid Ali Shah, Hindus again were in charge of the recaptured structure, that they had to face threads again. See the Hanumangarhi incident.
Thus, Ghazi Babur was responsible for desecrating and damaging the temple and turning it into a 'place of angels', even though it was an illegal mosque, to show his triumph over the Kafirs. The drugs-addicted (even after his Jihad against Sanga), alcohol-using and homosexual Babur was never an exemplary Muslim, but he certainly was a Ghazi. A title he clearly mentions in his autobiography. Just like all the Mughals, except Aurangzeb who was both. Now, a Ghazi is not a tourist to Hindu temples, he is an imitator of the first major Ghazi, Mahmud Ghaznavi. Psec 'eminent historians' cannot whitewash this identity and role Babur played in Ayodhya.
Aurangzeb thereafter was responsible for turning a recaptured, refunctioning temple into a mosque again.
The Vishnu Hari Rama temple, first built in the 12th century, was repeatedly desecrated and damaged, at least clearly by Qutbuddin/Shihabuddin (demolishion superstructure), Mir Baqi/Babur (conversion three-domed temple to a 'place of angels') and Aurangzeb (conversion again to a functioning mosque).
Hereafter Hindus retook the structure and had many disputes and threads to face. This is all well documented and known.
Baburnama hiati
Beveridge in her English translation of the Baburnama says that Babar reached the Ayodhya vicinity on March 28, 1528, and camped there for a short period to settle the affairs of Awadh=Ayodhya: "On Saturday, the 7th of Rajeb, I encamped two or three kos above Oudh, at the juncÃÂtion of the Gogra and Saru. Till that day, Sheikh Bayezëd had kept his station, not far from* Oudh, on the other side of the Saru. ...
I halted some days in this station, for the purpose of settling the affairs of Oudh and the neighbouring country, and for making the necessary arrangements. ... On Thursday, the 12th, I mounted, to set off on a hunting party." [april 2]
Babur could never have built a mosque with three domes from scratch or ruins in less than 4,5 months (april 2 till august 18)!! All he could have done was desecrating (breaking idols, killing cows etc.), damaging (removing paintings and ancient inscriptions) and repair it as a new symbol of the might of Islam.
The Baburnama misses the data concerning 2 april to 18 september 1528 = great part of AH 934 and 3 days of AH 935. AH 935 = 15 september 1529 to 5 september 1529.
Mir Baqi may be the Amir or Mir called Baqi Beg Tashkandi. But I have to check this.
Mir Baqi Inscription
1. Ba farmuda-i-Shah Babur ki adilsash Bama'ist ta kakh-i-gardun mulaqi
2. Banaa kard in mubhit-i-qudsiyaan Amir-i-sa'adat-nishaan Mir Baqi
3. Bavad khair baaqi! chu saal-i-banaish Iyaan shud ki guftam, Bavad khair baaqi!
The translation:
1. By the command of the Emperor Babur whose justice is an edifice reaching up to the very height of the heavens,
2. The good-hearted Mir Baqi built this alighting place of angels;
3. Bavad khair baqi! (May this goodness last forever!) (Beveridge 1921)
The number AH 935 (= 1528 CE) does not literally appear in the inscription. Beveridge gets that number by adding up the numerical values in the phrase "Bavad khair baqi" to 935. The letters forming it by their numerical values represent the number 935, thus:
B=2, v=6, d=4 total 12
Kh=600, ai=10, r=200 total 810
B=2, a=1, q=100 i=10 total 113
Total 935 (Beveridge 1921)
Thus the inscription may date from 15 to 18 september 1528 to correspond to the information of the missing pages of the Baburnama and also corresponding to AH 935. The habit is to make inscriptions at the end of a construction or repairing project. This means that Babur visited or stormed into Ayodhya in AH 934 in the first half of 2 april to 15 september 1528. The temple must have been desecrated closer to 2 april 1528 in order to do the (minor) vandalizing changes to finish at the date of 15 to 18 september for the inscription and end of this episode in the Baburnama.
Deduction
- If the Mir Baqi inscription is genuine, which it seems it is, the governor Mir Baqi clearly claims to have acted according to the orders of Babur with reference to the three-domed structure functioning as a temple.
- He was ordered to construct a lofty edifice at that place, a 'place of angels', which points to a mosque.
- If he had to construct a lofty edifice on that holy spot, Ghazi Babur must have seen the three-domed temple and he had planned its desecration and conversion for creating a lofty structure adapted to Muslim flavour to show his triumph over locals = Hindus. This he meant with settling affairs in Awadh in his biography.
- That there was hardly time to construct a lofty edifice, not even on top of an harrassed structure, indicates that the three-domed structure functioning as a temple could only be converted with minor cosmetical changes into a lofty edifice worth the command of Babur. In his own eyes he succeeded in this, that he proudly mentions that this lofty edifice was an alighting place of angels. (this points at the structure equalling in status to that of mosques)
- the new situation of the three-domed struture through Mir Baqi on the command of Babur, was that it had stopped to function as a Hindu temple (at that time). This was the main aim, besides showing the non-Muslims the triumph of Islam over them. Desecrating and converting was ment to cause a permanent situation.
- then it must have been regained by Hindus when foreigner Humayun, Babur's son, was ousted from India by India-born Sher Shah Suri whose army included some Hindu generals. (that is perhaps also a reason why there is no reference in the Tulasi Ramacharitamanasa, because in his time the structure must have been regained by Hindus)
- the structure had to function as a mosque as per Padishahi order during Aurangzeb. Thus, the recaptured three-domed structure, was again desecrated by Mughals. See below.
