{"id":3298,"date":"1970-01-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-12-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur"},"modified":"2017-04-07T21:31:24","modified_gmt":"2017-04-07T16:01:24","slug":"unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur","title":{"rendered":"Unknown vs Ms Written By Babur"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Unknown vs Ms Written By Babur<\/div>\n
1\n                                                                   1501\n\ndescription regarding India's Travel is the same.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^fofy;e fQUp us vius ;k=k o`rkUr esa ;g fy[kk gS fd tc og\nv;ks\/;k x;k Fkk] mlus v;ks\/;k dk fdyk] fxjh&iM+h gkyr esa ik;kA ;g\nlgh gS fd fofy;e fQUp ds vuqlkj ml fdys dks jkek iSysl dgrs Fks]\n;g fy[kk gSA** \u00bcist 229\u00bd\n       \"William Finch has written in his travel account that\nwhen he visited Ayodhya, he found the Fort of Ayodhya in a\ndilapidated condition. It is correct that according to\nWilliam Finch, that fort was called Rama's Palace, it is\nwritten.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^;g lgh gS fd ftl le; fofy;e fQUp us v;ks\/;k ;k=k\nfd;k] ml le; ckcjh efLtn cu pqdh Fkh vkSj jke tUe LFkku efUnj\nHkh ekStwn Fkh] fdUrq fofy;e fQUp us bu nksuksa phtksa dk o.kZu vius\n;k=k o`rkUr esa ugha fd;kA** \u00bcist 229\u00bd\n       \"It is true that by the time William Finch travelled\nAyodhya, Babari mosque had already been constructed and\nRam Janmasthan Mandir (Temple of Rama's birthplace)\nwas also existent, but William Frinch did not mention these\ntwo facts in his travel account.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^esjs vuqlkj ckcjh efLtn v;ks\/;k ds dsUnz LFkku ij cuh\ngSA ;g lgh gS fd ckcjh efLtn jke dksV ds bykds ds yxHkx\nchpkschp fLFkr gSA ;g esjh jk; gSA** \u00bcist 236\u00bd\n       \"According to me, Babri mosque has been built at\nthe centre place of Ayodhya. It is correct that Babri\nmosque is situated almost in the middle of Ram Kot area.\nThis is my opinion.\" (E.T.C.)\n^eSaus VkbQu Fksyj dk o`rkar ugha i<+kA** \u00bcist 237\u00bd\n"I did not read the description of Tiffenthaler."(E.T.C.)\n^^eSaus tkstsQ lkgc iknjh lkgc dk o`rkar iwjk i<+k ugha gSA** \u00bcist 258\u00bd\n"I have not studied entire description of Father\nJoseph."(E.T.C.)\n                                                                    1502\n\n       ^^fofy;e fQUp lkgc ds o` r k ar dk s eS a ,d L=k sr\nekurk gwW aA eS a fofy;e fQUp lkgc ds o` r k ar dk s ck;l~ M\nekurk gwW aA **\n                                                               \u00bcist 258\u00bd\n       "I regard the description of William Finch as a\nsource. I consider the description of William Finch to be\nbiased." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^;g dguk xyr gS fd C;wd kuu lkgc us tk s\nbUlfdz I 'ku ns[ k s Fk s og 1855 ds ckn fookfnr LFky ij\nugh a Fk s vkS j ogk a ij nwl j s bUlfdz I 'ku yxk fn;s x;sA ;g\nHkh dguk xyr gS fd 1855 esa dksbZ u;s bUlfdzI'ku yxs ;k mudks Hkh\n1934&35 ds naxs esa rksM+ fn;k x;k gksA ij 1934^35 ds naxs esa fookfnr\nLFky dks ,oa iqjkus yxs bUlfdzI'ku dks {kfr t:j igqaph FkhA** \u00bcist\n282\u00bd\n       "It is wrong to say that the inscriptions seen by\nMr. Buchanan, were not present on the disputed site\nafter 1855 and some other inscriptions had been\ninstalled there. It is also wrong to say that any new\ninscription was installed in 1855 or the same was\ndestroyed in the riot of 1934-35. However, in the riot of\n1934-35, damage was certainly caused to the disputed site\nand previously installed inscription." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^eSus viuh iqLrd ds ist 91 ij ;g Bhd fu"d"kZ fudkyk Fkk\nfd ckcjh efLtn dk fuekZ.k rqxyd ;k 'kdhZt ds le; gqvk gksA\nbldk vFkZ ;g Hkh gS fd 'kk;n ;g efLtn ckcj ds le; ;k ckcj }kjk\nugha cukbZ xbZ FkhA - - - - -esjk ;g Hkh fu"d"kZ blesa gS fd ckcj v;ks\/;k\ndHkh ugha vk;kA ;g Hkh esjk fu"d"kZ Bhd gS] tks eSaus ist 92 ij fy[kk\ngS fd pwWafd ckcj v;ks\/;k ugha vk;k] blfy, mldk jke tUeHkwfe efUnj\nfxjkus dk loky iSnk ugha gksrkA** \u00bcist 295\u00bd\n       "I had drawn correct conclusion at page 91 of my\nbook that Babari mosque might have been constructed\n                                                                 1503\n\nduring the time of Tughlaq or Sharkies. It also means that\nprobably this mosque was not built during the period of\nBabar or by Babar... It is also my conclusion that Babar\nnever came to Ayodhya. This inference of mine is also\ncorrect, as I have written at page 92, that since Babar did\nnot visit Ayodhya, no question of demolishing Ram Janma\nBhumi Mandir arises." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^;g esjh jk; lgh gS fd vxj efLtn 'kdhZ 'kkldksa us cuok;k\ngksxk rks og vo'; 1504 ds igys cuh gksxhA** \u00bcist 300\u00bd\n       "My this opinion is correct that if the mosque had\nbeen built by Shirky rulers, it must have been built prior to\n1504." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^esjh jk; o fo'okl esa okn la[;k &489 ds izlrj 8 i`"B 5 vkSj\n6 iSjkxzkQ 2 esa ;g dFku fd uD'kk utjh esa fn[kk, izkphu dfczLrku\nmu eqlyekuksa ds gSa tks ckcj vkSj v;ks\/;k ds iwoZ 'kkld dh yM+kbz esa\nekjs x, lgh ugha gSA** \u00bcist 300\u00bd\n       "In my opinion and belief, the statement contained in\nparagraph no. 8 at page 5 and paragraph no. 2 of suit\nno.4\/89 to the effect that the old graveyard shown in the\nsite plan related to those Muslims who were killed during\nthe battle between Babar and previous ruler of Ayodhya, is\nnot correct." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^bfrgkldkj ds :i esa eSa ;g dg ldrk gwWa fd ;g ckrsa xyr\ngSaA efLtn ,oa dfcz L rku ds ckj s es a okn&i= esa fd, x,\nvfHkdFku esj h ,sf rgkfld tk ap vkS j rF;k s a ls esy ugh a\n[kkrs gS a rFkk esj h jk; ls fHkUu gS aA *^ \u00bcist 300\u00bd\n       "As a historian, I can say that these things are\nincorrect. The        averments      regarding      mosque       and\ngraveyard made in the plaint do not tally with my\nhistorical research and facts and differ from my\nopinion." (E.T.C.)\n                                                                            1504\n\n               ^^usfoy lkgc us vius xtsfV;j esa fookfnr <kaps dks 'kk;n ckcjh\n        efLtn dgk gSA mUgksaus vius xtsfV;j esa bl s Qkjlh tqcku ls dksbZ [kkl yxko gksA^^ \u00bcist 28\u00bd\n       \" I made nomenclature of my children in Persian\nlanguage. It is not so that I have some special interest in\nPersian Language.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^eSaus ch0,0 1970 esa ikl fd;k Fkk] ,e0,0 ikfyfVdy lkbZal esa\n1972 esa ikl fd;k vkSj mlds ckn ekMZu fgLV~h ls ,e0,0 lu~ 1974 esa\nikl fd;k FkkA^^ \u00bcist 28\u00bd\n       \"I passed B.A. in 1970, M.A. in 1972 in Political\nScience and thereafter, passed M.A. in Modern History in\n1974.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^;g lgh gS fd 11 o\"kksZ ds lrr iz;kl ds ckn eq>s ih0,p0Mh0\ndh fMxzh 1989 esa feyh FkhA blh chp esjh fu;qfDr rnFkZ :i esa 1974 esa\nbykgkckn fo'ofon;ky; esa gks x;h FkhA ;g rnFkZ fu;qfDr izodrk\nds :i esa gqbZ FkhA 1989 esa eSa jhMj Hkh gks x;k FkkA** \u00bcist 28\u00bd\n       \"It is true that after 11 years of continuous efforts I\nsecured Ph.D. Degree in 1989. Meanwhile, I was\nappointed on ad hoc basis in Allahabad University in 1974.\nThis ad hoc appointment was made as a Lecturer. In 1989 I\nbecame Reader also.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^tuojh] 87 ls ysdj 1990 rd Jh cghmn~nhu efyd lkgc\nbykgkckn fo'ofo|ky; ds dqyifr FksA Jh cghmn~nhu lkgc Hkh eq>s\ntkurs FksA - - - - - 6 Qjojh] 79 dks esjh 'kknh esgj vQ'kka Qk:dh\nlkfgck ls gqbZ FkhA** \u00bcist 29\u00bd\n       \"From January 1987 to 1990 Sri Bahiuddin Malik\nSaheb was the Vice Chancellor. Sri Bahiuddin Saheb also\nknew me........On 6th February 79 my marriage took place\nwith Mehar Afshan Farooqi.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^;g 'kknh esjh vkSj esjh iRuh ds ifjokj okyksa dh lgefr ls\nugha gqbZ FkhA^^ \u00bcist 29\u00bd\n       \"This marriage did not take place with the consent of\n                                                                  1506\n\nmy wife and family members.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^viuh 'kknh ds jftLV~s'ku ds ckn fudkg dh t:jr blfy,\niM+h fd esjs lqljky okyksa dh Lohd`fr ds fy, ,oa lkekftd ekU;rk ds\nfy, ,slk djuk mfpr FkkA** \u00bcist 30\u00bd\n       \"Necessity of Nikah after registration of marriage,\narose with a view to obtain approval of my in-laws and for\nsocial recognition it was essential to do so.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^mUgksaus ;g Pokbl vo'; nh Fkh fd eSa fudkg dj yWwA ;gh esjs\nllqjky okyksa dh Pokbl gh esjh Pokbl FkhA \u00bcfQj dgk\u00bd esjh Hkh ;gh\nPokbZl gks ldrh FkhA^^ \u00bcist 30\u00bd\n       \"They had given me a choice that I should perform\nNikah. This choice of my in-laws was, in fact, my choice.\n(Further said). Choice              of mine too could be only\nthis.\"(E.T.C.)\n       ^^fudkg djus ds fy, eqlyeku gksuk vko';d FkkA blfy, eS\neqlyeku gqvk FkkA\" \u00bcist 30\u00bd\n       \" For materialization of Nikah it was necessary to be\na    Musalman.         Therefore,     I   got   converted      as    a\nMuslim.\"(E.T.C.)\n       ^^eq>s esjh iRuh us bl dk;Z esa budjst fd;k FkkA^^ \u00bcist 33\u00bd\n       \" My wife encouraged me for this work.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^esjs llqj 'ke'kqy jgeku Qk:[kh ds buh'kh;y ,l0vkj0\nQk:dh gSA^^ \u00bcist 33\u00bd\n       \" Initial of my father in law, Shamshul Rehman\nFarooqi, is S.R. Farooqi.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^eSaus viuh iqLrd ds izhQsl esa ;g fy[kk gS fd esgj vQ'kka\nQk:dh blVksVZM ijlw;sMhx eh Vw ikiwykbfjt fn fgLVkfjdy\nVqFkA^^\u00bcist 33\u00bd\n       \" In the Preface of my book I have written that\nMehar Afshan Farooqi started persuading me to\npopularize the historical truth.\" (E.T.C.)\n                                                                           1507\n\n1353.          They also pointed out that though he was registered\nfor Ph.D. in 1978 having passed M.A. in Modern History in\n1974 but could not complete Ph.D. for a decade. It is only in\n1988 when Sri Vahiuddin Mullick was the Vice Chancellor of\nAllahabad University and Chief Minister of U.P. was Sri\nMulayam Singh Yadav he was conferred Ph.D. in 1989. Sri\nM.M. Pandey, Sri H.S. Jain and Sri R.L. Verma all the learned\ncounsels stated that PW 15 converted himself a 'muslim' for the\npurpose of marriage and also changed his name as 'Sajid' but has\nappeared in the witness box mentioning his name as Sushil\nSrivastava and this also shows lack of bonafide on his part and\nrefers to his statement on page 49 and 50:\n               ^^;g lgh gS fd ;Fkk vko';drkuqlkj eSa vius dks lkftn Hkh\n        dg ysrk gwa vkSj lq'khy Hkh eku ysrk gwaA** \u00bcist 49\u00bd\n               \"It is correct that as per requirement I use to say\n        myself Sajid as well as Sushil.\" (E.T.C.)\n               ^^eSaus [kqnk dh dle ugha yh gS bZ'oj dh dle yh gSA**\u00bcist 49\u00bd\n               \"I have not sworn in the name of 'Khuda', instead I\n        have sworn in the name of 'Ishwar'.\" (E.T.C.)\n               ^^esjk uke lkftn ugha gSA eSaus \/keZ ifjorZu fd;k gS vkSj\n        eqlyeku gqvk gwWaA ij esjs fy, \/keZ dk dksbZ egRo ugha gSA eSa v\/keZ esa\n        fo'okl djrk gwWaA** \u00bcist 50\u00bd\n               \"My name is not Sajid. I have got converted my\n        religion and have become a Muslim but to me, the religion\n        has     no      significance.       I    believe       in   Adharma\n        (atheism).\"(E.T.C.)\n1354.          They also pointed out that the wife of PW 15 is well\nqualified being M.A. in Medieval History and D.Phil. with\nspecialisation in \"Economic Policy of Delhi Sultanate\" which\nshe did in 1988 but her father was not a Historian and instead a\nGovernment servant, a member of Indian Postal Service and\n                                                                          1508\n\nretired therefrom as is evident from page 50:\n               ^^esjs llqj bf.M;u iksLVy lfoZl esa dk;Zjr FksA esjs llqj Hkh\n        fyVjsjh fdzfVd gSa] dke Hkh djrs gSaA** \u00bcist 50\u00bd\n               \"My father-in-law was posted in Indian Postal\n        Services. He also is a literary critic and work as\n        such.\"(E.T.C.)\n1355.          About his conduct in the University the learned\ncounsel drew our attention to the statement of PW 15 at page\n55\/56:\n               ^^;g dguk lgh ugha gS fd esjs vkpj.k ds lEcU\/k esa dksbZ tkap\n        gqbZ ;k ml tkap ds ckn eSa ogka ls gVk fn;k x;kA^^ \u00bcist 55\u00bd\n               \"It is not correct to say that any enquiry was\n        conducted regarding my character or that I was removed\n        from there after the enquiry.\" (E.T.C.)\n               ^^;g dguk xyr gS fd 'kkg us esjs vkpj.k ds ckjs esa ,d\n        lnL;h; desVh ds :i esa esjh tkap fd;s FksA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh\n        ugha gS fd mijksDr deh'ku us eq>s xyr c;ku nsus dk nks\"kh ik;k FkkA\n        eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd mijksDr deh'ku us mDr\n        fo'ofo|ky; dh efgyk v\/;kid dks rFkk efgyk Nk=kvksa ds izfr\n        v'yhy vkpj.k ;k muds izfr v'yhy Hkk\"kk O;Dr djus dk nks\"kh ik;k\n        gksA e>ss bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd mDr deh'ku us 13-4-99 dks\n        viuh vk[;k izLrqr fd;k vkSj ;g lq>ko fn;k fd eq>s ogka ls fudky\n        fn;k tk;sA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd fo'ofo|ky; ds\n        flMhdsV us 30-4-99 dks vius izLrko la0 46 }kjk eq>s gsM vkQ fn\n        fMikVZesaV vkSj DokMhZusVj vkSj Mh0vkj0,l0 izksxzke ls gVk fn;kA Lor%\n        dgk fd e>s 5-5-99 dks flMhdsV }kjk bl vk'k; dk i= izkIr gqvk fd\n        eSa gsM vkQ fMikVZeasV rFkk DokMhZusVj dk pktZ vU; v\/;kid dks lkSai\n        nwWaA eSaus fn0 11-6-99 dks vius izks0 in ls R;kxi= lkSai fn;k eSaus ;g\n        dkj.k n'kkZ;k fd eSa xqtjkrh Hkk\"kk ds VsLV dks ikl djus esa vleFkZ jgk\n        gwWa vkSj pwafd mDr ijh{kk dks ikl fd;s cxSj eSa dUQeZ ugha fd;k tk\n        ldrk FkkA rFkk bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky; esa esjh vodk'k dh vof\/k\n        lekIr gksus okyh FkhA eq>s bl dkj.k 28 twu] 99 dks dk;ZeqDr dj\n                                                           1509\n\nfn;k x;k FkkA** \u00bcist 55\u00bd\n      \"It is wrong to say that Shah as a one member\nCommittee conducted the enquiry about my conduct. I am\nnot aware of the fact that the aforesaid Commission found\nme guilty of tendering false statement. I have no knowledge\nof this fact whether the Commission found me guilty of\nindulging in scrofulous conduct or using salacious\nlanguage with lady teacher and students of the said\nUniversity. I have no knowledge of the fact that the\naforesaid Commission submitted its report on 13.04.1999,\nrecommending for my expulsion from there. I have no\nknowledge of the fact that the Syndicate of the University\non 30.04.99, vide agenda No. 46, ousted me from the office\nof the Head of the Department, Coordinator and DRS\nprogramme. Of his own said that on 05.05.99 a letter of\nSyndicate was received to the effect that I should hand over\nthe charges of the Head of Department and Coordinator to\nanother teacher. On 11.06.99 I submitted my resignation\nfrom the post of Professor showing the reason that I have\nbeen unable to qualify to the test of Gujarati language in as\nmuch as, I could not be confirmed without clearing the\naforesaid test. And period of my leave was about to\nexhaust. For this reason I was discharged from duty on\n28.06.99.\" (E.T.C.)\n      ^^;g lgh gS fd eSa Jh oh0,e0'kkg bUDok;jh desVh ds le{k\nO;fDrxr :i ls mifLFkr gqvk FkkA^^ \u00bcist 56\u00bd\n        \"It is correct that I appeared in person before Sri\nV.M. Shah Enquiry Committee.\" (E.T.C.)