This blog aims at bringing out the past glory and history of India, Hinduism and its forgotten values and wisdom. This is not copyrighted so as to reach genuine seekers of these information. Its my prayer that only genuine seekers - and not vandals & plagiarists - come to this site.
Showing posts with label Ram Janma Bhumi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ram Janma Bhumi. Show all posts
as told in HC by Dr. Thakur Prasad Verma, aged about 69 years
(as per his affidavit dated 31.10.2002).
His cross examination followed as under:-
"Insofar as history is concerned, Ayodhya was ruinedand established in its existence period. It is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana 7/111/10 that during His lifetime Lord Sri Rama had depopulated Ayodhya and had proceeded to
heaven along with His entire subjects. He had arranged for His sons to rule from outside Ayodhya.
"The elder son Luv was asked to rule with Shrawasti (Sahet-Mahet ) as capital
and till the period of Buddha, this place continued to be the capital of Kaushal estate. Subsequently, in the Maurya period as well this Kaushal estate (province of Magadh empire) was the capital.
The city of Kushawati, which is in the Vindhya region,was established for the rule of the other son Kushand thereafter till date it is famous as Mahakaushal.
"It has also been mentioned in the Ramayana that after Lord Sri Rama, Ayodhya would again be inhabited during the times of Rishabh.
He was the first Tirthkar of Jains and is also known as Adinath.
"It is so believed amongst the Hindus that the credit for inhabitanceof Ayodhya for third time, goes to Vikramaditya, king of Ujjain.
It appears from paper no. 107C-1/10, 107C-1/28,
107C-1/35, 107C-1/55 filed in this suit that he had built 360 temples in Ayodhya.
"Few consider him to be king Vikramaditya of Gardbhill dynasty of Ujjain, who had destroyed the Shakas in 57 BC and had started the Vikram era and few consider him to be Chandragupta Vikramaditya of Gupta dynasty. Be that as it may, the Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple was certainly included in those 360
temples.
"The present series of the temple built at SriRamjanmbhumi site, is considered to have started in this very period. The temples kept frailing with age and they
were renovated, which work continued till the start of 11thcentury AD.
Salar Masud came here in 1032-33 AD and damaged the Janmsthal temple.
On 14th June, 1033 he was killed by king Suhel dev in the battle of Bahraich."
"From the 20 line inscription (estampage filed in this suit as paper no. 203C-1/3) found in the debris of the disputed structure demolished on 6th December, 1992 at
Ayodhya, it transpires that during the reign of Gaharwal king Govindchandra (from 1114 to 1154 AD) the ruler of Saket division built a very grand temple at this place. The need for construction of the same arose in view of the fact that it had been demolished about 70-80 years ago, but in this period also worship was taking place here. I have myself seen the estampages and have deciphered them."
"This temple of 11th - 12th century (of Gaharwalperiod) built by king Anaychandra, was again demolished by Babar's commander Mir Baqi in the year 1528. Babar proceeded towards Gwalior after leaving Mir Baqi at Awadh. The meeting of the two after about 13 months on his return to the area, is mentioned in Babarnama.
"I have written a book titled 'Ayodhya Ka Itihaasevam Puratatva' (from Rigveda to date) along with Dr. S.P. Gupta, which has been filed in this suit as paper no. 289C-1, and only the last chapter-11 has been authored by Dr. S.C. Gupta. I verify the facts written by me in this book. The treatises studied by me in writing this book, have been referred in the book. The descriptions in the book are on basis of historical facts and not due to mala fide or any compulsion."
How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause
NEW DELHI: The role played by "independent experts" — historians and archaeologists who appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board to support its claim — has come in for criticism by one of the Allahabad High Court judges in the Ayodhya verdict.
While the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed objections raised by the experts to the presence of a temple, it was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to extended judicial scrutiny.
Most of these experts deposed twice. Before the ASI excavations, they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and, after the site had been dug up, they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa. During lengthy cross-examination spread over several pages and recorded by Justice Agarwal, the historians and experts were subjected to pointed queries about their expertise, background and basis for their opinions.
To the court's astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, found themselves withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displaying an "ostrich-like attitude" to facts.
He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were all connected — one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness.
Some instances underlined by the judge are: Suvira Jaiswal deposed "whatever knowledge I gained with respect to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told" (other experts). She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute "after reading newspaper reports and on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department." Supriya Verma, another expert who challenged the ASI excavations, had not read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation. She did her PhD under another expert Shireen F Ratnagar.
Verma and Jaya Menonalleged that pillar bases at the excavated site had been planted but HC found they were not present at the time the actual excavation took place.
Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the "introduction" to the book of another expert who deposed, Professor Mandal. She admitted she had no field experience.
"Normally, courts do not make adverse comments on the deposition of a witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not, but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements..." the judge has noted.