Origin of the name
Why this three-domed structure was called Baburi Masjid? In itself it doesn't make sense, as it possibly did not function (perhaps at all, but sure not for long) as Masjid during Babur's reign. Neither can we trace this name in the inscription. It must have been attached to the structure somewhere during some later Mughal ruler, at least after Akbar. That fact and that the structure was recaptured by Hindus shortly after Babur's act, is why the court works of Akbar's historians are silent about this.
The name Masjid-i Janamsthan makes sense, as that is the literal translation for Muslims to understand the functional name (Rama)Janmasthana Mandira. If this Masjid(-i Janamsthan) was considered by Mir Baqi now to belong to the new political and religious 'overlord' of the Lord of the Hindus, the name was considered as Baburi Masjid(-i Janamsthan). But this last is just a suggestion.
Conclusion
Babur is directly responsible for the damaging of the former Hindu temple. If he is not directly responsible for converting the damaged temple into a 'place of angels', he indeed is indirectly, having given orders, as per Mir Baqi's inscription. The former temple was, due to shortage of time, cosmetically converted in such a way that most icons of the presence of a Hindu temple were erased. And the temple was stopped from being used by Hindus, as was the case with most temples or structures.
This situation must have been temporarily, as shortly hereafter the political situation had drastically changed. The foreign Mughal ruler had been ousted from the country by local Pathan and Hindu forces. Hindus must have reclaimed the possession of the structure, and possibly the Mir Baqi inscription was removed in this time.
The situation was changed again during Aurangzeb, as he was clearly an iconoclast. Joseph Tiefenthaler, an Austrian Jesuit priest who stayed in Awadh in 1766-1771 (just 50 years after the death of Aurangzeb) states in his History and Geography of India: "The Emperor Aurangzeb destroyed a fortress called Ramkot and built at the same place a Muhammedan temple with three domes. Others say it has been built by Babar. one can see 14 columns made of black stone 5 span in height which occupy the site of the fortress. 12 of these columns now support the inside arcades of the mosque."
Tiefenthaler's source is from hear-say, but connects both Babur and Aurangzeb to the damaging of the temple and Ramkot fort. In that case, he didn't see the Mir Baqi inscription, if it was still there, be because his source forgot to tell him. Or it was already removed earlier.
Aurangzeb's daughter has this to confirm the functioning of the temple as mosque on Aurangzeb's order: "... the mosques built on the basis of the king's orders (ba farman-i Badshahi) have not been exempted from the offering of the namaz and the reading of the Khutba [therein]. The places of worship of the Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh, etc., in which the Hindus (kufar) have great faith - the place of the birthplace of Kanhaiya, the place of Rasoi Sita, the place of Hanuman, who, according to the Hindus, was seated by Ram Chandra over there after the conquest of Lanka - were all demolished for the strength of Islam, and at all these places
mosques have been constructed. These mosques have not been exempted from juma and jamiat (Friday prayers). Rather it is obligatory that no idol worship should be performed over there and the sound of the conch shell should not reach the ear of the Muslims ..."
Mirza Jan: Hadiqa-i Shahada, 1856, Lucknow, pp. 4-7 (reproducing Nasihat-i Bist-o-Panjam Az Chahal Nisaih Bahadur Shahi of 1816 AD, which contain 25 of the Chahal Nasaih ("Forty Advices") of Aurangzeb's granddaughter.)
Mirza Jan who claims in his Hadiqa-i Shahada to have gone through various old sources says in his own account also that Babur was involved in the damaging and conversion of the Ram temple in Ayodhya: "The past Sultans encouraged the propagation and glorification of Islam and crushed the forces of the unbelievers (kufar), the Hindus. Similarly, Faizabad and Awadh were also purged of this mean practice [of kufr]. This [Awadh] was a great worshipping centre and the capital of [the kingdom of] Rama's father. Where there was a large temple, a big mosque was constructed and where there was a small mandaf, there a small kanati masjid was constructed.
The temple of Janmasthan was the original birthplace (masqat) of Ram, adjacent to which is Sita Ki Rasoi, Sita being the name of his wife. Hence at that site, a lofty (sarbaland) mosque has been built by Babar Badshah under the guidance of Musa Ashikan ... That mosque is till date popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi..."
Here Mirza Jan claims that Babar indeed wanted to built a mosque on the holy spot.
Anyway, between Aurangzeb and Vajid Ali Shah, Hindus again were in charge of the recaptured structure, that they had to face threads again. See the Hanumangarhi incident.
Thus, Ghazi Babur was responsible for desecrating and damaging the temple and turning it into a 'place of angels', even though it was an illegal mosque, to show his triumph over the Kafirs. The drugs-addicted (even after his Jihad against Sanga), alcohol-using and homosexual Babur was never an exemplary Muslim, but he certainly was a Ghazi. A title he clearly mentions in his autobiography. Just like all the Mughals, except Aurangzeb who was both. Now, a Ghazi is not a tourist to Hindu temples, he is an imitator of the first major Ghazi, Mahmud Ghaznavi. Psec 'eminent historians' cannot whitewash this identity and role Babur played in Ayodhya.
Aurangzeb thereafter was responsible for turning a recaptured, refunctioning temple into a mosque again.
The Vishnu Hari Rama temple, first built in the 12th century, was repeatedly desecrated and damaged, at least clearly by Qutbuddin/Shihabuddin (demolishion superstructure), Mir Baqi/Babur (conversion three-domed temple to a 'place of angels') and Aurangzeb (conversion again to a functioning mosque).
Hereafter Hindus retook the structure and had many disputes and threads to face. This is all well documented and known.