\n      ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd foHkkx ds lHkh v\/;kidksa us esjs\nfo:) ;g f'kdk;r fd;k Fkk fd og yksx esjs lkFk dke ugha dj ldrs\ngSaA cfYd dsoy dqN v\/;kidksa us gh bl izdkj dk izLrko fd;k FkkA\n                                                                     1510\n\n        \u00bcfQj dgk\u00bd fd os yksx esjs gsM ds dk;Z ls larq\"V ugha FksA ;g dguk\n        xyr gS fd eq>s nqjkpj.k ds dkj.k fo'ofo|ky; ls fudkyk x;k vkSj\n        ml vkns'k dks izkIr u djs eSaus bLrhQk ns fn;k vkSj okil bykgkckn\n        pyk vk;kA^^ \u00bcist 56\u00bd\n              \"It is correct to say that all the teachers of the\n        Department complained against me that they could not\n        work with me. Rather, only few teachers made such\n        proposal. (Further said ) that they were not satisfied with\n        my work as Head. It is wrong to say that due to\n        misconduct, I was expelled from the            University and\n        without receiving that order, I resigned and returned to\n        Allahabad.\" (E.T.C.)\n1356.         For our purposes, however, suffice it to mention that\nPW 15 has make out a new case and says that according to his\nstudy there is grievous doubt whether Babar built the mosque in\ndispute. He says that neither there is any material to show that\nBabar ever visited Ayodhya nor the name \"Mir Baqi\" finds\nmention in Baburnama. On page 217 he admits that as a result\nof his research he has written on page 89 of his book that\ninscriptions might have been fixed on the disputed building later\non mentioning that the disputed building was built by Babar and\non page 295 he refers to page 91 of his book where he has said\nthat the disputed building might have been constructed at the\ntime of Tughlaqs or Sharkis and may not have been built by\nBabar. On page 300 he further says that if constructed by Sharki\nRulers, the disputed building might have been constructed prior\nto 1504. He also says that averments in para 2 and 8 of the plaint\n(Suit-4) that graves around the disputed building were of those\nmuslims who died in battle between Babar and the erstwhile\nruler of Ayodhya are incorrect statements (page 300). The\nwitness, therefore, has not supported the case of plaintiff (Suit-\n                                                               1511\n\n4) and on the contrary has taken a totally different stand. In fact\nby reaching such inference, he has stated in his examination-in-\nchief that the disputed building was not constructed after\ndemolishing a temple by Babar.\n1357.       Here one more aspect we need to mention. Though\nthe witness has been produced as Expert Historian but on page\n222 he admits that he had a very little knowledge of history.\nThat being so according to own statement of the witness his\nstatement cannot be taken as an opinion of an Expert Historian\nand, therefore, inadmissible under Section 45 of the Evidence\nAct. Even otherwise, the extract of his statement we have\nnoticed above make it clear that neither the witness has made\nany threadbare inquiry into the matter nor has done his job\nhonestly yet has written a book based on hearse and has claimed\nit to be a book written by an Expert. He admits that he cannot\nread Persian, Arabic, Sanskrit and Urdu (Page 33). He admits\nthat despite being historian he has accepted whatever said by\nothers on the basis of their alleged scholarly feeling and wrote it\nin his book as a statement of fact (page 38). He has never\nstudied either Calligraphy or Epigraphy (Page 51) but has made\nstatement and recorded finding in this regard in his book. On\npage 65 he admits that he has raised doubt on the Calligraphy\nstyle of the text of the inscription at Babri mosque but\nsimultaneously admits that he had not the least knowledge of art\nand science of Calligraphy. We in fact find it surprising with the\nkind of dishonesty, such person has shown. In his book he has\ngiven in the footnote reference of a number of books which he\nadmits that he had never studied (page 68). On page 77 he says\nthat he did not pay attention on the fact whether the inscriptions\nwere installed from the beginning or installed subsequently but\n                                                             1512\n\non page 217 admits that he has written on page 89 of his book\nthat there is a possibility that the inscriptions might have been\ninstalled subsequently. On page 106 on the one hand he admits\nthat    he   lacks   knowledge   of   Epigraphy,    Numismatic,\nArcheology, Survey of Land, Science of Architecture, Turkish,\nArabic and Persian language yet simultaneously he says that\nthough the period of construction of the disputed structure, he\ncould not conclude but according to him it relates prior to\nMughal period. We are sorry to find that a person like PW 15\nhas written a book on such an important and sensitive matter\nwithout having made an in-depth study on the subject and has\ndeposed before us claiming himself to be an Expert Historian\nthough simultaneously admit that he has a very little knowledge\nof history. On page 218 and 219 again contradicting his earlier\nstatement he said that he has made research on the question as to\nhow much old and of which period the inscriptions are and\nfound that the inner inscription appears to be new from the style\nof calligraphy while the outer one is old. Despite admitting the\nfact that he has no knowledge of calligraphy he has made such\ncomments on calligraphy of the text of inscription which is not\nexpected from a responsible Expert Historian. Besides his\nstatement ex facie appears to be incorrect in view of the\nadmitted position as also mentioned in Epigraphica Indica\n(1965) published by ASI that there were three inscriptions out of\nwhich two got misplaced in 1934 and were restored by new one\nwhich had some mistakes and did not contain the correct\noriginal text.\n1358.        The lack of expertise of PW 15 in respect to\nMedieval History has also been commented by plaintiff's (Suit-\n4)'s another witness, i.e., PW 20, Shirin Musvi on page 129 of\n                                                                             1513\n\nher statement where she said:\n               ^^eSa Jh lwjtHkku tks ,d vkfd;ksZykftLV gS Mk0 lqohjk\n        tk;loky tks ,slh;UV bf.M;u fgLVksfj;u gSa vkSj Jh lq ' khy\n        JhokLro tk s ekMZ u bfrgkldkj gS a mudh bl jk; ls ;fn\n        mUgksaus ,slk dgk gS fd ehjckdh ,d f'k;k Fkk mudh bl jk; ls lger\n        ugha gwWa pwwafd ok s yk sx esf Moy fgLV~ h ds ,FkkfjVh ugh a gS A **\n                                                                       \u00bcist 129\u00bd\n               \"I do not agree with the opinion of Sri Surajbhan, an\n        Archaeologist,       Dr.    Suvira     Jaiswal,      Ancient     Indian\n        Historian and Sri Sushil Srivastava, Modern Historian\n        and if they have said so that Mir Baqi was a Shiya, I do not\n        agree with their opinion because they are not authority\n        on Medieval History.\" (E.T.C.)\n1359.          PW 16, Prof. Suraj Bhan in his cross-examination\nhas said:\n               ^^eq > s fookfnr LFky ij f'kykys[ k tk s ehjckdh }kjk\n        yxok;k x;k Fkk mlds vykok vkS j dk sb Z ,ihxz k fQdy\n        bohMs al ugh a feyh ftlds vk\/kkj ij ;g dgk tk lds fd\n        fookfnr <k ap k dk uke ckcjh efLtn gk sA ;g f'kykys[k mruk\n        gh iqjkuk Fkk ftruh efLtnA^^ \u00bcist 157\u00bd\n               "Except for an inscription carved by Mir Baqi, I\n        did not come across any other epigraphical evidence on\n        the basis of which the disputed site may be called Babri\n        Masjid. This inscription is as old as this masjid." (E.T.C.)\n               ^^fookfnr <kaps esa 2 txg ij bUlfdzI'ku yxs gq, FksA ;g nksuksa\n        bUlfdzI'ku iRFkj esa [kqns gq,s Fks ijUrq ckgj okys bUlhdzI'ku dk Lysc\n        nhokj esa fQDl FkkA ;g nksuksa mijksDr bUlfdzI'ku Qkjlh Hkk"kk esa fy[ks\n        Fksa eSa Qkjlh ugha tkurk ;g lgh gS fd eSa Qkjlh ugha i<+ ldrk\n        blfy, ekSds ij eSa mu nksuksa bUlfdzI'ku dks ugha i<+ ldrk Fkk vkSj\n        vanj okyh bUlfdzI'ku dks ns[k Hkh ugha ik;kA** \u00bcist&175\u00bd\n               "Inscriptions were engraved at two places in the\n                                                                    1514\n\ndisputed structure. Both of the inscriptions were engraved\nin the stone but the slab of the outside inscription was fixed\nin the wall. Both these inscriptions were written in Persian\nlanguage. I do not know Persian. It is true that I can not\nread Persian. So I, could not read both the inscriptions at\nthe    site    and     could     not     even     see     the    inside\ninscription."(E.T.C.)\n       ^^;g efLtn ckcj dh viuh cuokbZ gqbZ ugha Fkh] cfYd ;g\nehjckdh }kjk ckcj dh btkt+r ls cuokbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj blh dkj.k ckcjh\nefLtn ehjckdh ds lk\/kuksa ds vuq:i gh cuh FkhA^^ \u00bcist 334\u00bd\n       "This mosque not built by Babar on his own; rather,\nit was built by Mir Baqi with the permission of Babar, and\nfor this very reason, the Babri mosque was built only as per\nthe means of Mir Baqi." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^efLtn esa fy[ks f'kykys[k esa ;g fy[kk Fkk vkSj efLtn ds rksM+s\ntkus ls igys eSaus mls ns[kk Hkh Fkk vkSj mlds ckjs esa dbZ fjdkMZl gSa]\ntks Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk gesa fn, x, Fks] muesa i<+k gS rFkk v;ks\/;k ds\n\u00c5ij fy[kh xbZ fdrkc esa Hkh i<+k gSA\n       ;g ,ihxzkQ+] efLtn ds eq[; }kj] iqu% fd] ;kuh efLtn ds\neq[; xqEcn esa tkus okys }kj ds \u00c5ij yxk FkkA bl f'kykys[k esa ckcjh\nefLtn ds cuk, tkus ds ckjs esa fy[kk gS] tks eSa vius igys ds c;kuksa esa\ncrk pqdk gwaA ;g f'kykys[ k Q+k jlh es a gS A bl f'kykys[k esa ;g\nugha fy[kk gS fd ;g efLtn fdlh vkSj Hkou dks rksM+dj cukbZ xbZ gSA**\n                                                         \u00bcist 334&335\u00bd\n       "It was so written in the stone inscription at the\nmosque and the same had also been seen by me before\ndemolition of the mosque. There are several records in this\nbehalf, which have been provided to us by the Government\nof India. I have read it in them and also in the books\nwritten about Ayodhya.\n       This epigraph was engraved at the main gate of the\n                                                                    1515\n\nmosque (again stated) that is to say, above the gate leading\nto the main dome of the mosque. This stone inscription\nrefers about the construction of the Babri mosque, about\nwhich I have already stated. This inscription is in\nPersian. This inscription does not mentioned that this\nmosque       was      built     by     demolishing           any   other\nbuilding."(E.T.C.)\n^^ckcjh efLtn ds f'kykys[ k ls ;g Li"V gS fd ;g ckcj\nds le; esa lu~ 1528 bZ L oh es a cuk;h x;h FkhA** \u00bcist 433\u00bd\n"From the inscriptions of Babri mosque, it is clear that\nit was built in the year 1528 AD during the times of\nBabar." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^;g fo}kuksa us r; dj fn;k gS fd ;g <kWapk ckcj ds le; esa\nlu~ 1528 bZ0 esa cuk;k x;k Fkk] eSa Hkh bldks lgh ekurk gwWaA**\u00bcist 433\u00bd\n       "It has been determined by the scholars that this\nstructure had been built in the year 1528 AD during the\ntimes of Babar. I also consider it to be correct." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^ckcjh efLtn dk fuekZ.k izkIr rF;ksa ds vuqlkj lu~ 1528&29\nbZLoh esa gqvk FkkA tks eqxy dky esa iM+rk gSA** \u00bcist 457\u00bd\n       "According to the facts determined, Babri mosque\nwas built in the year 1528-29 AD, which falls in the\nMughal period." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^esjk bl <kWaps dks ckcjh efLtn dgus ds ihNs vkSj dksbZ fo'ks"k\nmn~ns'; ugha gS] flok; blds fd eSa iqjkrRoosRrk gwWa vkSj ckcjh efLtn\ndk <kWapk iqjkrkfRod gSfjVst Fkk] blh uke ls tkuk tkrk FkkA eSaus bls\nns[kk Fkk] bldks blh uke ls eSaus vius ys[kksa esa fy[kk gSA ;g vf\/kd\nMsQfuV vkSj vf\/kd fizlkbZt <ax ls ml s\nekywe nsrk gSA** \u00bcist 457\u00bd\n       \"I have no special motive in calling this structure\nBabri mosque, except for the fact that I am an\narchaeologist and the structure of Babri mosque was a\n                                                               1516\n\n        archaeological heritage and was known by this name. I had\n        seen it and have mentioned it so in my articles. It appears\n        to me, to be a more definite and precise method of\n        describing the said structure.\" (E.T.C.)\n1360.         The statement of PW 16 in respect to period of\nconstruction and the person by whom, is solely based on two\ninscriptions which he claims to have affixed on the disputed\nbuilding in Persian language though neither the witness can read\nPersian nor could see the inner one. Here also on page 157 read\nwith 334 and 335 though the witness claims that the inscriptions\nwhich were installed when he visited the premises were the\nsame as were installed at the time of construction of the building\nand this shows that he has not read the text of the inscriptions as\npublished in different books from time to time and had no\noccasion to compare the same but the statement has been made\non pure conjecture and surmises.\n1361.         The expertise of PW 16 on the matter relating to\nMedieval History has been doubted by another witness of\nplaintiff (Suit-4), i.e., PW 20, Shirin Musvi in her statement on\npage 129.\n1362.         Further the witness do not claim to be an Expert\nHistorian but he is an Expert Archaeologist. Since he has written\nan Article on the disputed building i.e. Paper No. 110C1\/8\n(Exhibit D37, Suit-5), it appears that to support its contents, he\ncame in witness box in his first appearance. For our purposes\nsuffice it to mention that here also the sole foundation for\nclaiming the period of construction of the building as \"1528\nAD\" by Mir Baqi, the entire stress is on the said inscriptions and\nnothing else.\n1363.         Another Expert Historian Suvira Jaiswal-P.W.18, in\n                                                                            1517\n\nher cross-examination with respect to the aforesaid aspect, has\nsaid :\n                ^^ckcj vo\/k ds {ks= esa vk;k Fkk ,slk eSaus i<+k gS ysfdu v;ks\/;k\n         vk;k ;k ugha eSa ugha crk ldrh gwWaA** \u00bcist 24\u00bd\n                "Babur had come in the region of Awadh, I have\n         read so, but in fact, came to Ayodhya or not, I cannot\n         say."(E.T.C.)\n                ^^ysfdu crkS j bfrgkldkj eSa crk ldrh gWaw fd 16oha 'krkCnh\n         esa ckcj us v;ks\/;k esa ckcjh efLtn cuokbZA** \u00bcist 103\u00bd\n                 "but as a historian I can tell that in 16th century\n         Babar        got      constructed          Babari     Mosque         in\n         Ayodhya."(E.T.C.)\n                ^^eS u s ckcjh efLtn ds ckjs esa             dq N ugh a i<+k\n         fo'k s" k :i ls ugh a i<+k blfy, eS a ugh a crk ldrh fd\n         ckcjh efLtn dc vfLrRo es a vk;hA eSa ;g Hkh ugha crk ldrh\n         fd ckcjh efLtn ds vfLrRo esa vkus ds igys ml LFkku ij D;k\n         FkkA**\u00bcist 105\u00bd\n                " I have read nothing about Babari Mosque, I did\n         not study thoroughly, therefore, I cannot say as to when\n         Babari Mosque came into existence. I cannot say as to\n         what was there at the site before coming into existence of\n         Babari Mosque." (E.T.C.)\n                ^^eSaus ckcjukek ugha i<+k gSA** \u00bcist 121\u00bd\n                "I have not read Babarnama." (E.T.C.)\n                ^^ ;g Bhd gS fd eS a iz k phu bfrgkl dh fo'k s" kK gw aA ;g\n         Hkh Bhd gS fd eSa bl vnkyr esa iz k phu bfrgkl ds fo'k s" kK\n         ds :i esa xokgh nsu s vkbZ gawA ** \u00bcist 122&123\u00bd\n                "This is correct that I am expert in Ancient History.\n         It is also correct that I have come to this Court to tender\n         evidence as specialist in Ancient History." (E.T.C.)\n1364.           PW 18 admits that she has come to depose her\n                                                                   1518\n\nstatement as Expert Historian being specialist in Ancient\nHistory (page 122-123). However, while on one hand she claims\nthat the disputed building was constructed in 16th century by\nBabar at Ayodhya called Babari mosque and this statement she\nis making as a historian but simultaneously on page 105 she said\nthat she has not read anything about Babari mosque and did not\nstudy thoroughly and, therefore, cannot say as to when Babari\nmosque came into existence. On page 121, she also admits of\nhaving not read "Baburnama" at all.