He said opinions had been offered without making a proper investigation, research or study in the subject. The judge said he was "startled and puzzled" by contradictory statements. When expert witness Suraj Bhan deposed on the Babri mosque, the weight of his evidence was contradicted by another expert for Muslim parties, Shirin Musavi, who told the court that Bhan "is an archaeologist and not an expert on medieval history".
Justice Agarwal referred to signed statements issued by experts and noted that "instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere it tends to create more complications, conflict and controversy." He pointed out that experts carry weight with public opinion. "One cannot say that though I had made a statement but I am not responsible for its authenticity since it is not based on my study or research but what I have learnt from what others have uttered," Justice Aggarwal has said, emphasising the need for thorough original research before concurring with what someone else has claimed.
Abul Fazl, the author of Akbar Nama and Ain-i-Akbari is an eminent writer of the Moghul age who describes Ayodhya as the residential place (banga) of Sri Ram Chandra who during the Treta age was the embodiment of both the spiritual sovereign supremacy as well as the mundane kingly office. Abul Fazl also testifies that Awadh (Ayodhya) was esteemed as one of the holiest places of antiquity. He reports that Ram-Navami festival, marking the birthday of Rama continues to be celebrated in a big way.
2) Safiha-i Chahal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, written by the daughter of Bahadur Shah Alamgir during the early 18th century.
Out of the above Chahal Nasaih ("Forty Advices"), twenty-five instructions were copied and incorporated in the manuscript entitled Nasihat-i Bist-o-Panjam Az Chahal Nisaih Bahadur Shahi in 1816 AD, which is the oldest known account of the destruction of Ram Janmabhoomi for construction of the Babri Mosque, and its author is none other than Aurangzeb's grand daughter.
Mirza Jan, the author of Hadiqa-i-Shahda, 1856, Lucknow, has reproduced the above text in Persian on pp.4-7 of his book. The text runs as follows:
"... 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 ..."
3) Hadiqa-i-Shahada by Mirza Jan (1856), pages 4-7.
The author was an eye-witness and an active participant in the jihad led by Amir Ali Amethawi during Wazid Ali Shah's rule in 1855 for recapture of Hanumangarhi from the Hindus. His book was ready just after the failure of the jihad due to stout Hindu resistance, and was published the following year (1856) in Lucknow. In Chapter IX of his book, entitled Wazid Ali Shah Aur Unka Ahd ("Wazid Ali Ahah and His Regime"), we find his account of construction of the Babri mosque.
Mirza Jan who claims to have gone through various old sources says in his own account as follows:
"The past Sultans encouraged the propagation and glorification of Islam and crushed the forces of the unbelievers (kufar), the Hindus. Similarly, Faizabad and Awadh(Ayodhya) 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... Tha t mosque is till date popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi..."
4) Fasana-i Ibrat by the Urdu novelist Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur.
Dr. Zaki Kakorawi has appended an excerpt from this book by Surur (1787-1867) in his work. The excerpt reads as follows :
"During the reign of Babar Badshah, a magnificent mosque was constructed in Awadh at a place which is associated with Sita ki Rasoi. This was the Babari mosque. As during this period the Hindus could not dare to offer any resistance, the mosque was constructed under the benign guidance of Saiyed Mir Ashikan. Its date of construction could be reckoned from [the words] Khair-Baqi. And in the Ram Darbar, a mosque was constructed by Fidai Khan, the subedar."
5) Zia-i Akhtar by Haji Muhammed Hasan (Lucknow 1878), p.38-39.
The author states :
"The mosque which had been built by Saiyid Musa Ashikan in 923 AH in compliance with the order of Zahiruddin Badshah, Delhi, after demolishing the private apartments (mahal sarai) of Raja Ram Chander and the kitchen of Sita, as well as the second mosque built by Muiuddin Aurangzeb, Alamgir Badshah, [in fact] both these mosques have developed cracks at various places because of the ageing character. Both these mosques have been gradually mitigated by the Bairagis and this very fact accounts for the riot. The Hindus have great hatred for the Muslims..."
6) Gumgashte Halat-i Ajudhya Awadh ("Forgotten Events of Ayodhya"), i.e. Tarikh-i Parnia Madina Alwaliya (in Persian) (Lucknow 1885), by Maulvi Abdul Karim.
The author, who was then the imam of the Babri Masjid, while giving a description of the dargah of Hazrat Shah Jamal Gojjri states : "To the east of this dargah is mahalla Akbarpur, whose second name is also Kot Raja Ram Chander Ji. In this Kot, there were few burjs [towery big halls]. Towards the side of the western burj, there was the house of birthplace (makan-i paidaish) and the kitchen (bawarchi khana) of the above-mentioned Raja. And now, this premises is known as Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji. After the demolition and mitigation of these houses [viz. Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji], Babar Badshah got a magnificent mosque constructed thereon."
7) Tarikh-i Awadh ("History of Ayodhya") by Alama Muhammad Najamulghani Khan Rampuri (1909).
Dr. Zaki Kakorawi has brought out an abridged edition of this book. An excerpt from vol.II (pp.570-575) of this edition runs as follows :
"Babar built a magnificent mosque at the spot where the temple of Janmasthan of Ramchandra was situated in Ayodhya, under the patronage of Saiyid Ashikan, and Sita ki Rasoi is situated adjacent to it. The date of construction of the mosque is Khair Baqi (923 AH). Till date, it is known as Sita ki Rasoi. By its side stands that temple. It is said that at the time of the conquest of Islam there were still three temples, viz. Janmasthan, which was the birthplace of Ram Chanderji, Swargadwar alias Ram Darbar, and the Treta ka Thakur. Babar built the mosque after having demolished Janmasthan."
8) Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein ("India is under Islamic rule") by Maulana Hakim Sayid Abdul Hai.
The book contained a chapter on "The Mosques of Hindusthan" (Hindustan ki Masjidein), giving at least six instances of the construction of the mosques on the very sites of the Hindu temples demolished by the Indian Muslim rulers during the 12th-17th centuries. As regards Babri Masjid, he writes :
"This mosque was constructed by Babar at Ajodhya which the Hindus call the birthplace of Ram Chanderji.There is a famous story about his wife Sita. It is said that Sita had a temple here in which she lived and cooked for her husband. On that very site Babar constructed this mosque..."
True and devout Hindus believe Lord Sri Rama was born in Ayodhya, the then capital of a flourishing kingdom of the Suryavamsa dynasty. Rama is venerated as Maryada Purushottam, and worshipped by Hindus of the north. As an avatar of Vishnu, he was first propagated by Tamil saints Nayanmars and Alwars; the north later came to accept Rama, especially thanks to the saint Tulsidas. In that sense, Sri Rama was the first truly national king of India, supra region, supra varna or jati.
The exact spot where Rama was born has been and remains firmly identified in the Hindu mind and is held as sacred. This is the very area where stood from 1528 till December 6, 1992, a structure that came to be known as Babri Masjid, put up in 1528 by Babar's commander Mir Baqi.
Baqi was a Shia Muslim, and hence he intended it to be a place for Shias to perform namaz. Today, interestingly, the Shia clerics have made it clear to Hindu organisations that they would agree to have the site restored as a Ramjanmabhoomi. It is the Sunni Waqf Board, which entered the legal dispute as late as 1961, that has been claiming the title to the land on which the structure once stood. I call it a 'structure' since it cannot be strictly called a mosque by Sunni edicts — because it did not have the mandatory minarets and wazu (water pool).
In Skanda Purana (Chapter X, Vaishnav Khand) the site is vividly described. Valmiki Ramayana also describes it beautifully. Less than two decades before Mir Baqi carried out the horrible demolition of the Ram temple, Guru Nanak had visited the Ramjanmabhoomi and had darshan of Ramlala in the mandir at the spot. Guru Nanak himself records in 1521 the barbarity of Babar's invasions (in Guru Granth Sahib at p.418).
In Akbar's time, Abul Fazal wrote the Ain-i-Akbari in which he describes Ayodhya as the place of "Ram Chandra's residence who in Treta Yuga combined spiritual supremacy and kingship" (Translated by Colonel H S Jarrett and published in Kolkata in 1891).
In Chapter X of the Report of the Archeological Survey of India, NW, and Oudh(1889) it is mentioned (p.67) that Babri Mosque 'was built in AD 1528 by Mir Khan on the very spot where the old temple of Janmasthan of Ram Chandra was standing'.
It is recorded in many official and judicial proceedings. In 1885, for example, Mahant Raghubar Das in a Suit No 61/280 of 1885 filed in the court of the Faizabad sub-judge against the secretary of state for India (who was based in London), prayed for permission to build a temple on the chabutra outside the mosque. His suit was dismissed on March 18, 1886.
However, in his order, the sub-judge, an Englishman, stated: "It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as the event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance." It is well-established by GPRS-directed excavations done under the Allahabad High Court monitoring and verification in 2002-03, that a large temple did exist below where Babri Masjid structure once stood. Inscriptions found during excavations describe it as a temple of Vishnu Hari who had killed the demon king Dasanan (Ravana).
The Sunni Waqf Board does not accept these findings. It does not however matter if all this was indeed so or not, since under Section 295 of the 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 of 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 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both'.
That is, an offence under criminal law is committed if a body of persons hold something as sacred. It does not matter if the majority does or does not hold so. Nor can a court decide what is sacred and what is not. The offence under Section 295 IPC is cognisable and non-bailable, as well as non-compoundable. The fundamental question before us is: Can a temple and a masjid be considered on par as far as sacredness is concerned? Relying on two important court judgments that hold the field today, the answer is 'no'. A masjid is not an essential part of Islam, according to a majority judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
In the famous Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India case (reported in (1994) 6 SCC 376), the Supreme Court had 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'. (para 80).