\n1365.          Shrin Musvi-P.W.20 in her examination with\nrespect to the aforesaid aspect has said:\n        (Examination-in-chief)\n               "There was an inscription at Babari Masjid\n        divided in three parts and its some part were printed in\n        Beveridge's Babar-Nama. The entire inscription is\n        published in 1965, Epigraphia Indica published by A.S.I. It\n        is in Persian language and Nask-script. It mentions that\n        Mir Baqi got the mosque constructed in 1528-29 AD on the\n        orders and intention of Babar. The date of his construction\n        is found from its script by numerical calculation. (page2-3)\n               Buchanan visited Ayodhya in 1810 and described\n        about the same in his accounts. He has said that it is\n        alleged that Aurangzeb demolished a temple in Ram Kot\n        and constructed a mosque but he said that the mosque has\n        an inscription of the period of Babar, therefore, the\n        aforesaid view is ill founded." (page-4)\n        (Cross-examination)\n               ^^;g Bhd gS fd ckcj us ehjckdh dks vo\/k dk dek.Mj fu;qDr\n        fd;k FkkA** \u00bcist 29\u00bd\n               "It is true that Babar had appointed Mir Baqi\n                                                                      1519\n\nCommander of Awadh." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^ckcj dk v;ks\/;k tkus dk jsQzsUlst gS] exj ,slk mlds eseksvkj\nesa ugha gSA ;g jsQzsUlst nwljs ledkyhu vkSj ledkyhu ds ikl ds\nlzksrksa esa i<+k gSA lEHkor% eSaus ;g ckr [okUnehj dh fy[kh gqbZ fdrkc esa\nis ;kn ugha\ngSA** \u00bcist 30&31\u00bd\n       \"References of visit of Babar to Ayodhya are there\nbut it is not so in his Memoir. I have read these references\nin other contemporary and nearby sources. Perhaps I have\nread this in the book written by Khwand Mir. He was\ncontemporary to Babar. He was resident of Central Asia\nand an officer of Babar. His book is in Persian script. I\nknow Persian. I do not remember presently any other near\ncontemporary source.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^ckcjukek esa eq>s tgkWa rd ;kn gS] dgha Hkh efLtn cuokus dk\nftdz ugha gSA vt[kqn dgk fd rc ml tekus esa efLtn cuokuk dkWeu\nizSfDVl FkhA** \u00bcist&31\u00bd\n       \"In Babarnama so far as I remember, there is no\nreference anywhere of of getting any Mosque constructed.\nThen of her own, she said that those days, to get mosque\nconstructed was a common practice.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^ckcj v;ks\/;k dc vk;k Fkk] eSa ugha crk ldrh] D;ksafd\nckcjukek esa mlds ;gkWa vkus dk dksbZ ftdz ugha gSA** \u00bcist&33\u00bd\n       \"I cannot say as to when Babar came to Ayodhya\nbecause in Babarnama there is no reference of his visit\nthere.\" (E.T.C.)\n        ^^;g Bhd gS fd lkuh ds eryc nh vnj ;kfu nwljk gSA ;g\nBhd gS fd fookfnr <kaps ds \u00c5ij yxs gq, bUldzsi'ku ij ehj ckdh ds\nfy;s ,d VkbZfVy vkflQs lkuh fy[kk x;k ftls cuthZ us ^blQgkuh^\n                                                                     1520\n\ni<+k FkkA 'kk;n cuthZ us viuh iqLrd ^ckcjl fjyhtu^ esa ,slk\nfy[kkA** \u00bcist 58\u00bd\n        "It is true that 'Sani' means "the other" or 'second'. It\nis true that in inscription on disputed structure, the title for\nMir Baqi was written as 'Asife sani' which was read as\nIsfehani by Banerji. Perhaps Banerji has written this in his\nbook Babar's religion." (E.T.C.)\n        ^^tSlk eSaus \u00c5ij c;ku fn;k gS fookfnr LFky ij yxs f'kykys[k\ndks lu~ 75 ls 1980 ds chp esa i s dk sb Z tkudkjh ugh a FkhA^^ \u00bcist 121\u00bd\n\"It is true that I had no knowledge of the epigraphs on\nthe disputed sites before 1975.\" (E.T.C.)\n        ^^eSaus vk sj htuy bUlfdz i 'ku dh Qk sV k s ,si hxz k fQ;k\nbf.M;k 1964&65 es a ns[ kk gS A ** \u00bcist 121\u00bd\n        \"She had seen the photograph of the original\ninscription in Epigraphia Indica in 1964-65.\" (E.T.C.)\n        ^^ml fookfnr LFky ij rhu f'kykys[k yxs gq, Fks bl le; iwjh\nrkSj ls ;kn ugha gS fd og rhuksa f'kykys[k fdu fdu LFkkuksa ij yxs Fks\noks Qkjlh Hkk\"kk esa FksA** \u00bcist 122\u00bd\n\"Three inscriptions were installed on the disputed site.\nPresently I do not fully remember at which places those\nthree inscriptions written in Persian language were\n                                                                 1521\n\ninstalled.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^mlesa tks [kkl ckr fy[kh gS og ;g gS fd mls ckcj ds vkns'k\nij ehjckdh us cuok;k vkSj ^^[kSj ckdh** 'kCn ls blds cuok;s tkus dh\nrkjh[k fudyrh gSA** \u00bcist 122\u00bd\n       \"It is particularly mentioned          therein that it was\ninstalled by Meer Baqi under the orders of Babar and the\ndate of its installation is inferred by the word \"Khair\nBaki.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^esj s vuq l kj loZ i z F ke fookfnr <k ap s dk fuekZ . k 1528\nesa gq v k gk sx kA^* \u00bcist 126&127\u00bd\n       "In my opinion, first of all, the disputed structure\nmay have been constructed in 1528." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^;g dguk fcydqy xyr gksxk fd fookfnr <kWaps dk fuekZ.k\n1501 esa fd;k x;k gksA** \u00bcist 127\u00bd\n       "It will be totally wrong to say that the disputed\nstructure may have been constructed in 1501." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^isij ua0 2@15&d&1 ij vafdr 18&12&61 dh frfFk dh vksj\nfnyk;k ftls is ;kn ugha gSA eSa ;g ugha crk ldrh fd\nckdh lxkoy ehjckdh dk gh uke Fkk fQj dgk fd lxkoy dksbZ uke\nugha gksrk Fkk dksbZ iksLV gksrh Fkh lxkoy ,d vkfQl Fkk mldh D;k\nM;wVh vkSj ,DtSDV uspj D;k D;k Fks eq>s ugha ekyweA** \u00bcist 130\u00bd\n       \"Baqi Tashkandi is the name of Mir Baqi, Babur\nhimself has used this name in Baburnama. I have not heard\nthe name of Baqi Sagawal, then said, I do not remember\nso, I can not tell as to whether Baqi Sagawal was the name\nof Mir Baqi, then said, Sagawal was not a name but was a\npost, Sagawal was an office. I do not know what was his\nduty and exact nature.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^;g dguk xyr gS fd tks bafLdzI'ku fookfnr <kaps ij yxs gq,\nFks oks 1934 ds naxs ds ckn yxk fn;s x;s Fks]cfYd ;g lgh gS fd og\nigys ls yxs gq, Fks ftldk ftdz cqdkuu us lu 1810 ds vius\n,dkm.V esa fd;k gSA dqy feykdj rhu bUlfdzI'ku fookfnr <kaps ij\nyxs gq, FksA rhuksa bUlfdzI'ku vyx&vyx vYQkt esa Fks ijUrq muds\ndUVsUV ;kuh mudk eryc dekscs'k ,d FkkA ;kuh rhuksa bUlfdzI'ku ,d\n                                                                    1523\n\ngh le; ds yxs gq, Fks] tks lu 1580 ds igys ds FksA ,ihxzkfQDl dh\nLVMh ds vuqlkj rhuksa bUlfdzI'ku dh fyfi 1580 ds igys dh gS A ;g\neS au s *,ihxz k fQ;k bf.Mdk oS Y ;we 1964&65 es a i<k gS fd\nrhuk s a bUlfdz I 'ku 1528 esa gh yxs Fk sA ,sihxzkfQ;k bf.Mdk\nvkfdZ;ksykftdy foHkkx dk ,d tjuy gS vkSj dkQh fo'oluh; tjuy\ngSA^^ \u00bcist 136&137\u00bd\n       "It is wrong to say that the inscriptions which stood\nat the disputed structure were installed after the 1934 riot.\nHowever, it is true that they were installed from before, as\nBuchanan has mentioned in his account of 1810 AD. In all,\nthere are three inscriptions on the disputed structure. They\nhad different wordings but their meaning was almost same.\nThat is to say, the three inscriptions were installed at one\nand the same time. They all belong to pre-1580 period. As\nper the study of epigraphics, the script of all the three\ninscriptions preceded 1580. I have read in Epigraphia\nIndica Vol 1964-65 that the inscriptions was installed in\n1528 itself. Epigraphia Indica is a Journal from the\nArchaeological        Deptt      and      it    is    fairly     worth\nrelying."(E.T.C.)\n       ^^eSaus cuthZ dh iq L rd ckcj ,UM fn fgUnwt es a Hkh nk s\nbUlfdz I 'ku ds ckj s esa is vc ;kn ughaA\n        iz'u& D;k ml ij vkxs ;g Hkh fy[kk gqvk gS ^^fcuk dcZ bZ\neqgcRrs dqfnf'k;kW*\n        mRrj& ;g Bhd gS] ,slk Hkh fy[kk gqvk FkkA vkt [kqn dgk fd\nQkjlh esa iwjh rkjh[k fgLV~h fy[kh gqbZ FkhA** \u00bcist 120\u00bd\n        \"This mosque had a stone detailing that this\nmosque was built by Babur through Mir Baqi. (Himself\nstated) It had written on it 'Emperor Babur built it.' Apart\nfrom this, it had something more written on it which I\ncannot recall at present.\n        Question:- Has it something further written which\nruns as 'bina karb ei muhabatte kudishian' ?\n        Answer:- It is true that it was so written. (Stated on\nhis     own)          The   entire   history      was      written     in\nPersian.\"(E.T.C.)\n        ^^ckcj dh reke fdrkcksa esa bldk ftdz vkrk gS vkSj vke yksxksa\nesa ppkZ gS fd ;g efLtn ckcj us cuokbZ FkhA** \u00bcist 120\u00bd\n        \"It finds mention in many books of Babur and it is a\npublic talk that Babur built this mosque.\" (E.T.C.)\n        ^^bl efLtn ij tks fy[kk gqvk Fkk fd ;g Qfj'rksa ds mrjus dh\ntxg gS] og ehjckadh us fy[kok;k FkkA** \u00bcist 136\u00bd\n        \"It was Mir Baqi who had got it engraved on this\nmosque that it is a descending place of angels.\" (E.T.C.)\n        ^^esjk dguk gS fd 1528 ls ;g ges'kkk efLtn jgk gS]**\u00bcist 164\u00bd\n                                                                                1528\n\n               \"I have to say that it has always been a mosque since\n        1528,\" (E.T.C.)\n               ^^ckcj v;ks?;k ugha vk;s ] v;ks\/;k ds lkFk yxrh lj;w ds mRrj\n        dh rjQ ikWp & nl dksl ij ckcj us dksbZ Msjk ugha yxk;k A ;g\n        dguk xyr gsS fd og gQ~rsa &nl jkst dk d;ke djus ds fy, ogkW\n        vk;k djrs FksA** \u00bcist 179\u00bd\n               \"Babur had not come to Ayodhya and he had not\n        camped five-ten kosas north of the river Saryu flowing\n        along Ayodhya. It is wrong to say that he used to come\n        there to do work lasting a week or ten days.\" (E.T.C.)\n               ^^;g xyr gS fd ckcj'kkg us ehjckWdh dks efLtn cukus ds fy,\n        dksbZ gqDe ugha fn;k FkkA** \u00bcist 180\u00bd\n               \"It is wrong that emperor Babar had given no\n        command to Mir Baqi for constructing a mosque.\" (E.T.C.)\n1370.          P.W.2 Haji Mahboob Ahmad has said:\n               ^^'kga'kkg ckcj v;ks\/;k dHkh ugha vk,A ----ehjckdh ckcj dk\n        lsukifr FkkA** \u00bcist 27\u00bd\n               \"Emperor Babur did not come to Ayodhya. .... Mir\n        Baqi was Babur's army chief.\" (E.T.C.)\n               ^^ckcj dh dk sb Z yM+k bZ v;k s\/ ;k esa ugh a gq ; hA vkSj\n        blfy, ,slk dksbZ loky iSnk ugha gksrk fd bl efLtn ds vkl&ikl\n        dh dczsa mu yksxksa dh gksa tks ckcj ls yM+kbZ esa ekjs x, gksaA** \u00bcist 76\u00bd\n               \"No battle with Babur had taken place in Ayodhya\n        and hence there is no question that the graves located in\n        the vicinity of this mosque may be of those persons who\n        may     have      have     been      killed    in    the    battle     with\n        Babur.\"(E.T.C.)\n               ^^efLtn es a iRFkj t:j yx s gq , Fk s] ,d iRFkj ij dqN\n        fy[kk gqvk Hkh Fkk] ysfdu eq>s ekywe ugha fd D;k dqN fy[kk gqvk\n        FkkA**\u00bcist 107\u00bd\n               \"Stones had certainly been used in the mosque;\n                                                                                1529\n\n        one stone had something written on it but I cannot tell what\n        was written on it.\" (E.T.C.)\n1371.          P.W.3 Farooq Ahmad in his cross examination has\nsaid:\n               ^^ckcj fgUnqLrku dk ckn'kkg FkkA ckcj ds othj ehjckdh us ;g\n        efLtn cuokbZ FkhA** \u00bcist 16\u00bd\n               \"Babar was emperor of India. This mosque was built\n        by Babar's Wazir Mir Baqi.\" (E.T.C)\n               ^^v;ks\/;k esa lcls iqjkuh efLtn ;gh Fkh ftldks ckcjh efLtn\n        dgk tkrk gSA ckcjh efLtn ls iqjkuh vkSj dksbZ efLtn v;ks\/;k esa ugha\n        gSA** \u00bcist 18\u00bd\n               \"It was the oldest mosque in Ayodhya, which was\n        called Babri Masjid. There is no other mosque older than\n        Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.\" (E.T.C)\n1372.          P.W.4 Mohd. Yaseen also in his cross examination\nsaid:\n               ^^eqrnkfo;k efLtn dks 'kga'kkg ckcj us cuok;k Fkk blfy, mls\n        ckcjh efLtn dgk tkrk FkkA ckcj us [kqn vkdj efLtn ugha cuok;h\n        mldk gqDe Fkk mlds othj us cuok;h FkhA ,slh ckr rokjh[kksa esa fy[kh\n        gksxhA eSaus ,slh ckr [kqn bfrgkl dh fdrkcksa esa ugha is bl tk;nkn ds ckcr ekywe gqvk\n        Fkk fd ;g dc vkSj fdlus cuokbZ FkhA eSa ugha crk ik\u00c5Waxk fd cqfu;knh\n        rkSj ij bl tk;nkn dk fdruk jdck FkkA** \u00bcist 9\u00bd\n               \"Between 1957 and 1965 I came to know as to when\n        this property was erected and by whom. I am not in the\n        position to tell how much area this property basically\n        had.\"(E.T.C.)\n               ^^vt[kqn dgk fd esjh ;kn'r detksj gS \u00bcfQj dgk fd lu~\n        1987 ls 'kq: gqbZ gSA\u00bd ;g Bhd gS fd vc vkye ;g gS fd oktodkr eSa\n        vius yM+dksa ds uke Hkh Hkwy tkrk gwWaA** \u00bcist 33\u00bd\n               \"(Stated on his own) my memory is weak. I began to\n        develop weakness in my memory from 1986. (Again stated\n        that it has started from 1987). It is true that condition has\n        now become so serious that I forget even the name of my\n        sons.\" (E.T.C.)\n               ^^eSaus ckcj ukek ugha i<+kA tks fgLV~h dh fdrkcsa geus vius dkslZ\n        esa is ckcjh efLtn ds ckjs esa tkudkjh izkIr gks\n                                                                           1531\n\n        x;hA** \u00bcist 55\u00bd\n              \"I did not read 'Baburnama'. In the history books\n        which I studied as a part of my course, I did not come\n        across the mention of the mosque anywhere. As I hail from\n        that very place, I came to have knowledge of the Babri\n        mosque.\" (E.T.C.)\n              ^^efLtn ds es ac j ij ,d iRFkj yxk gq v k Fkk ftl ij\n        ,slk rgjhj Fkk fd ckcj ds gqDe ij bldh rkehj ehjckdh us djk;h\n        FkhA - - ;g iRFkj es ac j ij yxh gq ; h FkhA             - - ;g rgjhj\n        Qkjlh esa FkhA eSa dqn gn rd Qkjlh i<+k gqvk gwWaA ml rgjhj dks eSaus\n        i<+k FkkA fefMy Dykl ds ckn eSaus vjfc;k dkyst esa nkf[kyk fy;k Fkk\n        vkSj ogka dqN gn rd Qkjlh i<+h FkhA** \u00bcist 62\u00bd\n              "On the member of the mosque was                      placed a\n        stone with an inscription that it was built by Mir Baqi at\n        the diktat of Babur. . . This stone was fixed to the\n        member. . . This inscription was in Persian. I have read\n        Persian to some extent. I read the inscription. After doing\n        my middle, I sought admission in Arabia College and\n        studied Persian to some extent there." (E.T.C.)\n1374.         PW 10, Mohammad Idris has said:\n              ^^tgkWa rd eSa tku ik;k gwWa] fdrkcsa i<+dj vkSj yksxksa ls lqudj]\n        og ;g gS fd bl efLtn dh rkehj ehjckdh us djokbZ FkhA D;ksafd\n        bldk ftdz v[kckjksa esa vkrk jgk gS] blfy, eSa dg ldrk gwWa fd ;g\n        efLtn lu~ 1528 es a cuokbZ xbZ FkhA** \u00bcist 32\u00bd\n              "As far as I have come to know by reading the books\n        and by hearing people that this mosque had been built by\n        Mir Baqi. Since this fact has continued to be published in\n        newspapers, I can say that this mosque was built in\n        1528."