The Constitution Bench rebutted this contention. The Bench stated: 'The correct position may be summarised thus. Under Mohammed law applicable in India, 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 (prayer) can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India'. (para 82).
Thus what was wrong in the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 was that it was unauthorised by law and hence a criminal offence. Otherwise any government depriving the Muslims of the Babri Masjid is within law, morality if the government decides to do so in the interest of public order, public health and (Article 25 of the Constitution). This is the position in Islamic law as well since in Saudi Arabia the authorities demolish mosque to lay roads. Even the mosque where Islam's Prophet Mohammed used to pray was demolished for a road to pass through!
When I was Union law and justice minister, the question of the status of a temple — even if in ruins or without worship — had come up before me in November 1990 in a case of a smuggled out bronze Nataraja statue which was up for sale in London. The Government of India, when Rajiv Gandhi was PM, decided to file a case in the London trial court in 1986 for recovery. The Nataraja statue had by then been traced to a temple in ruins in Pathur, Thanjavur district. A farmer named Ramamoorthi had unearthed it in 1976 while digging mud with a spade near his hut.
When the news spread, touts of an antique dealer paid a small sum and smuggled it out to London, where in 1982 they sold it to Bumper Development Corporation Private Limited. The corporation sent it to the BritishMuseum for possible purchase. By then the Government of India asked the UK government to take action.
The Nataraja idol was seized by London Metropolitan Police, and thus the corporation sued the police in court for recovery but lost the case. An appeal was filed in the Queens Bench which was dismissed on April 17, 1989. The Bumper Corporation went to the House of Lords. On February 13, 1991 when I was law minister, the judgment came dismissing Bumper's final appeal (see (1991) 4 All ER 638).
The UK apex court upheld the Indian government's position that because of the prana prathista puja a temple is owned by the deity, in this case Lord Shiva, and any Hindu can litigate on behalf of the deity as a de facto trustee. The Bench consisting of Justices Purchas, Nourse and Leggatt concluded: "We therefore hold that the temple is acceptable as party to these proceedings and that it is as such entitled to sue for the recovery of the Nataraja." (page 648 para g).
Even if a temple is in ruins as the ASI had found, or destroyed as Ram temple was, any Hindu can sue on behalf of Lord Rama in court for recovery! No such ruling exists for a mosque. That is, the Ram temple on Ramjanmabhoomi has a superior claim to the site than any mosque. This the fundamental truth in the Ayodhya dispute. This truth will apply to Kashi Vishvanath and Brindavan temple sites as well.
The historical narrative of Ayodhya verdict continues from the sublime to the secular to pin down the ownership issue of 'nazrul' land, the 'disputed' site of Ayodhya:
4306…The Barhaspatyasutra (edited by Dr. F.W. Thomas) mentions eight great tirthas each of Visnu, Siva and Sakti, that yield all siddhis." (pages 677-678).
4307. The above book at page 736 under the heading "List of tirthas" says:
"Ayodhya--(in Fyzabad District in U.P.) on the Ghagra. One of the seven holy cities (vide p. 678n above). It is also a place of pilgrimage of Jains, as some of their
saints were born there. Atharva-veda X. 2. 31 and Tai, A.
27. 2 (astacakra navadvara devanam pur-Ayodhya) tasyam hiranyayah kosah svargo loko Jyotisavrtah II), V. 60. 24-25 and 70. 2 (capital of king Rtuparna and of Rama), Br. IV.40. 91. Ag. 109. 24 (Ayodya papanasan).
According to Ram, I. 5. 5-7 the country of Kosala had Sarayu flowing through it; Ayodhya, 12 yojanas long and three broad, was kosala capital founded by Manu. Kosala was one of the 16 mahajanapadas of India in ancient times (vide Anguttara Nikaya, vol. IV. p. 252). Later on, Kosala was divided into two, viz. Uttara Kosala and Daksina Kosala divided by the Sarju or Ghagra river.
The Raghuvamsa holds Ayodhya to be capital of Uttarakosala (VI. 71 and IX. 1). Vide also Va. 88. 20 ff. For a long line of kings of Ayodhya from Iksvaku and P. VI. 208. 46-47 (for Daksina Kosala and Uttara Kosala). Saketa is generally identified with Ayodhya. Vide T.P. p. 496 (gives its boundaries from SK) and under Saketa. Dr. B.C. Law contributes a well documented and learned paper on 'Ayodhya' to J. of the Ganganath Jha R. Society, vol. I, pp. 423-443."
4308. Sri Mishra submits that Ayodhya and its relation with Lord Rama as his place of birth is well recognised and mentioned in ancient Hindu Literature.
The existence of "Vedi" at the disputed place is mentioned by Father Joseph Tieffenthaler in his work, translated in French titled as
"Description Historique Et Geographique Del'inde" first published in 1787 by Jean Bernoulli.
4381… Whether it is 3000 year old or 5000 year old or more than a few lacs year old may not be of much consequence for us.
Today, Christianity is more than 2000 and Islam 143 years old.
We should not be understood saying that before Islam as propounded by Prophet Muhammad or Christianity as per the teaching of the Jesus Christ, there was no religion whatsoever, but this is what normally or commonly understand. The religious scriptures and literatures of the religions therefore, though in abundance conform to the point of view, requirement and necessities of the corresponding period. Because of its own certain antiquity amongst Hindu scriptures, we find sometimes, mention of such things which become difficult to digest on our conceivable notion and logic and the limitation of our understanding which we have in the light of the information available to us currently.
4382. May be on account of non availability of the reliable feed back some of the aspects of Hindu scriptures are termed by others as Myth, legend, epic etc., doubting its historicity, ignoring the fact that the common people are so deep embedded in blood that it is beyond imagination for them to even think of a situation where those faith and belief can be termed as a mere fiction and not a matter of historicity. For example, the two of the world's biggest works known as 'Ramayana' and 'Mahabharatha' of Hindu scriptures, other people started to call it 'Epic' and that we have followed since the days of British India and now also.
Initially the European writers in their own understanding find it unthinkable even the existence of such an antique society and culture and that too so perfect and so well defined, sophisticated, but complicated in different facets. With the passage of time the thoughts and approach have undergone a sea of change and now we find quite a sectionable intelligentsia who is changing its views and that is not merely on some kind of altered hypothesis etc., but due to the cemented, reliable information, they have collected in the mean time.
In brief, it can be said that merely because I am not able to trace my history of succession it will not mean that I do not have a chain of succession. One's inability in finding something cannot result in a conclusion that actually nothing existed. There has to be much more. The mathematical, astronomical calculation of the learned people in ancient India have been found to be reasonably correct though they are presumed to lack so called advanced technology for arriving at such conclusions.
It is easy to discard something at the threshold but difficult to find reason and logic behind its existence. Difficulty cannot be a reason to opt for an easier method instead of the cumbersome one. If Indian culture and society could have survived for such a long time even though other ancient cultures, whether Egyptian, Greek or Roman have lost behind the time, then one has to find out the reason for its sustenance. It cannot be brushed aside loosely. This is a kind of approach, thoughts, faith and belief of one part of the litigants before us and their contemporary opponent wants in existence of
positive material irrespective of the time and antiquity matter relates to.
The reason being that the issue has been brought in a Court of law which is presently governed by the system we have inherited from a totally different culture i.e. British legacy where they have told us to decide the dispute only on getting evidence and not otherwise. The issues relating to faith and belief and that too, which had continued from generations to generations, from hundreds and thousands years neither depend on the so called existence of evidence nor one can shake such custom which they have received by tradition for want of evidence. It is not totally a different concept and notion, independent in its own ways.
In the erstwhile territory of India, before entry of the far east people or from other parts of world it appears that natives had their own traditions, system, faith and belief, and the society had different kinds of religious concept.
The subsequent scholars tried to bifurcate this religious system of ancient India into that of Aryan and Dravidian but what we find is that barring a few differences in the matter of system of worship etc., the core belief and faith remained same.
The entire society remained connected with a common thread of religious faith. This difference, more or less, was political.
It is in this system, where we find the people in ancient India believed in the Avtaars of God which found mention in Vedic texts.
All these Avtaars in one or the other way we find had a specific objective and ultimately helped to save the world, human being and other creatures and also to guide the living being in lives, some are to attract the people back to the spiritual domain.
4383. On the one hand when modern day's science believe in the system of universe controlled by various principle of energy, then Indian Society was glued with a common platform by the learned sages and others telling that the Supreme Lord maintains all the planets and universe. It is He who assume roles and incarnation to perform pastimes to reclaim those in the mode of goodness. They were led to believe that throughout the
many millions of Universe in which the Supreme Being appears, the objective is to apprise Society and bring it to senses, in particular, one who are in the higher grades of consciousness, receptive to understand their spiritual relation with him. He also sends his pure representatives and instruction to guide people. The object is common i.e. to bind the living beings back towards the spiritual world.
It is also said that source of various Avtaars within this cosmic creation is the Lord of the Universe i.e. Garbhodakashayi Vishnu (see Srimad Bhagwatam 1.3.5). The form of the Lord, that descends to the material world to create, is called Avtaar.