(E.T.C)\n              ^^ckcj ds fliglykj ds ckjs esa rks eSa ugha tkurk ysfdu eSaus\n        ehjckdh dk uke t:j lquk gSA ;g ml tekus ds ;kuh 1525&26 ds\n                                                                     1532\n\nvklikl ds ,d cgqr cM+s vkneh FksA oks ,d QkSth Fks mudk\nrk:QZ ,d QkSth dh gSfl;r ls gSA oks eqlyeku Fks bLyke ds gkeh FksA\noks eqlyeku Fks blfy, tkfgj gS fd oks Hkh cqrijLrh ds f[kykQ\nFksA**\u00bcist 49\u00bd\n        "I do not know about the commanders of Babar, but\nhave certainly heard the name of Mir Baqi. He was a very\nbig personality of that time i.e. around 1525-26. He was a\nsoldier and he is known as a soldier. He was Muslim and\nfollower of Islam. Since he was Muslim, naturally he was\nagainst idolatry." (E.T.C)\n        ^^ckcj us fgUnqLrku esa fdlh efLtn dks ugha rksM+kA fdlh efUnj\ndks Hkh ugha rksM+kA** \u00bcist 90\u00bd\n        "Babar did not demolish any mosque in India. Did\nnot demolish any temple as well." (E.T.C)\n        ^^fdlh Hkh rkjh[k dh fdrkc esa eSaus ,slk ugha i<+k fd ckcj dHkh\nv;ksa\/;k vk;k gksA og vo\/k izkUr ds gkf'k;s ls gksdj fcgkj t:j x;k\nFkk] - - tgkWa rd ehjckdh dk loky gS] og v;ks\/;k esa t:j vk;k vkSj\neqLrfdy rkSj ij ;gkWa jgkA - - fdrkcksa esa eSaus is ;g Bhd ls ;kn ugha gS fd eSaus fdl iqLrd esa igyh ckj\n        ckcjh efLtn dk uke i<+k gksA ;g Hkh ;kn ugha fd eSaus dc bls igyh\n        ckj i<+k FkkA** \u00bcist 46\u00bd\n               "I do not properly remember in which book I read\n        the name of Babri mosque for the first time. I also do not\n        remember when I read it for the first time." (E.T.C.)\n               ^^ckcjh efLtn ds ckjs esa eSaus is eqrbZ;u rkSj ls fdlh efLtn\n                                                                           1534\n\n        dks ftls ckcj us cuokbZ] ;kn ugha vFkkZr bl efLtn ;kfu dh ckcjh\n        efLtn ds vykokA ;g Bhd gS fd ckcjh efLtn fookfnr LFky ij\n        ehjckdh us cuok;k FkkA ij ckcj ds gqDe lsA ckcjh efLtn ij og\n        dRck yxk gq v k Fkk mles a ;g ckr fy[kh gq b Z Fkh fd ;g\n        efLtn ehjckdh us ckcj ds gqDe ls cuokbZ gSA og dRck eSaus [kqn ugha\n        ns[kk ij mijksDr fdrkc ckcjh efLtn esa mldk gokyk gS dRcs ds\n        vklkj mlesa fNis gq, gSA ;g Bhd gS fd mlh fdrkc ds vk\/kkj ij vkSj\n        nwljs vkVhZdyl ds fcuk ij eSa ,slk dg jgk gwWa fd ,sl k dRck ogk a\n        yxk gq v k gS A ** \u00bcist 76\u00bd\n               \"I have read about Babri mosque. Babar had built\n        many other mosques in India besides the one at the\n        disputed site, whose references are found in history. It is\n        not that all the mosques built by Babar are known as Babri\n        mosque. I definitely do not remember any mosque built by\n        Babar i.e. besides this mosque or the Babri mosque. It is\n        true that Mir Baqi had built Babri mosque at the disputed\n        site, but on the command of Babar. An inscription was\n        fixed at the Babri mosque in which it was mentioned that\n        this mosque had been built by Mir Baqi on command of\n        Babar. I did not see this inscription myself, but the contents\n        of the inscription have been published in the aforesaid\n        book 'Babri Masjid'. It is true that on basis of said book\n        and other articles, I am saying that such inscription had\n        been fixed over there.\" (E.T.C.)\n1377.          PW 23, Mohd. Qasim Ansari has said:\n               ^^Qkjlh esa 'kk;n dqN vUnj fy[kk FkkA ij eSa mls i<+ ugha\n        ldkA vjch esa vYykg] eksgEen o dqjku dh dqN vk;rs s ;kn ugha gS fd fdruh txg dqjku dh vk;rsa o\n        vYykg] eksgEen fy[kk FkkA tks vjch esa fy[kk gqvk Fkk og lc [kqnk\n        gqvk fy[kk FkkA ;g vk;rsa iRFkjksa ij Hkh fy[kh Fkh vkSj nhokjksa ij Hkh\n        fy[kh FkhaA ,d ,d txg ij nks&nks] rhu&rhu ykbZusa fy[kh gqbZ\n                                                                        1535\n\n        FkhaA ;g fy[kkoVsa 15&20 fQV dh \u00c5WapkbZ ij fy[kh gqbZ FkhaA dgha dgha\n        ij vkB nl fQV dh uhpkbZ ij fy[kh Fkh vkSj blls Hkh uhps fy[kh\n        FkhaA ---** \u00bcist 72&73\u00bd\n               \"There was something written in Persian outside.\n        But I could not read that. The words 'Allah' and\n        'Muhammad', and some Ayats (verses) of the Quran were\n        written in Arabic language, inside the structure. I do not\n        remember at how many places verses of the Quran and the\n        words 'Allah' and 'Muhammad' were written . Whatsoever\n        was written in Arabic, was all engraved. These Ayats were\n        engraved on stones as well as on walls. 2-3 lines were\n        engraved on every place. These engravings were on the\n        elevation of 15-20 feet. At certain places these engravings\n        were at the depth of 8-10 feet or even at greater depth.\"\n        (E.T.C.)\n1378.          PW 26 Kalbe Jawwad in his cross examination has\nsaid as under:\n               ^^tgka rd eq>s [;ky gS ckcjh efLtn ckcj ds xoZ u j\n        ehjckdh us 1528 esa cuokbZ FkhA ---ckcjh efLtn vktdy ftls\n        v;ks\/;k dgk tkrk gS ogka gSA igys ;g ekywe gqvk Fkk fd igys ;g\n        ohjku txg Fkh ckn es a vkckn gq b Z A ** \u00bcist 41\u00bd\n               \"To the best of my memory, the Babri mosque was\n        built in 1528 by Mir Baqi, Governor of Babar. ... Babri\n        mosque exists at the place which, these days, is called\n        Ayodhya. It so transpired that earlier this was a deserted\n        place and was inhabited subsequently.\" (E.T.C.)\n               ^^ 1528 ds iwoZ fookfnr LFky ,d [kkyh tehu Fkh vkS j\n        ftl ij ;g efLtn rkehj dh x;hA * \u00bcist 42\u00bd\n               \"Prior to 1528, there was vacant land at the\n        disputed site over which the mosque was built.\" (E.T.C.)\n               \"fookfnr LFky ds ckjs esa tks iqLrd eSaus ^^ckcjh efLtn** uked\n                                                                    1536\n\ni<+h gS vkSj dksbZ iqLrd esa ugha i<+k gS] dsoy v[kckjkr vkSj ys[kksa esa\ni<+k gSA bl fo'k; ij fy[kh ugha xbZ gSaA" \u00bcist 51\u00bd\n       "I have read only the book titled 'Babri Masjid' as\nregards the disputed site and have not read any other book.\nI have only read newspapers and articles. I have no special\nstudy on this topic, because not much books have been\nwritten on this topic." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^eSa lqudj vkSj i<+dj ckcjh efLtn dks ckcjh efLtn dgrk\ngwWaA - - - eSaus vyx ls bl ckr ij dksbZ fjlpZ ugha fd;k fd fookfnr\ns flQZ bruk ekywe gS fd ckcj dHkh v;ks\/;k ugha vk;kA\nfygktk muds geyk djds [kqn thrus dk loky ugha mBrkA ;g\nLVSfCy'M gS fd efLtn ehj ckdh us cuok;h u fd ckcj usA** \u00bcist 87\u00bd\n       \"I know only this much that Babar never came to\nAyodhya. Hence, the question of he being victorious does\nnot arise. It is established that the mosque was built by Mir\nBaqi and not Babar.\" (E.T.C.)\n       \"ckcjh efLtn ds ckcjh efLtn gksus dk bYe eq>s dqN is lckgqn~nhu vCnqy\njgeku dh fdrkc ckcjh efLtn vkSj dqN ys[kksa ls gqvkA --- lckgqn~nhu\nlkgc ,d vkfye FksA eq>s ;g ugha ekywe mudk Lis'kykbts'ku dkgs esa\nFkkA** \u00bcist 88\u00bd\n       \"I gathered the knowledge of the Babri mosque being\nBabri mosque from certain studies and few 'Matebar'\nwitnesses. I gathered this knowledge from Sabahuddin\nAbdul Rehman's book                 Babri Masjid and certain\narticles .... Sabahuddin was a scholar. I do not know his\n                                                                         1537\n\n        topic of specialization.\" (E.T.C.)\n1379.          PW 29 Dr. Jaya Menon though had appeared to\ndepose her statement against A.S.I. report dated 22nd August\n2003 but in her cross-examination she has also made statement\nabout the period of construction of disputed building and also\nthe person according to her who had constructed it. She said:\n               \"I do not know the total number of mosques\n        constructed in Ayodhya during 15th and 16th century but I\n        know that Babri Masjid was constructed during 16th\n        Century.\" (Page 146-147)\n               \"I know that Babri Mosque was erected in the year\n        1528 by Mir Baqi. . ... I do not exactly know as to who Mir\n        Baqi was, but as I think, he was a commander possibly in\n        Babar's army.\" ( Page 154-155)\n               \"I don't know whether Babar had come to Ayodhya\n        and Faizabad. I have heard about Meer Baqi who is\n        supposed to have built Babri Masjid.\" (Page 219-220)\n1380.          PW 30 Dr. R.C. Thakran in his cross examination\nsaid:\n               ^^lu~ 1528 bZ0 esa v;ks\/;k QStkckn dk :yj dkSu Fkk] bldh\n        tkudkjh eq>s ugha gSA** \u00bcist 193\u00bd\n               \"I do not know as to who was the ruler of Ayodhya,\n        Faizabad in 1528.\" (E.T.C.)\n               ^^fookfnr Hkou ckcj }kjk cuokbZ xbZ efLtn gSA** \u00bcist 194\u00bd\n               \"The disputed building is a mosque built by\n        Babur.\"(E.T.C.)\n               ^^bl ckjs esa fd v;ks\/;k esa ckcj us efLtn cuok;k Fkk] eSaus\n        lekpkj&i=ks rFkk if=dkvksa esa i<+k FkkA eSa ,d bfrgklK ds :i\n        esa v[k+ckjksa vkSj if=dkvksa dks Kku dk lzksr ekurk gwWaA Lo;a dgk fd\n        bu lzksrksa ls izkIr ,sfrgkfld tkudkjh lR;kfir gS ;k ugha bldks\n        bfrgkldkj v\/;;u o fo'ys"k.k ds }kjk r; djrs gSaA v[k+ckjksa vkSj\n                                                                               1538\n\n        if=dkvksa ls izkIr bl tkudkjh dk lR;kiu eSaus fdlh iqLrd ls ugha\n        fd;k] --- bu ys[kksa o eksuksxzkQ+ksa dh vkFksaVhflVh dks eSaus lR;kfir ugha\n        fd;kA Lo;a dgk fd igys gh bfrgkldkjksa ds }kjk ;g ckr lR;kfir\n        dh tk pqdh FkhA bl lEcU\/k esa fdlh bfrgkldkj dh iqLrd dks eSaus\n        ugha i<+k gSA** \u00bcist 195\u00bd\n               "In news-papers and magazines, I read that Babur\n        had built a mosque in Ayodhya. As a historian, I consider\n        news-papers and magazines to be a source of knowledge.\n        (Himself stated) Historians through study and analysis\n        determine whether historical information obtained from\n        these sources is true or not. I did not through any book\n        verify the veracity of this information, obtained from the\n        news-papers and magazines. ...                 I did not certify the\n        authenticity of these articles and monographs. (Himself\n        stated) This fact had already been certified by the\n        historians. I have not read a book of any historian in this\n        regard." (E.T.C.)\n               ^^esjs fopkj ls fookfnr Hkou lu~ 1528 bZ L oh ds yxHkx\n        cuk gk sx kA ** \u00bcist 358\u00bd\n               "In my opinion, the disputed structure may have\n        been built around 1528 AD." (E.T.C.)\n1381.          PW 32 Dr. Supriya Verma in his cross examination\nsaid:\n        "The inscriptions found at the disputed site of excavation\n        refer that Meer Baqi, the commander of Babar has built\n        this mosque as I remember now." (Page 34)\n1382.          D.W.2\/1-1 Sri Rajendra Singh in his cross\nexamination has said:\n               ^^lu~ 1528 es a fookfnr LFky ij Hkxoku jke ds eafnj dks\n        fxjkus ds ckn ,d <kW ap s dk fuekZ . k fd;k x;k Fkk] ftls dqN\n        yksx ckcjh efLtn dgrs gSaA** \u00bcist 26\u00bd\n                                                                    1539\n\n       "In the year 1528, a structure had been built at the\ndisputed site after demolishing the temple of Lord Rama,\nwhich is called Babri mosque by few persons." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^eSaus viuh iqLrd esa ^^bihxzkfQ;k bafMdk vjsfcd ,.M ijf'k;u\nLiyhesaV 1965** dk gokyk fn;k gS] ftls eSaus i<+k gSa ftl ,ihxzkfQ;k\nbafMdk dks eSaus is bl laca\/k esa\ndqN&dqN Lej.k vk jgk gS fd ml LFkku ij iM+ko Mkyus ds ckn ckcj\nus vius dqN lkfFk;ksa dks v;ks\/;k Hkstk] blds ckn bczkfge yksnh }kjk\nfu;qDr xouZj 'ks[k ck;thn v;ks\/;k NksM+dj Hkkx x;kA ck;thn ds\nv;ks\/;k NksM+dj Hkkxus dh ;g ?kVuk 1527&1528 bZ0 esa gqbZ] tks 930\nfgtjh ds rqY; gSA blesa dksbZ lUnsg ugha gS fd bl ?kVuk ds ckn ds\ndbZ eghuksa dh ?kVukvksa dk fooj.k ckcjukesa esa miyC\/k ugha gSA 28 ekpZ]\n1528 ds ckn ckcjukek esa 2 vizSy] 1528 dh ?kVuk dk fooj.k feyrk\ngSA mlds ckn dk fooj.k gks ldrk gS fd 18 flrEcj] 1528 ls feyrk\ngksA - - - - - -25&26 flrEcj] 1528 esa ckcj Xokfy;j mjok ?kkVh esa\nmrjk Fkka mjok ?kkVh ds iwoZ og cgqr ls 'kgjksa ls gksdj xqt+js Fks] gks\nldrk gS fd blds iwoZ og vkxjk ls gksdj xqtjs gksaA Lo;a dgk fd\nckcjukek esa bl laca\/k esa tkudkjh fey ldrh gSA** \u00bcist 79&81\u00bd\n                                                            1540\n\n       \"By the time Babar went to Ayodhya, he had\ndefeated Rana Sanga. It is possible that when Babar went\ntowards Ayodhya, it fell under Oudh and its Governor may\nhave been appointed by Ibrahim Lodi. When Babar had\ngone towards Ayodhya, he had not gone to Ayodhya and\ninstead had halted few kose (distance of two miles) away\nfrom Ayodhya along the banks of Ghaghra river. I am able\nto recollect a bit that after halting at that place, Babar had\nsent few of his associates to Ayodhya due to which Sheikh\nBaijeed, the Governor appointed by Ibrahim Lodi, fled\naway from Ayodhya. This fleeing incident of Baijeed\noccurred around 1527-1528 AD, which is equivalent to 930\nHizri era. There is no doubt that details of incidents\noccurring many months after this incident, are not\navailable in the Babarnama. After 28th March, 1528, the\nnext detail contained in Babarnama is of 2nd April, 1528. It\nis possible that the next details commence from 18th\nSeptember, 1528. . . . . . . . . On 25-26th September, 1528\nBabar had been to Urva valley in Gwalior and before\nreaching Urva valley, he had passed through many cities.\nIt is possible that he may have passed through Agra. (The\nwitness) stated on his own that information in this behalf\ncan be had from Babarnama.\" (E.T.C.)\n       ^^Lo;a dgk fd igyh ckj v;ks\/;k dh rjQ vkus ds ckn og\nXokfy;j dh rjQ pyk x;k Fkk] ogka ls ykSVdj iqu% ij tc og\nv;ks\/;k dh rjQ x;k] tks mDr izLrj dh nwljh rFkk rhljh ykbu esa\ncrk;k x;k gSA tgka rd eq>s Lej.k gS] ;g ckr flrEcj 1528 ds ckn\ndh gSA nwljh ckj tc ckcj v;ks\/;k dh rjQ x;k Fkk] rc Hkh og\nv;ks\/;k ds vUnj ugha x;k FkkA v;ks\/;k ls nl dksl dh nwjh ij mldk\niM+ko FkkA Lo;a dgk fd eSa lUnHkZ ns[kdj gh iwjh ckr crk\nik\u00c5WaxkA**\u00bcist 82\u00bd\n                                                                       1541\n\n               \"(The witness) stated on his own that at time of his\n        first visit to Ayodhya, he had proceeded towards Gwalior,\n        from where he returned and went to Ayodhya, which is\n        mentioned in second and third line of the said paragraph.\n        To the best of my memory, this incident is subsequent to\n        September, 1528. On the other occasion as well when\n        Babar went towards Ayodhya, he did not enter Ayodhya\n        and halted at a distance of 10 kose from Ayodhya. (The\n        witness) stated on his own that I would be able to give the\n        complete facts only after looking at the reference.\"\n        (E.T.C.)\n1383.          D.W.2\/1-2 Sri Ram Saran Srivastava in this regard,\nhas said:\n               ^^fjdkMZ ds fglkc ls fookfnr Hkou lu~ 1528 es a cuk\n        Fkk] bl izdkj dk yksx dFku djrs gSa rFkk fjdkMZ ls Hkh ;gh lkfcr\n        gksrk gSA** \u00bcist 27\u00bd\n               \"According to records, the disputed structure was\n        built in the year 1528. This is claimed by people and the\n        records also prove it.\" (E.T.C.)\n               ^^,sl k crk;k tkrk gS fd fookfnr LFky ij fookfnr\n        Hkou lu~ 1528 es a efLtn ds :i esa cuk;k x;k FkkA**\n        \u00bcist 31\u00bd\n               \"It is said that in the year 1528 AD, the disputed\n        structure      was built     at   the   disputed     site    as a\n        mosque.\"(E.T.C.)\n               ^^ysfdu fjdkMZ ds vk\/kkj ij irk pyrk gS fd lu~ 1528 esa\n        ckcj us eafnj rksM+dj efLtn cuokbZ FkhA bfrgkl dh iqLrdksa ls irk\n        pyrk gS fd ckcj ogha dgha lehi esa :ds gq, Fks vkSj muds ,ts.V ehj\n        ckdh+ us eafnj rksM+dj efLtn cukus dk dke fd;kA** \u00bcist 35\u00bd\n               \"But from the records it appears that in the year\n        1528 Babar had built the mosque after demolishing the\n                                                                  1542\n\ntemple. It is gathered from history books that Babar was\nstaying at a nearby place and his agent Mir Baqi had gone\nahead to demolish the temple and build a mosque.\"(E.T.C.)\n       ^^tgka rd eSaus i<+k gS] ckcj ds lu~ 1528 esa fookfnr LFky ij\nigqapus dh ckr ugha feyrh gS vkSj dksbZ vU; ek\/;e Hkh ,slk ughsa gS fd\nftlls irk pyrk gks fd ckcj lu~ 1528 esa fookfnr LFky ij x;k\ngksA** \u00bcist 36\u00bd\n       "From my studies, no reference is found about Babar\ngoing to the disputed site in the year 1528 and there is no\nsuch source from which it is found that Babar had been to\nthe disputed site in the year 1528." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj mDr efLtn ehj ckd+h us lu~ 1528\nesa cuokbZ A ** \u00bcist 36\u00bd\n       "According to records, the above mosque was built\nin year 1528 by Mir Baqi." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^fookfnr LFky ij yxs f'kyky s[ k o fjdkMZ dk s ns[ kus\nls ;g ekywe gqvk fd ckcj ds gqDe ls muds ,ts.V ehj ckdh us bl\nHkou dk fuekZ.k nso iq:"kksa \u00bcQfj'rksa\u00bd ds vkus ds fy, djok;k FkkA\nehjckd+h us ftl efLtn dks cuok;k Fkk] mlesa ehukjsa ugha FkhA**\u00bcist 37\u00bd\n       "From perusal of records and inscriptions at the\ndisputed site, it transpired that under the order of Babar,\nhis agent Mir Baqi had built this structure for descension\nof angels. There were no minarets in the mosque built by\nMir Baqi." (E.T.C.)\n       "fookfnr Hkou efLtn ds :i esa lu~ 1528 esa cukbZ x;h"\n                                                              \u00bcist 39\u00bd\n       "The disputed structure was built as a mosque in\n1528 A.D." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^og fookfnr Hkou 1528 esa fufeZr fd;k x;k Fkk A eSaus ;g ckr\nQStkckn ds xts+fV;lZ ls i<+dj viuh iqLrd esa fy[kh FkhA** \u00bcist 52\u00bd\n       " The disputed structure was built in 1528. I have\n                                                                   1543\n\nwritten this in my book after reading the gazetteers of\nFaizabad." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^eSaus viuh iqLrd dkx+t la0 260 lh&1@1 esa fookfnr Hkou\ndh if'peh nhokj ij fy[ks f'kykys[k dk mYys[k fd;k gS] tks Qkjlh esa\nFkk vkSj ftlesa bl LFkku dks Q+fj'rksa ds mrjus dk LFkku crk;k x;k\ngSA bl dks eSaus dbZ fdrkcksa esa i<+k Fkk vkSj mlh ls viuh fdrkcksa esa\nis bl ckjs esa Kku ugha gS fd Q+fj'rksa ds mrjus dh txg dks\nefLtn dgk tk ldrk gS ;k ughaA** \u00bcist 75\u00bd\n       \"As contained in the inscription, this structure was\n                                                                          1544\n\n        built for descension of angels.\n               I have no knowledge of the fact whether the place of\n        descension of angels can be called mosque or not.\"\n                                                                  (E.T.C.)\n               ^^eSaus bl laca\/k esa ftruh Hkh iqLrdksa dk v\/;;u fd;k gS] mu\n        lc esa fy[kk gS fd ckcj us fookfnr Hkou dks efLtn ds :i esa cuok;k\n        Fkk] vFkkZr~ ehj ckdh us tks Hkou cuok;k Fkk] og ckcjh efLtn gh\n        gSA**\u00bcist 76\u00bd\n               \"In all those books I have studied in this respect, it is\n        written that Babur got the disputed building built as a\n        mosque, that is to say, the building which Mir Baqui built,\n        is the Babri mosque itself.\" (E.T.C.)\n               ^^esjh ;g tkudkjh fd efUnj dks rksM+dj lu~ 1528 esa fookfnr\n        Hkou cuk;k x;k Fkk] fu;qfDr ds iwoZ ls jgh FkhA Nkuchu ds ckn\n        mijksDr nksuksa ckrksa dh iqf\"V gks xbZA** \u00bcist 173\u00bd\n               \"My knowledge of the disputed building being built\n        in 1528 by demolishing the temple, preceded my\n        appointment. Both of the afore-said things came to be\n        substantiated after enquiry.\" (E.T.C.)\n1384.          OPW 9 Dr. T.P. Verma in his cross examination\nhas said:\n               \"lu~ 1528 esa v;ks\/;k esa ckcjh efLtn cuk;s tkus dk mYys[k\n        feyrk gSA ;g ckr eSaus i<+h Hkh gS fd lu~ 1528 esa v;ks\/;k esa ckcjh\n        efLtn cukbZ xbZA** \u00bcist 12\u00bd\n               "There is a reference of the Babri mosque being built\n        at Ayodhya in 1528. I have also read that Babri mosque\n        was constructed at Ayodhya in 1528 AD," (E.T.C.)\n               ^^iz0& tc ckcjh efLtn cuh] rc D;k vki ogkWa ekStwn Fks\\\n               m0 th ughaA** \u00bcist 12\u00bd\n               "Question:- Were you present there at the time when\n        the Babri mosque was built ?\n                                                                     1545\n\n       Answer:- No, Sir." (E.T.C.)\n       ^^ckcjh efLtn cukus ds ckn ckcj ds fliglkykj\nehjckdh     rk'kdUnh       us ogkW a ij       rhu f'kyk[k.M+k s a     ij\nvfHkys[ k fy[kok;sA ftu rhu f'kyk[k.Mk s a ij ehjckdh us\nogkW a fy[kok;k Fkk] os Qkjlh Hkk"kk es a fy[kok;s Fk sA ftu\nf'kyk[k.M+ksa ij ehjckdh us ijf'k;u esa dqN fy[kk;k Fkk] muesa ls ,d\nf'kyk[kaM vkf[kjh le; rd ckcjh efLtn ij yxk Fkk] ckdh nks\nf'kyk[kaM mlds igys gh dHkh xk;c gks pqds FksA bu f'kykys[kksa dk\nfooj.k ,ihxzkfQ;k bafMdk ijf'k;u [kaM esa vuqokn lfgr izdkf'kr gqvk\ngS] ftldk mYys[k eSaus viuh iqLrd ^^v;ks\/;k dk bfrgkl ,oa iqjkrRo**\nesa fd;k gSA - - - - -,ihxzkfQ;k bafMdk ,oa esjh mijksDr iqLrd nksuksa esa\ngh mijksDr rhuksa f'kykys[kksa dk o.kZu gSA rhuksa gh f'kykys[k ijf'k;u\nHkk"kk esa fy[ks x;s FksA mu f'kykys[kksa ls ;g izxV gksrk gS fd og\nefLtn FkhA** \u00bcist 12\u00bd\n       "After the construction of the Babri mosque, Mir\nBaqi Tashkandi, commander of Babur, got three stone-\nblocks inscribed there. The inscriptions engraved on the\nthree stone-blocks at the instance of Mir Baqi, were in\nPersian language. Among the stone-blocks which Mir\nBaqi had got inscribed in Persian, one stone-block was\nfixed to the Babri mosque till the last time, but the\nremaining two stone-blocks had disappeared some time\nearlier. Accounts of these stone-blocks has been published\nwith their translation in the Persian part of 'Epigraphia\nIndica', which fact I have made mention of in my book\ntitled 'Ayodhya Ka Itihaas Evam Puratatva'. . The\naforesaid three inscriptions find description both in\n'Epigraphia Indica' and the aforesaid book of mine. All the\nthree inscriptions were written in Persian language. From\nthese inscriptions it is evident that it was a mosque."\n(E.T.C.)\n                                                                          1546\n\n        ^^Qfj'rksa ds mrjus dk LFkku**\nesjs b.VjfizVs'ku ds vuqlkj bldk vFkZ ;g gksuk pkfg, fd ;gkWa ij\nnsorkvksa dk vorkj gqvk FkkA\n        nsorkvksa dk vorkj Hkxoku jke ds :i esa gqvk FkkA ;g ckr\nijf'k;u esa fy[kh xbZ FkhA**\u00bcist 13\u00bd\n        "The place of descension of angels."\nAs per my interpretation, it ought to mean that deities\nincarnated themselves at this place.\n        Deities incarnated in the form of Lord Rama. This\nthing was written in Persian." (E.T.C.)\n        ^^mijksDr rhuksa f'kykys[kksa esa ls fdlh Hkh f'kykys[k dks eSaus ns[kk\nugha Fkk] muds ckjs esa i<+k FkkA eSaus f'kykys[k ugha i<+k Fkk f'kykys[kksa ds\nckjs esa irk gwWaA ftu iqLrdksa dks eSaus dalYV fd;k Fkk\nmuesa ;gh fy[kk Fkk fd ;s ijf'k;u Hkk\"kk esa fy[ks x, FksA mu iqLrdksa esa\n,ihxzkfQ;k bf.Mdk ijf'k;u [k.M felst csofjt }kjk rS;kj\n^^ckcjukek** dk vuqokn gSA - - - ,ihxzkfQ;k bf.Mdk** esa ;g fy[kk\ngqvk gS fd ;s vfHkys[k ;kuh f'kykys[k ckcj ds gqDe ls ehjckdh us\nfy[kok, FksA** \u00bcist 14\u00bd\n        \"Almost all the inscriptions have made mention of\nBabur's name, blessings for him as also orders for him. The\narrival of Babur did not find mention in any of the\naforesaid inscriptions. I do not at all understand the\nPersian language. Whichever books I consulted, said that\nthese inscriptions were written in the Persian language.\n                                                                  1547\n\nOut of those books, 'Epigraphia Indica', Persian part is a\ntranslation of 'Baburnama' scripted by Mrs. Beveridge. . . .\nIt is written in 'Epigraphia Indica' that Mir Baqi got these\ninscriptions prepared at the behest of Babur.\"(E.T.C.)\n       ^^198lh&2@90 yxk;r 198lh&2@99\niz0& D;k ;g mlh ,ihxzkfQ;k bf.Mdk dh izfr gS] ftlds ckjs esa vkius\n\u00c5ij mYys[k fd;k gS\\\nmRrj& th gkWaA blh dkxt la[;k& 198lh&2@95 ij mijksDr\nf'kykys[kksa ds QksVksxzkQ Nis gSaA dkxt la[;k&198lh&2@96 ij igys\nf'kykys[k dk VsDlV ,oa vuqokn Nik gSA nwljs f'kykys[k dk VsDLV ,oa\nvuqokn dkxt la[;k &198lh&2@97 ij Nik gS vkSj rhljs f'kykys[k\ndk VsDLV ,oa vuqokn dkxt la[;k & 198lh&2@97 ,oa dkxt\nla[;k&198&lh&1@98 ij Nik gSA ;s f'kykys[k ckcj ds tekus esa fy[ks\nx, gSaA bu f'kykys[kksa ij fgtjh lu~ dh frfFk 935 oka o\"kZ fy[kk x;k gS\ntks bZLoh lu~ ds vuqlkj 15228&29 iM+rk gSA blhfy, eSa ;g le>rk gwWa\nfd ;s f'kykys[k lu~ 1528 esa fy[ks x;s gSaA** \u00bcist 14&15\u00bd\n       \"198C- 2\/ 90 to 198C-2\/99\nQuestion:- Is this a copy of that very 'Epigraphia Indica'\nyou have referred to above ?\nAnswer:-      Yes,    Sir.   Photographs        of   the    aforesaid\ninscriptions are published on this very paper no. 198 C -\n2\/95. The text and translation of the first inscription is\npublished on paper no. 198 C-2\/96. Paper no. 198 C-2\/97\ncarries the text and translation of the second inscription\nand paper nos. 198 C - 2\/97 & 198 C - 1\/98 carry the text\nand translation of the third inscription. These inscriptions\ndate back to the reign of Babur. These inscriptions have\n935th year of the Hizri calendar written on them which\ncomes to be 1528 - 29 AD. That is why I have the\nimpression that these inscriptions were written in 1528.\"\n(E.T.C.)\n                                                                 1548\n\n       ^^eSa bl ckr ls rks lger gwWa fd fookfnr Hkou 1528 bZLoh esa\nefLtn ds :i esa cuk;k x;k Fkk]**\u00bcist 255\u00bd\n       \"I do agree that the disputed structure was built a\nmosque in 1528 AD,\" (E.T.C)\n       ^^ckcj Lo;a v;ks\/;k ugha x;k] cfYd mlds vU; lsukifr;ksa ds\nlkFk ckdh 'kxk+koy \u00bcehj ckdh csx\u00bd us bl dke dks vatke fn;k] vFkkZr\nckcj ehj ckdh dks vo\/k dk pktZ nsdj Xokfy;j dh vksj jokuk gks\nx;kA ckcj ds nksckjk v;ks\/;k dh rjQ vkus dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha\nfeyrk gSA ckcjh efLtn rkehj djkus dk okD;k ehjckdh dks vo\/k dk\nizHkkjh cukdj    ckcj ds Xokfy;j pys tkus ds ckn dh ?kVuk gS]\nijUrq ;g \u00c4Vuk fdrus ckn dh gS] ;g eSa ugha crk ldrk gwWaA bl laca\/k\nesa ,d ek= vkS j lcls egRoiw. kZ lk{; os rhu f'kyky s[ k gS a]\ntk s ckcjh s ;g ugha ekywe gS fd izfl) fczfV'k losZ;j ek.V xksejh ekfVZu\nftUgksaus lu~ 1838 esa viuh iqLrd ^^fgLV~h ,UVhfDoVht Vksiksxzkih\nLVSfVfLVDl vkQ bZLV bafM;k okY;we&2** fy[kh gS] os vo\/k {ks= esa rSukr\nFks ;k dgha vkSjA ek.V xk se jh ekfVZ u tS l s dbZ losZ ;j Hkkjr\nesa mu fnuk s a dbZ LFkkuk s a ij crkS j losZ ;j rS u kr Fk sA               - -\newy r% fcz f V'k losZ ;j ek.V xk se jh ekfVZ u bfrgkldkj ugh a\nFk s] ijUrq muds }kjk fy[kh iqLrd dks ,sfrgkfld n`f\"V ls egRoiw.kZ\nekuk tkrk gSA ek.V xksejh ekfVZu us viuh iqLrd esa bl ckr dk\ngokyk fn;k gS fd ckcj us 1528 esa jketUeHkwfe efUnj fxjkdj mlh\nLFkku ij efLtn dk fuekZ.k fd;k FkkA - - - - -eSaus vius 'kiFk&i= ds\niSjk&17 esa ckcj }kjk efUnj fxjkdj efLtn fuekZ.k djkus dk c;ku\nek.V     xksejh     ekfVZu      }kjk    fyf[kr     fdrkc         ftlds   mn~?k`r\ni`\"B&107lh&1@109 ij vk\/kkfjr gS vkSj vkt dk c;ku Hkh eSaus blh\nfdrkc ds gokys ls fn;k gSA** \u00bcist 26&27\u00bd\n       \"The paper nos. 107C-1\/109 to 110, mentioned by\nme in para-17 of my affidavit, are not the references of the\npages of that book and possibly this paper number has\nbeen mentioned inadvertently. I do not know whether the\nfamous British surveyor Montgomery Martin, who wrote\nthe book 'History, Antiquities, Topography, Statistics of\nEast India Vol.-II' in the year 1838, was posted in Awadh\nor elsewhere. In those days, many surveyors like\nMontgomery Martin were posted at many places in India\nas surveyor. ... The British surveyor Montgomery Martin\nwas basically not a historian, but the book written by him\nis considered important from historical point of view. In\nthis book of his, Montgomery Martin has referred that in\n                                                                       1551\n\n        the yaer 1528 Babar had demolished Ramjanmbhumi\n        temple and built a mosque at that very place. ... The\n        contention in para-17 of my affidavit regarding demolition\n        of temple by Babar and building of mosque in its place, is\n        based on the book written by Montgomery Martin, whose\n        excerpt is at page 107C-1\/109, and my statement of the day\n        is also based on that very book.\" (E.T.C)\n1386.       O.P.W.12 Kaushal Kishor Mishra in his cross\nexamination has said:\n               ^^esjh Le`fr vc cgqr vPNh ugha gSA ikap &N% lky ls esjh Le`fr\n        detksj gks xbZ gSA*^ \u00bcist 114\u00bd\n               \"Now my memory is not very good. My memory has\n        weakened for five-six years.\" (E.T.C.)\n               ^^bl eafUnj dks ehj ckdh uke ds ,d lsukifr us rqM+ok;k Fkk\n        vkSj efLtn dk fuekZ.k djk;k FkkA ehjckdh ml le; eqxy lezkV\n        ckcj ds lsukifr FksA ;g efLtn fdrus lkS lky igys ehjckdh us\n        cuok;h bldh tkudkjh esjs firk o ckck th dks Fkh ysfdu eq>s Lej.k\n        ugha gSA** \u00bcist 118&119\u00bd\n               \"This temple was demolished and a mosque was\n        erected in its place by a commander called Mir Baqi. Mir\n        Baqi was at that time commander of Emperor Babur. How\n        many years ago this mosque had been constructed, was\n        known to my father and grandfather; but I do not have any\n        recollection of it.\" (E.T.C.)\n1387.      Most of the above witnesses are not experts yet what\ndiscern undoubtedly that everybody's impression and opinion\nabout the period of construction is based on inscriptions and\nnothing else. Therefore, scrutiny and study on inscription\nbecome vital.\n1388.       The written material which throws some light on this\naspect consists of Gazetteers (published from time to time);\n                                                                 1552\n\nsettlement and survey reports; History books and certain other\nbooks pertaining to the disputed site\/building though strictly\nspeaking not written by well known historians but those persons\nclaim to have collected information on the basis of their own\ninquiry or investigation etc. or had acquired knowledge in the\ncapacity in which they were working or otherwise or due to the\ninterest   generated   in   the   matter    after   dispute   spread\ncountrywide. We would place on record what has been said in\nsuch published material and also consider their credibility etc.\nsimultaneously.\nGazetteers-Settlement\/Survey Reports:\n1389.       'Gazetteers', mostly published in 19th and 20th\ncentury during the pre-independence period, and, one after\nindependence, published under the auspices of U.P. Government\nand another by the Government of India are the documents\nheavily relied in these cases. It is not in dispute that 'Gazetteers'\nare not the documents published under some statutory provision.\nIn order to understand their evidenciary value and authority we\nhave to first consider what 'Gazetteer' means.\n1390.       Learned counsels have placed before us a printout\ntaken from internet from the site \"Wikipedia, the free\nencyclopedia\" under the heading \"Gazetteer\". It says that a\n'gazetteer' is a geographical dictionary or directory, an important\nreference for information about places and place names, used in\nconjunction with a map or a full Atlas. It geographically\ncontains information concerning the geographical makeup of a\ncountry, regions or continent as well as the social statistics and\nphysical features such as mountains, waterways, or roads.\nExamples of information provided by gazetteers include the\nlocation of places, dimensions of physical features, population,\n                                                             1553\n\nliteracy rate, etc. The \"Oxford Dictionary\" defines the\n\"gazetteer\" as a geographical index or dictionary. It refers to a\ndocument published by British Historian \"Laurence Echard\" in\n1693 bears the title \"Gazetteer's or Newman's Interpreter: Being\na Geographical Index\". Echard wrote that the title \"gazetteers\"\nwas suggested to him by a very eminent person whose name\nwas not disclosed. The next part was published by Echard in\n1704 as \"the Gazetteer simply\". This is considered to be the\nintroduction by the word gazetteer into the English language. It\nis said that since 18th century the word gazetteer has been used\ninterchangeably to define either its traditional maning (i.e., a\ngeographical dictionary or directory) or a daily news paper such\nas London Gazetteer. Tracing the history of gazetteer\nWikipedia, the free encyclopedia says:\n           \"Gazetteers of ancient Greece existed since the\n     Hellenistic era. The first known gazetteer of China\n     appeared by the 1st century, and with the age of print\n     media in China by the 9th century, the Chinese gentry\n     became invested in producing gazetteers for their local\n     areas as a source of information as well as local pride.