4384. We are not going into that various Avtars of Lord Vishnu according to the Hindu tradition and in details thereof. Since Ayodhya is known by the name of Lord Rama and,
therefore, one can presume that the religious structures must have connection with Lord Rama in one or the other way. The stone inscription found in 1992, as we have already discussed, at least show this much that a temple of Vishnu Hari was constructed by the erstwhile Gahadwal King in 11th or 12th century, i.e., much before the visit of Babar near Ayodhya.
In no other record, reference of Vishnu Hari Mandir at Ayodhya has been pointed out, meaning thereby, before the history of Hinduism started in writing in a proper way, that temple must have disappeared for one or the other reason.
At Ayodhya, the people used to visit for Darshan of Lord Rama's places is also evident from the record of Sikh religion showing that Guru Nanak Dev Ji came to Ayodhya in 1510 or 1511, told his companion that it is the birthplace of Lord Rama and then went for Darshan.
Even for a moment we are not drawing any inference that the Sikhs religious texts anywhere identify the place of birth of Lord Rama but this is sufficient to point out that even before the entry of Babar in the then Hindustan, Ayodhya was already a well established Hindu Tirtha for the followers and believers of Lord Rama. The custom of worship of Lord Rama has already begun long back.
… 4390. In the middle of 19th century, i.e., as we have already observed, between the 1853 to 1855 there appears to be a major confrontation between Hindu and Muslims at Ayodhya resulting in hundreds of deaths. Some says that 75 muslims were slained while others say that the actual figure was about 200 Hindus and 75 Muslims. Be that as it may, that is not very relevant for the point in issue. We are concerned as to what impel the two communities to fought so frightfully that resulted in such a large number of casualties, if the disputed place was an ordinary place of worship of Muslims having no other history or antiquityattached with it.
The conduct, the attitude, the insistence on the part of Hindus, continuously, atleast as is evident from the record, i.e., from the time of Tieffenthaler and onwards, show that it was for something really serious on account whereof
Hindus were not able to give up their claim.
Probably for this reason, despite all odds, they continued to pursue their claim at the place in dispute. (Vol.20.pdf)
… 4428. It is not disputed by the parties before this Court that the Nazul plot, in which the building in dispute existed, was recorded as
Nazul, plot no. 583, Khasra of 1931 of Mohalla Kot
Ram Chandra known as Ramkot,
City Ayodhya (Nazul Estate Ayodhya).
In the revenue records, plot number is different. The Nazul number of the plot in which the building in dispute situate is not disputed. It is also admitted by all the parties that the plot in which disputed building existed was recorded Nazul in the First Settlement 1861 and had continued so even when the suit in question was filed.
4429. "Nazul land" means land owned by the Government. It is the own pleading of Sunni Board in para 24(B) of the written statement filed in Suit-5.
4430. In the Legal Glossary 1992, fifth edition, published by the Legal Department of the Government of India at page 589, the meaning of the word "Nazul" has been given as
"Rajbhoomi i.e. Government land".
It is an Arabic word and it refers to a land annexed to Crown. During the British Regime, immoveable property of individuals, Zamindars, Nawabs and
Rajas when confiscated for one or the other reason, it was termed as "Nazul property".
The reason being that neither it was acquired nor purchased after making payment. In the old record, we are told when they used to be written in Urdu, this kind of land was shown as "Jaidad Munzabta".
4431. For dealing with such property under the authority of the Lt. Governor of North Western provinces, two orders were issued in October, 1846 and October, 1848 wherein after the words "Nazul property" its English meaning was given as "Escheats to the Government".
Sadar Board of Revenue on 20th May, 1845 issued a circular order in reference to Nazul land and in para 2 thereof it mentioned
"The Government is the proprietor of those land and no valid title to them can be derived but from the Government."
The Nazul land was also termed as confiscated estate. Under circular dated 13th July, 1859, issued by the Government of North Western Provinces, every Commissioner was obliged to keep a final confiscation statement of each district and lay it before the Government for orders.
The kingdom of Oudh was annexed by East India Company in 1856. It declared the entire land as vested in the Government and thereafter settled the land to various individuals Zamindars, Nawabs etc.
4432. At Lucknow revolt against the British Company broke up in May, 1857 which is known as the first war of independence which very quickly angle a substantial part of north western provinces. After failure of the above revolution, the then Governor General Lord Canning on 15th May, 1858 issued a proclamation confiscating propriety rights in the soil with the exception of five or six persons who had given support and assistance to British Officers. This land was resettled first for a period of three years and then permanent propriety rights were given to certain Talukdars and Zamindars by grant of 'Sanad' under Crown Grants Act.
In the meantime we all know that under the Government of India Act, 1858 the entire Indian territory under the control of East India Company was placed under Crown w.e.f. First November, 1858.
… 4457. This issue pertains to the identification of the property in dispute as described in the plaint. Counsel for defendants No.4 and 5 submitted that the suit as framed show the property in respect whereto relief was sought as mentioned in the annexures no.1, 2 and 3 to the plaint and do not specify of the boundaries of the property in respect whereto Suit-5 was filed.
However, so far as the disputed site and structure is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties in respect thereto either about its identification or description. After the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. M. Ismail Farooqui's case (supra) holding acquisition of property by the Central Government under Act, 1993, except the site in dispute, valid, the only area which is now required to dealt with by us in all these cases is that which comprises of the of outer and inner courtyard including disputed structure.
4458. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the property in dispute against which now the Court is required to consider whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief or not is well identified and known to all the parties, there is no ambiguity. Issue No.5 is answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of the plaintiffs. (Vol. 21.pdf)
The excerpts from the judgment of Ayodhya verdict presented by Justice Sudhir Agarwal are given here. Volumes 14 to 21 of his judgment deal with the evidence on how and why a place is accorded the status of a "thirtha" a sacred holy spot – which is what Ayodhya is!
(About Justice Sudhir Agarwal :- He was nominated as a judge on the special bench of Allahabad High Court handling the Ayodhya title suits on September 18, 2008, following the retirement of Justice OP Srivastava. A law graduate from Meerut University, he is known to be a sharp and strict Judge.)
4294. We are of the view that the historicity of Lord Rama cannot be restricted by any preconceived notion since, if any such attempt is made not only in respect to Lord Rama but in other matters also, that may result in havoc and will amount to playing with the sentiments and belief of millions of people which are bestowed upon them from generations to generation and time immemorial.
4295. "Rigveda Samhita" Vol. II (Mandalas 2, 3, 4, 5) verse 3365 translated by H.H. Wilson and "Bhasya of
उद्वाव्रुशानों राधसे तुविश्मान्करात्रइन्द्रः सुतीर्थाभयम च
"Let (his worshipper) cause his ears to listen so as to invigorate him (by praise), and to give him pleasure in
every acceptable place; and being well moistened with the Soma juice, may the vigorous Indra render the holy places (conducive) to our wealth, and free from danger."
4296. Rigveda Samhita" Vol. II (Mandalas 9, 10) of H.H.Wilson (supra), verse 9110:
अधाई धीतिरसर्युग्रमंस्तीयेंयन्न्त्यूमाः
अभ्यानश्म सुवितस्यभूशं अमृतानामभूम
"3. The sacrifice has been prepared: the invigorating portions (of the oblation) approach the beautiful (god) of excellent birth, as (the waters) at a holy spot (approach the gods): may we obtain the happiness of heaven: may we have a real knowledge of the immortals. Waters at a holy spot—Sayana, as at a tirtha (sacred ford) the portions of water sprinkled in the act of tarpana (libation) go to the assembly of the gods. The use of the term is worthy of notice, as indicating a considerable advance in legendary mythology.
May we have a real knowledge, etc.--(Sayana explains navedasah as na na vettara vettara eva, i.e.,
svarupato jnatara eva, "knowing personally", but it is difficult to see how "not-knowers," which is Sayana's derivation, and also that of Panini, vi. 3. 75, to whom he refers, can come to mean "knowers." In his comment on i.
34. 1. Sayana explains it as no paretam vetti, "he does not know falsely")"
4297. The work of the Black Yajus Schools entitled "Taittiriya Sanhita", Part 2, Kandas IV-VII, translated by
Arthur Berriedale Keith, first published in 1914 and the second issue in 1967 by Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, says:
"vi. 1. 1. He makes a hall with beams pointing east. The gods and men divided the quarters, the gods (obtained) the eastern, the Pitrs the southern, men the western, the Rudras the northern. In that he makes a hall with beams pointing east, the sacrificer approaches the world of the gods. He covers it over, for the world of the gods is hidden from the world of men."
4298. Adhyay-9, verse 381 "Yajurveda Samhita",
translated by R.T.H. Griffith, third edition 2002 (first edition 1997). It says:^^381-
वाजस्य नु प्रसव आबभूवेमाचविश्वाभुवनानि सर्वतः
सनेमि राजा परियाति प्रजांपृशटीवर्धयामानो अस्मे स्वाहा
"Surely the furtherance of strength pervaded all these existing worlds in all directions. From olden time the
King moves round, well knowing, strengthening all the people and our welfare." (Vol. 19.pdf)
4305. "History of Dharmashastra", translated by Pandurang Vaman Kane, Part-IV Third Edition 1991 published by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Poona, Chapter XI "Tirthayatra" says:
"All religions have laid great emphasis on the sacredness of certain localities and have either enjoined or
recommended with great insistence pilgrimages to them.
Among the five incumbent practical religious duties of a Moslem, pilgrimage at least once in his life to Mecca and Medina, the birth place and burial place of the prophet Mohammad, is one.