\n     Although existent only in fragments, the geographer\n     Stephanus of Byzantium wrote a geographical dictionary in\n     the 6th century which influenced later European compilers\n     of gazetteers by the 16th century. Modern gazetteers can be\n     found in reference sections of most libraries as well as on\n     the Web.\n           In his journal article \"Alexander and the Ganges\"\n     (1923), the 20th century historian W.W. Tarn calls a list\n     and description of satrapies of Alexander's Empire written\n     between 324 and 323 BC as an ancient gazetteer. Tarn\n                                                       1554\n\nnotes that the document is dated no later than June 323\nBC, since it features Babylon as not yet partitioned by\nAlexander's generals. It was revised by the Greek historian\nDiodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. In the 1st century\nBC, Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentioned the chronicle-\ntype format of the writing of the logographers in the age\nbefore the founder of the Greek historiographic tradition,\nHerodotus (i.e. before the 480s BC), saying \"they did not\nwrite connected accounts but instead broke them up\naccording to peoples and cities, treating each separately.\"\nHistorian Truesdell S. Brown asserts that what Dionysius'\ndescribes in this quote about the logographers should be\ncategorized not as a true \"history\" but rather as a\ngazetteer. While discussing the Greek conception of the\nriver delta in ancient Greek literature, Francis Celoria\nnotes that both Ptolemy and Pausanias of the 2nd century\nAD provided gazetteer information on geographical terms.\n      Perhaps predating Greek gazetteers were those made\nin ancient Egypt. Although she does not specifically label\nthe document as a gazetteer, Penelope Wilson (PhD,\nLecturer in the Department of Archaeology at Durham\nUniversity) describes an ancient Egyptian papyrus found at\nthe site of Tanis, Egypt (a city founded during the\nTwentieth dynasty of Egypt) which provides the following\nfor each administrative area of Egypt at the time.\n      The Domesday Book initiated by William I of\nEngland in 1086 was a government survey on all the\nadministrative counties of England; it was used to assess\nthe properties of farmsteads and landholders in order to\ntax them sufficiently. In the survey, numerous English\n                                                         1555\n\ncastles were listed; scholars debate on exactly how many\nwere actually referenced in the book. However, the\nDomesday Book does detail the fact that out of 3,558\nregistered houses destroyed in 112 different boroughs\nlisted, 410 of these destroyed houses were the direct result\nof castle construction and expansion. In 1316, the Nomina\nVillarum survey was initiated by Edward II of England; it\nwas essentially a list of all the administrative subdivisions\nthroughout England which could be utilized by the state in\norder to assess how much military troops could be\nconscripted and summoned from each region. The\nSpeculum Britanniae (1596) of the Tudor era English\ncartographer and topographer John Norden (1548-1625)\nhad an alphabetical list of places throughout England with\nheadings showing their administrative hundreds and\nreferenced to attached maps. Englishman John Speed's\nTheatre of the Empire of Great Britaine published in 1611\nprovided gazetteers for counties throughout England,\nwhich included illustrative maps, short local histories, a\nlist of administrative hundreds, an index of parishes, and\nthe coordinates of longitude and latitude for county towns.\nStarting in 1662, the Hearth Tax Returns with attached\nmaps of local areas were compiled by individual parishes\nthroughout England while a duplicate of their records were\nsent to the central government offices of the Exchequer. To\nsupplement his 'new large Map of England' from 1677, the\nEnglish cartographer John Adams compiled the extensive\ngazetteer \"Index Villaris\" in 1680 that had some 24,000\nplaces listed with geographical coordinates coinciding with\nthe map. The \"Geographical Dictionary\" of Edmund Bohun\n                                                      1556\n\nwas published in London in 1688, comprising 806 pages\nwith some 8,500 entries. In his work, Edmund Bohun\nattributed the first known Western geographical dictionary\nto geographer Stephanus of Byzantium (fl. 6th century)\nwhile also noting influence in his work from the Thesaurus\nGeographicus (1587) by the Belgian cartographer\nAbraham Ortelius (1527-1598), but stated that Ortelius'\nwork dealt largely with ancient geography and not up-to-\ndate    information.   Only   fragments   of    Stephanus'\ngeographical work Ethnica (\u0395\u03b8\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac) have survived and\nwere first examined by the Italian printer Aldus Manutius\nin his work of 1502.\n       The Italian monk Phillippus Ferrarrius (d. 1626)\npublished    his   geographical    dictionary    \"Epitome\nGeographicus in Quattuor Libros Divisum\" in the Swiss\ncity of Zurich in 1605. He divided this work into overhead\ntopics of cities, rivers, mountains, and lakes and swamps.\nAll placenames, given in Latin, were arranged in\nalphabetical order for each overhead division by\ngeographic type;. A year after his death, his \"Lexicon\nGeographicum\" was published, which contained more than\n9,000 different entries for geographic places. This was an\nimprovement over Ortelius' work, since it included modern\nplacenames and places discovered since the time of\nOrtelius.\n       Pierre Duval (1618-1683), a nephew of the French\ncartographer Nicolas Sanson, wrote various geographical\ndictionaries. These include a dictionary on the abbeys of\nFrance, a dictionary on ancient sites of the Assyrians,\nPersians, Greeks, and Romans with their modern\n                                                          1557\n\nequivalent names, and a work published in Paris in 1651\nthat was both the first universal and vernacular\ngeographical dictionary of Europe. With the gradual\nexpansion of Laurence Echard's (d. 1730) gazetteer of\n1693, it too became a universal geographical dictionary\nthat was translated into Spanish in 1750, into French in\n1809, and into Italian in 1810.\n      Following the American Revolutionary War, United\nStates clergyman and historian Jeremy Belknap and\nPostmaster General Ebenezer Hazard intended to create\nthe first post-revolutionary geographical works and\ngazetteers, but they were anticipated by the clergyman and\ngeographer Jedidiah Morse with his Geography Made\nEasy in 1784. However, Morse was unable to finish the\ngazetteer in time for his 1784 geography and postponed it.\nYet his delay to publish it lasted too long, as it was Joseph\nScott in 1795 who published the first post-revolutionary\nAmerican gazetteer, his Gazetteer of the United States.\nWith the aid of Noah Webster and Rev. Samuel Austin,\nMorse finally published his gazetteer The American\nUniversal Geography in 1797. However, Morse's gazetteer\ndid not receive distinction by literary critics, as gazetteers\nwere deemed as belonging to a lower literary class. The\nreviewer of Joseph Scott's 1795 gazetteer commented that\nit was \"little more than medleys of politics, history and\nmiscellaneous remarks on the manners, languages and arts\nof different nations, arranged in the order in which the\nterritories stand on the map.\" Nevertheless, in 1802 Morse\nfollowed up his original work by co-publishing A New\nGazetteer of the Eastern Continent with Rev. Elijah Parish,\n                                                             1558\n\n        the latter of whom Ralph H. Brown asserts did the \"lion's\n        share of the work in compiling it.\"\n1391.      In 19th Century it is said that gazetteers were widely\npopular in Britain with publishers such as Fullarton, Mackenzie,\nChambers and W & A.K. Johnston, many of whom were\nScottish, meeting public demand for information on an\nexpanding Empire.\n1392.     The above discussion gives us an idea and broad feature\nof documents published and termed as \"Gazetteer\". There is\ndistinction between Gazette and Gazetteer. The British\nGovernment enacted \"Official Gazette Act, 1863\" (Act No.\nXXXI of 1863) and published various Gazettes thereunder. The\nGazetteer, as said about is not founded on a statute but being a\ndocument published under the authority or auspices of the\nGovernment, deserve much more reliability and confidence. It\nconstitute an important source of historical and other\ninformations in general and most authenticated data about the\nthen existing affairs.\n1393.         The extent to which informations contained in\nGazetters can be believed, relied and considered has been\nsubject matter of Courts time and again wherein the information\ncontained in the Gazetters has also been utilized in one or the\nother manner. Some of such cases may be referred as under. It\nappears that the consensus of the judicial opinion is that\ninformation contained in a Gazetteer can be considered but\ncarrectness thereof may need corrorroboration. It all depend on\nthe nature of dispute in every case.\n1394.         In Fulbati Kumari Vs. Maheshwari Prasad Singh\nAIR 1923 Patna 453 a Division Bench of Patna High Court\nrelied upon the Bengal District Gazetteer, Volume XVII in order\n                                                                  1559\n\nto gather some information about what happened at Dumri when\nCaptain Brown took over charge of the operations in the jungle\nterry tracts in 1774.\n1395.          In Sukhdev Singh Vs. Maharaja Bahadur of\nGidhaur AIR 1951 SC 288 Bengal District Gazetteer, Vol.\nXVII was referred and in para 10 the Apex Court held:\n         \"The statement in the District Gazetteer is not necessarily\n         conclusive, but the Gazetteer is an official document of\n         some value, as it is compiled by experienced officials with\n         great care after obtaining the facts from official records.\"\n1396.          In Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mahomed Jaffar\nHussein AIR 1954 SC 5 a dispute regarding management of a\nDarga known as Haji Malang came to be considered before the\nApex Court. The Darga had two tomb, one of a Hindu and\nanother of Muslim saint. The Court referred to the Gazetteer of\nBombay to find out the history which is said to have lost an\nantiquity and from the gazetteer it appears that a Muslim saint\ncame to India as an Urban missionary in 13th century and after\nhis death, he was buried in the said Darga. There was another\ntomb called Mayi's tomb where the body of a Hindu Raja's\ndaughter treated by Bawa Malang as his daughter was buried. In\nthe peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court\nobserved that such matter cannot be governed either by Hindu\nor Muslim law but should be governed by its own special\ncustoms or by general law of public religious and charitable\ntrust.\n1397.          In Chhote Khan & others Vs. Mal Khan & others\nAIR 1954 SC 575, the Court referred to Gazetteer Gurgaon\nDistrict (1910) with respect to the properties owned by Meos of\nFerozepore Tehsil and others villages in Gurgaon. It also\n                                                                 1560\n\nreferres to the settlement record of 1877 observing that it is an\nimportant document.\n1398.         In Biswambhar Singh & others Vs. State of Orissa\n& another AIR 1954 SC 139, the Court referred to Hunter's\nImperial Gazetter, Volume 4, page 478 which mentions certain\nfacts about the origin of Bhuyans as also the Settlement Report\nof 1907-1911.\n1399.         In   Commissioner      of    Income-tax     Vs.    Sri\nRamakrishna Deo AIR 1959 SC 239, the Court referred to the\nDistrict Gazetteer, Vishakhapatnam, 1907 in para 3 of its\njudgment.\n1400.         In State of Bihar & others Vs. Bhabapritananda\nOjha AIR 1959 SC 1073, the Court referred to Bihar District\nGazetteer relating to Santal Parganas, 1938.\n1401.         In Swami Motor Transports (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs.\nSri Sankaraswamigal Mutt & Anr. AIR 1963 SC 864 the\nCourt resorted to rely on \"Madras District Gazetteers, Madurai\"\nin respect to certain statistical data published therein in support\nof the claim of the State observing that this is the information\nfurnished from authorized Government publication.\n1402.         In Mahant Shri Srinivasa Ramanuj Das Vs.\nSurayan Dass & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 256 the Court said:\n        \"These statements in the Gazetteer are not relied on as\n        evidence of title but as providing historical material and\n        the practice followed by the Math and its head. The\n        Gazetteer can be consulted on matters of public history.\"\n1403.         In   Laxman     Siddappa     Naik    vs.   Kattimani\nChandappa Jampanna and others AIR<\/a> 1968 SC 929 the Apex\nCourt approved the consultation of Bombay Karnatak Gazetteer\nof 1893 and certain other similar documents to find out the\n                                                                 1561\n\ndistinguishing customs and manners of different tribes.\n1404.         Sri R.L.Verma, however, submits that in a suit\nwhere the question of title of temple or property is involved, it\ncannot be said to be a question of history and therefore, neither\nthe Gazetteers nor the report of Archaeological Survey etc. can\nbe an appropriate book of reference for deciding such a\ncontroversy and placed reliance on Farzand Ali Vs. Zafar Ali\n46 IC 119 where it is observed:\n              \"We are inclined to think that the use of the\n        historical works to establish title to the property cannot be\n        justified on the strength of Section 57 of the Indian\n        Evidence Act. The question of title between the trustee of a\n        mosque, though an old and historical institution, and a\n        private person, cannot, in our opinion, be deemed to be a\n        'matter of public history' within the meaning of the said\n        section.\"\n1405.         The submission, in our view, is totally misconceived\nand travels much beyond the point for which the various copies\nof gazetteers have been filed before us by the parties and in fact\nsome observations therefrom are also relied by Sri Verma. For\nthe purpose of historical events and fact as they were centuries\nago, the manner in which they have taken are detailed in the\ndocuments published under the authority of the then\nGovernment in the form of Gazetteers.\n1406.         Mahant Shri Srinivasa Ramanuj Das (supra)\ndictum has been followed in Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (Dead)\nVs. Nanilal Harakchand Shah (Dead) & Ors. 2002 (6) SCC\n404.\n1407.         The first gazetteer in respect to Indian sub-continent\ncame to be published in 1828 under the title \"East India\n                                                                1562\n\nGazetteer\" by Walter Hamilton (second edition reprint 1993\nby Low Price Publications, Delhi) containing particulars and\ndescriptions    of   the   Empires,    Kingdoms,     Principalities,\nProvinces, Cities, Towns, Districts, Fortresses, harbours, rivers,\nlakes and, C. of Hindostan and the adjacent Countries, India\nbeyond the Ganges and the eastern Archipelago.\n1408.        Hamilton's \"Gazetter\" of 1828 on page 353 under\nthe heading 'Oude' gives following information about Ayodhya :\n        \"Pilgrims resort to this vicinity, where the remains of the\n        ancient city of Oude, and capital of the great Rama, are\n        still to be seen; but whatever may have been its former\n        magnificence it now exhibits nothing but a shapeless mass\n        of ruins. The modern town extends a considerable way\n        along the banks of the Goggra, adjoining Fyzabad, and is\n        tolerably well peopled; but inland it is a mass of rubbish\n        and jungle, among which are the reputed site of temples\n        dedicated to Rama, Seeta, his wife, Lakshman, his\n        general, and Hanimaun (a large monkey), his prime\n        minister. The religious mendicants who perform the\n        pilgrimage to Oude are chiefly of the Ramata sect, who\n        walk round the temples and idols, bathe in the holy pools,\n        and perform the customary ceremonies.\"\n1409.       Thereafter Robert Montgomery Martin, for the first\ntime sought to contradict local belief or tradition about the\nperson who made construction by referring to an inscription on\nthe wall of the disputed building according to which it was the\nwork of the conqueror Babar falsifying the local tradition of its\nconstruction by Aurangzabe in his work \"The History,\nAntiquities, Topography and Statistics of Eastern India\"\n(1838 AD) (Ex. 20, Suit 5-Paper No.107C1\/109-110). The copy\n                                                                   1563\n\nof the book in all 6 volumes available to the Court is the first\nIndian reprint 1976 by Cosmo Publications, Delhi. The details\nof inscription referred to in the above passage have not been\ngiven. It says at page 334\/335, Vol.II, as under:\n        \".... if these temples ever existed, not the smallest trace of\n        them remains to enable us to judge of the period when they\n        were built; and the destruction is very generally attributed\n        by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurungzebe, to whom\n        also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Benares\n        and Mathura. What may have been the case in the two\n        latter, I shall not now take upon myself to say, but with\n        respect to Ayodhya the tradition seems very ill founded.\n        The bigot by whom the temples were destroyed, is said to\n        have erected mosques on the situations of the most\n        remarkable temples; but the mosque at Ayodhya, which is\n        by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of\n        being the most modern, is ascertained by an inscription on\n        its walls (of which a copy is given) to have been built by\n        Babur, five generations before Aurungzebe.\"\n1410.         Edward     Thornton    in   \"A    Gazetteer    of    the\nTerritories under the Government of the East-India\nCompany and of the native States on the Continent of India\",\nfirst published in 1858 (reproduced in 1993) by Low Price\nPublications, Delhi (Book No. 10) on page 739 (Paper\nNo.107C1-10 i.e. Ex.5 Suit 5) under the heading \"Oudh\"\nobserved as under:\n              \"According to native tradition, they were demolished\n        by Aurungzebe, who built a mosque on part of the site. The\n        falsehood of the tradition is, however, proved by an\n        inscription on the wall of the mosque, attributing the work\n                                                                 1564\n\n        to the conqueror Baber, from whom Aurungzabe was fifth\n        in descent. The mosque is embellished with fourteen\n        columns of only five or six feet in height, but of very\n        elaborate and tasteful workmanship, said to have been\n        taken from the ruins of the Hindoo fanes . . . . .\" (emphasis\n        added)\n1411.         We do not find from the above Gazetteer whether\nThornton himself had viewed the alleged inscription, whether\nthere was only one inscription or more than one and whether\nThornton was capable of himself reading Persian\/Arabic or the\nsaid information is based on secondary evidence, i.e.,\ninformation he might have received from somebody else whose\nauthenticity is also not known. To us it appear that the above\nobservations are founded on what has been noticed by Robert\nMontgomery Martin in \"The History, Antiquities, Topography\nand Statistics of Eastern India\" by Robort Montgomry\nMartin (Vol-II) (first published in 1838 AD) (Supra) (Ex. 20,\nSuit-5-Paper No. 107 C1\/109-110) where referring to the survey\nmade by the Dr. Buchanan, Martin referred the inscription and\ncontradicted local belief and tradition of demolition by\nAurangzeb and said that it must have been the work of Babar.\n1412.         However, from the words \"an inscription\", to us it\nappears that according to his information there existed only one\ninscription on the wall of the mosque which attributed the work\nto Emperor Babar.\n1413.         Then comes P. Carnegy's \"A Historical Sketch of\nTahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad\" (hereinafter referred to as\n\"P. Carnegy's Historical Sketch\"). He was an Officiating\nCommissioner and Settlement Officer at Faizabad and in 1967\nprepared the said report which was published in 1870. Copies\n                                                               1565\n\nof frontispiece, pages 5, 6, 7, 19, 20 and 21 have been filed as\npaper No.107C1\/17-23 i.e. Ex.49, Suit 5 (Register 20, page 35-\n47). Appendix-A containing the list of sacred places in and\nabout Ajudhia has been filed as Ex. A-10 (Suit4) (Register 16,\npages 67 to 78). With respect to construction of the disputed\nbuilding, on page 20 and 21 of the book, (Paper No.107C1\/22-\n23), P. Carnegy has said:\n           \"The Janamasthan and other temples.- It is locally\n     affirmed that at the Mahomedan conquest there were three\n     important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees attached, at\n     Ajudhia, which was then little other than wilderness. These\n     were the \"Janamasthan,\" the \"Sargadwar mandir\" also\n     known as \"Ram Darbar\" and the \"Tareta-ke-Thakur.\"\n           On the first of these the Emperor Babar built the\n     mosque which still bears his name, A.D. 1528. On the\n     second Aurangzeb did the same A.D. 1658-1707; and on\n     the third that sovereign, or his predecessor, built a mosque,\n     according to the well known Mahomedan principle of\n     enforcing their religion on all those whom they conquered.\n           Babar's mosque.- According to Leyden's memoirs of\n     Babar that Emperor encamped at the junction of the Serwa\n     and Gogra rivers two or three kos east from Ajudhia, on\n     the 28th March1528, and there he halted 7 or 8 days setting\n     the surrounding country. A well known hunting ground is\n     spoken of in that work, 7 or 8 kos above Oudh, on the\n     banks of the Surju. It is remarkable that in all the copies of\n     Babar's life now known, the pages that relate to his doings\n     at Ajudhia are wanting. In two places in the Babari mosque\n     the year in which it was built 935 H. corresponding with\n     1528 A.D. is carved in stone, along with inscriptions\n                                                                1566\n\n        dedicated to the glory of that Emperor.\n1414.         The reference of inscriptions in Carnegy's Historical\nSketch is also at page 27, Section VI under the heading\n\"Buildings\" at Serial Item 5 which states as under:\n        \"Babar's mosque with stone inscriptions in Ajudhia, date\n        A.D. 1528, and stone columns of infinitely greater\n        antiquity.\"\n1415.         Here Carnegy has referred two inscriptions on the\ndisputed building to infer that the same was constructed in 935\nHizra (corresponding with 1528 AD). He has also not said\nanything further. He also gave no details or the text of the\nalleged inscriptions.\n1416.         In \"Gazetteer of Oudh\" by Mr. W.C. Benett, C.S.,\nAssistant Commissioner (1877) (Book No. 11), the factum of\nthe construction of disputed building is given on page 6\/7 which\nis a virtual reproduction of what is said in P. Carnegy's\nHistorical Sketch (supra) as evident from the following:\n              \"The Janamasthan and other temples.--It is locally\n        affirmed that at the Muhammadan conquest there were\n        three important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees\n        attached, at Ajodhya, which was then little other than a\n        wilderness.   These   were    the   \"Janamasthan,\"      the\n        \"Swargaddwar mandir\" also known as \"Ram Darbar,\"\n        \"Treta-ke-Thakur.\"\n              On the first of these the Emperor Babar built the\n        mosque, which still bears his name, A.D. 1528. On the\n        second, Aurangzeb did the same, A.D. 1658 to 1707; and\n        on the third, that sovereign or his predecessors built a\n        mosque, according to the well-known Muhammadan\n        principle of enforcing their religion on all those whom they\n                                                                 1567\n\n        conquered.\n              Babar's mosque.--According to Leyden's Memoirs of\n        Babar, that Emperor encamped at the junction of the Serwa\n        and Gogra rivers two or three kos east from Ajodhya, on\n        the 28th March 1528, and there he halted seven or eight\n        days, settling the surrounding country. A well-known\n        hunting ground is spoken of in that work, seven or eight kos\n        above Oudh, on the banks of the Sarju. It is remarkable\n        that in all the copies of Babar's life now known, the\n        pages that relate to his doings at Ajodhya are wanting.\n        In two places in the Babari Mosque, the year in which it\n        was built, 935 H., corresponding with 1528 A.D., is\n        carved in stone, along with inscriptions dedicated to the\n        glory of that Emperor.\n              If Ajodhya was then little other than a wilderness, it\n        must at least have possessed a fine temple in the\n        Janamasthan; for many of its columns are still in\n        existence and in good preservation, having been used by\n        the Musalmans in the construction of the Babari\n        Mosque. These are of strong, close-grained, dark-colored\n        or black stone, called by the natives kasauti (literally\n        touch-stone slate,) and carved with different devices. To my\n        thinking these more strongly resemble Buddhist pillars\n        than those I have seen at Benares and elsewhere. They are\n        from seven to eight feet long, square at the base, centre and\n        capital, and round or octagonal intermediately.\" (emphasis\n        added)\n1417.     Next is the \"Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh\" Vol. I\n(three volumes in one) published by Low Price Publications,\nDelhi (first published in 1877-78) (reprinted in LPP 1993)\n                                                                1568\n\n(Book No. 11). Copy of pages No.6 and 7 of the aforesaid\nGazetteer have been filed as Papers No.107C1\/25-26 i.e. Ex.7,\nSuit-5 (Register 20, Page 51-53). The 'introduction' of the above\ngazetteer has been written by Mr. W.C. Benett, C.S., Assistant\nCommissioner. Therefore, to us it appears that the above\ngazetteer was prepared by or under the supervision of Mr.\nBenett who might have been assisted with a number of other\noffers contributing write ups on different items. On page\nXXXIX, chapter I, \"Introduction\", it says:\n              \"The great Afghan captains whom that prince\n        defeated in Oudh have left no representatives, and the four\n        pages describing the events which attended his entry to\n        Ajodhya, where it is possible that the Hindu chiefs rallied\n        round the centre of their religion, are missing from all the\n        known copies of his memoirs. The only record remaining\n        is an ancient mosque, which preserves the invader's\n        name on the holiest spot of all--the birthplace of\n        Rama.\"\n1418.         Thereafter on page 6\/7, under the headings \"The\nJanamasthan and other temples\" and \"Babar's mosque\" it\nmentions about the inscriptions at two places in the disputed\nbuilding to show the period of construction and the person by\nwhom it was constructed. It is again a repetition of what was\nsaid in P. Carnegy's Historical Sketch (supra) and there is no\nsubstantial difference therein:\n              \"The Janamasthan and other temples--It is locally\n        affirmed that at the Muhammadan conquest there were\n        three important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees\n        attached, at Ajodhya, which was then little other than a\n        wilderness.   These    were    the   \"Janamasthan\"      the\n                                                                1569\n\n        \"Swargaddwar mandir\" also known as \"Ram Darbar,\"\n        \"Treta-ke-Thakur\".\n              On the first of these the Emperor Babar built the\n        mosque, which still bears his name, A.D. 1528. On the\n        second, Aurangzed did the same, A.D. 1658 to 1707; and\n        on the third, that sovereign or his predecessors built a\n        mosque, according to the well-known Muhammadan\n        principle of enforcing their religion on all those whom they\n        conquered.\"\n              Babar's mosque--According to Leyden's Memoirs of\n        Babar, that Emperor encamped at the junction of the Serwa\n        and Gogra rivers two or three kos east from Ajodhya on\n        the 28th March 1528, and there he halted seven or eight\n        days, settling the surrounding country. A well-known\n        hunting ground is spoken of in that work, seven or eight kos\n        above Oudh, on the banks of the Sarju. It is remarkable\n        that in all the copies of Babar's life now known, the pages\n        that relate to his doings at Ajodhya are wanting. In two\n        places in the Babari Mosque, the year in which it was\n        built, 935 H. corresponding with 1528 A.D. is carved in\n        stone, along with inscriptions dedicated to the glory of\n        that Emperor.\"\n1419.      \"Report on the settlement of the Land Revenue of the\nFyzabad District\", (Book No. 18) by A.F. Millett, C.S.,\nOfficiating Settlement Officer, published by North Western\nProvinces and Oudh Government press, Allahabad in 1880\n(hereinafter referred to as \"Millet's report, 1880\"). The book on\nthe very first page mentions that it contains partly, reports and\nnotes of P. Carnegy, late Settlement Officer, and J. Woodborn,\nlate Officiating Settlement Officer. Copies of the frontispiece as\n                                                                1570\n\nwell as page No.218, 231, 235 and 236 have been filed as Paper\nNo.107C1\/27-30A i.e. Ex.8, Suit-5 (Register Vol.20 Pages 55-\n62).\n1420.      Here also reference of the disputed building, the period\nof its construction by Emperor Babar is in the same language as\nstated in P. Carnegy's Historical Sketch (supra) and there is no\nsubstantial difference in the two except of some addition as is\nevident from para 666 and 667, read as under:\n              \"666. The Janmasthan and other temples.- It is\n        locally affirmed that at the Mahomedan conquest there\n        were three important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees\n        attached, at Ajudhya, which was then little other than a\n        wilderness.   These    were    the    \"Janmasthan,\"     the\n        \"Sargadwar mandir,\" also known as \"Ram Darbar,\" and\n        \"Tareta-Ke-Thakur.\" On the first of these the Emperor\n        Baber built the mosque which still bears his name, A.D.\n        1528; on the second Aurangzeb did the same, A.D. 1658-\n        1707; and on the third that sovereign, or his predecessor,\n        built a mosque according to the well-known Mahomedan\n        principle of enforcing their religion on all those whom they\n        conquered. The Janmasthan marks the place where\n        Ramchandar was born. The Sargadwar is the gate\n        through which he passed into Paradise, possibly the spot\n        where his body was burned. The Tareta-Ke-Thakur was\n        famous as the place where Rama performed a great\n        sacrifice, and which he commemorated by setting up there\n        images of himself and Sita.