The four places ofpilgrimage for Buddhists have been the place of the birth of Buddha (Lumbini or Rummindei), the place where he attained perfect enlightenment (Bodh Gaya), the place where he set in motion the wheel of dharma by delivering his first sermon (at Sarnath near Benares) and the place where he passed away into the state of nirvana (Kusinara). Vide Mahaparinibbanasutta (S.B.E. Vol. XI, p. 90).
For Christians Jerusalem has been the holiest place and no religious community except the Christians undertook in historic times several great military pilgrimages. The crusades were launched to free the Holy Land of Christians from the domination of Moslems. In spite of what Gibbon says somewhat cynically about those who joined the
crusades, it must be admitted that there were thousands among the crusaders who risked their lives and fortunes in the pursuit of an ideal." (page 552)
". . . . Benares and Ramesvara were held sacred by all Hindus, whether they hailed from the north of India or from the peninsula." (page 553)
"The word tirtha occurs frequently in the Rgveda and other Vedic samhitas.
In several passages of the Rgveda tirtha appears to mean a road or a way (e.g. In Rg. I, 169, 6 'tirthe naryah paumsyani tasthuh', Rg. I. 173. 11 'tirthe naccha tatrsanam-oko', Rg. IV. 29. 3 'karan-na Indrah sutirthabhayam ca').
In some places tirtha may be taken to mean a ford in a river, as in Rg. VII. 47. 11 'sutirthamarvato yathanu no nesatha sugam &c.', Rg. I. 46. 8 'aritram vam divas-prthu tirthe sindhunam rathah'. In Rg. X. 31. 3 'tirthe na dasmamupa yantyumah', tirtha probably means 'a holy place'." ( page 554)". . . . .so some localities on the earth are held to be very holy.
Tirthas are held to be holy (on three grounds, viz.) on account of some wonderful natural characteristic of the locality or on account of the peculiar strikingness (or
grandeur) of some watery place or on account of the fact that some (holy) sages resorted to them (for bathing, austerities &c.).
Tirtha, therefore, means a locality or spot or expanse of water which gives rise to the accumulation of righteousness (merit) owning to its own peculiar nature without any adventitious circumstance (such as the presence of Salagrama near it)." (pages 554-555)
"In the Rigveda waters, rivers in general and certain named rivers are referred to with great reverence as holy and are deified.
In Rg. VII. 49 the refrain of all four verses is 'may the divine waters protect me' (ta apo devir-iha mamavantu).
In Rg. VII. 49. 1 waters are spoken of as purifying (punanah).
Rg. VII 47, X. 9, X. 30 are hymns addressed to waters as divinities. They are said to purify a man not only physically but are also invoked to rid a man of all sins and lapses from the right path." (page 555)". . . . therefore visiting holy places is superior to sacrifices." (page 562)
4306. The above book in Chapter XIV "Gaya" says:
"Four of the most important and holy tirthas have been dealt with at some length so far. It is not possible in the space allotted to the section on tirthas to pursue the same procedure as regards other famous tirthas. It is proposed to devote a few pages to each of half a dozen or more tirthas and then to give a somewhat comprehensive list of tirthas with a few reference in the case of each. But before proceeding further reference must be made to certain popular groupings of tirthas.
There is a group of seven cities that are deemed to be very holy and then bestows of moksa. They are Ayodhya, Mathura, Maya (i.e. Haridvara), Kasi, Kanchi, Avantika (i.e. Ujjayini), Dvaraka. In some works it is Kanti and not Kanci that is mentioned. Badarinatha, Jagannatha Puri, Ramsevara andDvaraka—these four are styled Dhama.
There are said to be twelve Jyotirlingas of Siva, according to the Sivapurana viz. Somanatha in Saurastra, Mallikarjuna on Srisaila hill (in Karnul District and about 50 miles from the Krishna station on the G.I.P. Railway), Mahakala (in Ujjayini), Paramesvara in Omkara-Ksetra (an island in the Narmada), Kedara in the Himalayas, Bhimasankara (north-west of Poona at the source of the Bhima river) in Dakini, Visvesvara in Banares, Tryambakesvara on the banks of the Gautami, i.e. Godavari (near Nasik), Vaidyanatha in Citabhumi, Nagesa in Darukavana, Ramesvara in Setubandha and Ghasnesa in Sivalaya (i.e.the modern shrine at the village of Elura, 7 miles from Devagiri or Daulatabad).
The Sivapurana (Kotirudra— samhita) chap. 1 names the twelve Jyotirlingas andchapters 14-33 narrate the legends connected with the twelve lingas.
The Skandapurana I (Kedarakhanda) chap. 7 verses 30-35 enumerate several lingas including most of the twelve Jyotirlingas. The Barhaspatyasutra (edited by Dr. F.W. Thomas) mentions eight great tirthas each of Visnu, Siva and Sakti, that yield all siddhis." (pages 677-678).