\n              \"667. Babar's mosque.- According to Leyden's\n        Memoirs of Babar, that emperor encamped at the junction\n        of the Serwu and Gogra rivers, two or three kos east from\n                                                               1571\n\n        Ajudhya, on the 28th March, 1528, and there he halted\n        seven or eight days, settling the surrounding country. A\n        well-known hunting-ground is spoken of in that work, seven\n        or eight kos above Oudh, on the banks of the Sarju. It is\n        remarkable that in all the copies of Babar's life now known\n        the pages that relate to his doings at Ajudhya are wanting.\n        In two places in the Babari mosque the year in which it\n        was built, 935 H., corresponding with 1528 A.D., is\n        carved in stone, along with inscriptions dedicated to the\n        glory of that emperor.\"\n1421.      Next comes \"Barabanki: A gazetteer being Volume\nXLVIII of the District Gazetteer of the United Provinces of\nAgra and Oudh\" compiled and edited by H.R. Nevill, I.C.S.,\nprinted by F. Luker, Supdt., Government Press, United\nProvinces, Allahabad in 1904 (hereinafter referred to as\n\"Nevill's Barabanki Gazetteer 1904\"). Copy of pages No.168-\n169 have been filed as Paper No.107C1\/40-41; Ex.52, Suit-5.\nHe does not refer to any inscription etc. but while describing\nHindu Muslim clash said to have occurred in 1853, he observed:\n        \"The cause of the occurrence was one of the numerous\n        disputes that have sprung up from time to time between the\n        Hindu priests and the Musalmans of Ajodhya with regard\n        to the ground on which formerly stood the Janamasthan\n        temple, which was destroyed by Babar and replaced by a\n        mosque.\"\n1422.       In \"Fyzabad-a Gazetteer being Vol. XLIII of the\nDistrict Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and\nOudh\" by H.R. Nevill published in 1905 (Book No. 4)\n(hereinafter referred to as \"Fyzabad Gazetteer, 1905\"), page\n173 refers to two inscriptions with the details of their place of\n                                                              1572\n\ninstallation:\n                \"Ajodhya is pre-eminently a city of temples, and\n      apart from these there are but few points of interest in the\n      place. Not all of these places of worship are connected with\n      the Hindu religion. There are six Jain shrines which have\n      been already mentioned in Chapter III in connection with\n      Jainism in this district; and there are also the Musalman\n      mosques and tombs. It is locally affirmed that at the time\n      of the Musalman conquest there were three important\n      Hindu shrines at Ajodhya and little else. These were the\n      Janamasthan temple, the Swargaddwar, and the Treta-\n      ka-Thakur, and each was successively made the object\n      of attention of different Musalman rulers. The\n      Janamsthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace\n      of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ajodhya and\n      halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple\n      and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar'\n      mosque. The materials of the old structure were largely\n      employed, and many of the columns are in good\n      preservation; they are of close grained black stone,\n      called by the natives Kasauti, and carved with various\n      devices. Their length is from seven to eight feet, and the\n      shape square at the base, centre and capital, the rest being\n      round or octagonal. The mosque has two inscriptions, one\n      on the outside and the other on the pulpit; both are in\n      Persian and bear the date 935 Hijri. Of the authenticity of\n      the inscriptions there can be no doubt, but no record of the\n      visit to Ajodhya is to be found in the Musalman historians.\n      It must have occurred about the time of his expedition to\n      Bihar.\" (emphasis added)\n                                                                 1573\n\n        The copy of the frontispiece and pages No.172, 173, 171,\n175, 176 and 177 have been filed as paper No.107C1\/42-48;\nEx.11, Suit-5; Register Vol.20 page 85-97.\n\n1423.       Next is \"Imperial Gazetteer of India--Provincial\nSeries--United Provinces of Agra and Oudh\"-Vol. II (1908)\n(Book No. 16) published by Superintendent of Government\nPrinting Calcutta, where at page 388-389 (Ex.10 Suit-5; Paper\nNo.107C1\/37-39) it says:\n              \"At one corner of a vast mound known as Ramkot,\n        or the fort of Rama, is the holy spot where the hero was\n        born. Most of the enclosure is occupied by a mosque\n        built by Babar from the remains of an old temple, and in\n        the outer portion a small platform and shrine mark the\n        birthplace. Close by is a larger temple in which is shown\n        the cooking-place of Sita, the faithful wife of Rama. A lofty\n        temple stands on the bank of the Gogra at the place where\n        Lakshmana bathed; and Hanuman, king of the monkeys, is\n        worshipped in a large temple in the town, approached by\n        an immense flight of steps, which bears the name Hanuman\n        Garhi. Other noticeable temples built during the eighteenth\n        and nineteenth centuries are the Kanakbhawan, a fine\n        building   erected   by   a   Rani    of   Tikamgarh,    the\n        Nageshwarnath temple, Darshan Singh's temple, and a\n        small marble temple built by the present Maharaja,\n        Ajodhya also contains a number of Jain temples, five of\n        which were built in the eighteenth century to mark the\n        birthplaces of the five heirarchs who are said to have been\n        born at Ajodhya. Besides the mosque of Babar, two\n        ruined mosques, built by Aurangzeb, stand on the sites\n        of celebrated Hindu shrines--the Swargadwara, where\n                                                              1574\n\n        Rama's body was cremated, and the Treta-ka-Thakur,\n        where he sacrificed.\" (emphasis added)\n1424.      The above gazetteer only refers the name of Emperor\nBabar that he constructed disputed building but neither the\nperiod nor the basis of such information is mentioned.\n1425.        H.R. Nevill, I.C.S., published another gazetteer in\n1928 under the title \"Fyzabad: A Gazetteer being Vol. XLIII\nof the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and\nOudh\". Copy of the frontispiece and pages no.178, 179, 180\nand 181 have been filed as Paper No.107C1\/49-53 (Register 20,\npages 99-107). In the preface written by Nevill in February,\n1905 he said that in the earlier gazetteer of the province of\nOudh, articles dealing with District Fyzabad and its various\nother divisions, towns and villages were taken almost wholly\nfrom the valuable and defuse Settlement Report of Mr. A.F.\nMillett, which embodied a large proportion of the remarkable\nnotes and reports of Mr. Patrick Carnegy and the late Sri John\nWoodburn. These contain much that is now obsolete and still\nmore of a purely traditional and speculative character. After\ncollecting fresh materiel he found the necessity of publication of\nthe said gazetteer. Chapter V deals with 'History'. For the\npresent purpose we are confining to that part of the Gazetteer\nwhich deals with the period of construction of the disputed\nstructure. On pages 151-152 the facts about the first Muslim\ninvasion of Oudh is mentioned as under:\n             \"The first Musalman invasion of Oudh was,\n        according to the popular tradition, that of Saiyid Salar\n        Masaud. The Mirat-i-Masaudi states that the youthful\n        invader went from Multan to Ajodhya, where, after taking\n        the city without a struggle, he remained hunting for some\n                                                                  1575\n\n        time and then set out for Delhi in 1030 A.D. The route\n        taken is remarkable and the story must be confused in some\n        manner. There is no mention of his passing through\n        Ajodhya on his march from Satrikh to Bahraich, where he\n        met his death; but popular legend steps in to fill the gap.\"\n1426.       The above narration is sought to be supported by\nreferring to the \"History of India-As told by its own\nHistorians\" by Sir H.M. Elliot and John Dowson, Vol. II, page\n531. We have with us all the eight volumes of the book of Elliot\nand Dowson which was first published in 1866-1877 and\nreprinted in 1990, 1996, 2001 and 2008. In the appendix\nChapter III which starts from page 528 of Vol. II it appears that\nSalar Masud son of Sultan Mahmud Subuktagin came to India\nby crossing the river Indus. Having conquest Multan he led his\narmy against 'Ajudhan'. A few lines from page 530-531 of\nElliot and Dowson's book are as under:\n              \"The rainy season had now set in, so they remained\n        at Multan the next four months. After the rains, Mas'ud led\n        his army against Ajudhan. Although, in those days, that\n        place and its vicinity was thickly peopled, it was subdued\n        without a struggle. Mas'ud was delighted with the climate\n        of Ajudhan, and as, moreover, it was a good sporting\n        country, he remained there till the end of the following\n        rains, when he set off for Delhi.\"\n1427.     On page 530, footnote, the authors (Elliot and Dowson)\nhave said:\n              \"Ajudha or Ayodhya is the old form of the name\n        Oudh. The scene of Mas'ud's later exploits is laid in the\n        neighbourhood of Oudh.\"\n1428.        This narration claims to be an English translation of\n                                                                1576\n\n\"Mir-at-i-Masaudi\" written by Abdu-r Rahman Chishti. On page\n513 the editor of the book \"History of India\" has mentioned\nabout the author and the book \"Mir-at-i-Masaudi\" as well the\nfollowing facts in order to enhance the degree of reliability on\nthe aforesaid work in respect to life story of Salar Masaud:\n            \"This is professedly a life of Mas'ud the Ghaznivide,\n      and finds an appropriate place here after the story books.\n      The author of this extraordinary work was by name' Abdu-r\n      Rahman Chirsti. He explains the motives which impelled\n      him to its composition, and the sources of his information\n      after the following manner: \"The history of the King of\n      Martyrs, Salar Mas'ud, the facts of his birth, of his coming\n      to Hindustan, and of his martyrdom, are told by different\n      men in various ways, which have not found a place in any\n      historical work of repute. The writer had long endeavoured\n      to ascertain the real facts; and, after much research he\n      obtained possession of an old book written by Mulla\n      Muhammad Ghaznawi. This man was servant of Sultan\n      Mahmud Subuktigin. He was also in the service of Salar\n      Sahu, and of the Prince of Martyrs, whom he survived. The\n      writer perused this old book from beginning to end with the\n      greatest pleasure, and the doubts which he had entertained\n      were dispelled. The book was very long, it entered into\n      details about the wars of Sultan Mahmud, and Salar Sahu,\n      mentioning incidentally here and there the King of\n      Martyrs, and closing with an account of his martyrdom.\n      Several of the beloved friends and attendants of the Martyr\n      Sultan, in the abodes of the blessed, have urged the writer\n      to the task which he has undertaken; but no one has made\n      the same demand on behalf of Sultan Mahmud. It therefore\n                                                                 1577\n\n        seemed expedient to him that he should select and commit\n        to writing all that related to the Martyr King. He would\n        not, however, have been able to succeed, even in this,\n        without the directions he graciously received from the\n        spirit of the departed. When he had set about his selection,\n        and had engaged earnestly in the work, one night the spirit\n        of the deceased martyr appeared to the writer in a vision,\n        and most condescendingly expressed, with his blessed\n        tongue, his approval of the work. Being thus graciously\n        honoured, the author humbly replied that he had begun the\n        work, and begged for assistance wherever his narration\n        might be too high, or too low, too short, or too long. The\n        spirit, with great affability, directed the author to write,\n        and that he would attend to him and assist him. The present\n        work is the result, to which the author has given the name\n        Mir-at-i Mas'udi. May the reader of it also be (mas'ud)\n        blessed. This is the author's prayer. The biography of the\n        King of Martyrs having been derived from the aforesaid\n        history, is here related in five chapters (dastans). Sundry\n        incidents, and miraculous statements, which have been\n        found in trustworthy books, have been selected, and, after\n        being verified by oral communications with the author's\n        spiritual visitors, have been inserted in the present work.\"\n1429.     The editor of \"History of India\" thereafter has termed\nthe book as a historical romance and says that the book mainly\nseems to rest on the last word \"Tawarikh-i-Mahmudi\" of Mulla\nMuhammad Ghaznawi but at places it is difficult to rely on the\nnarration. We do not find it expedient to go further except to\npoint out that in all the subsequent Gazetteers, this history of\ninvasion of Ayodhya by \"Syed Salar Masud\" has been followed\n                                                                           1578\n\nreferring to Elliot and Dowson's \"History of India\" Vol. II page\n530\/531 where the learned authors got confused by identifying\n\"Ajudhan\" as \"Ayodhya\" though the two are different places.\n\"Ajudhan\" was a place in \"Punjab\" while \"Ayodhay\" is much\nfar therefrom. This mistake unfortunately has continued in a lot\nof History books also which have been published until recently.\n1430.          Dr. T.P. Verma, Historian and author of the book\n\"Ayodhya Ka Itihas Evam Puratatva\" (Exhibit 3-Suit 5)\n(Book No. 141) who has also written the same fact at page\n110\/111 in his above titled book, in his cross examination has\nadmitted this error. He admits that \"Salar Masud\" never came\nto \"Ayodhya\" and he has wrongly mentioned the same in his\nbook as is evident from the following:\n               ^^bl ckr dh lEHkkouk de gS fd 11oha 'krkCnh esa v;ks\/;k esa\n        eqlyekuksa dh vkcknh jgh gksxhA lkykj elwn ds lSfud vf\/kdkjh\n        [oktk feV~Bs 1032 bZLoh ds djhc v;ks\/;k esa vk;s jgs gksxsaA esjs fopkj\n        ls v;ks\/;k dh lcls iqjkuh efLtn ogh efLtn Fkh] tks ckcjh efLtn\n        dgh tkrh FkhA ---13oha ls 17 oha 'krkCnh ds chp esa v;ks\/;k dh x.kuk\n        Hkkjr o\"kZ ds cM+s 'kgjksa esa gksrh Fkh] tks vkt dh v;ks\/;k ls cM+h jgh\n        gksxhA ml le; QStkckn uke dk dksbZ 'kgj ugha FkkA --- fejkrs &\n        elwnh esa 10 & 12 jktkvksa ds uke fn;s gSa ijUrq ;g ugha fn;k x;k gS\n        fd v;ks\/;k esa ml le; jktk dkSu FkkA** \u00bcist 347&348\u00bd\n               \"There is least probability that Muslim populace\n        may have existed in Ayodhya in the 11th century. Salar\n        Masood's army officer Khwaja Miththe may have visited\n        Ayodhya around 1032 AD. In my view, the oldest mosque\n        in Ayodhya was the same mosque, which was called Babri\n        mosque ... Ayodhya was considered to be a major city of\n        India between 13th to 17th century, which was bigger than\n        Ayodhya of today. At that time there was no city named\n        Faizabad. ... The Mirate-Masoodi contains names of 10-12\n                                                                    1579\n\nkings, but it has not been given as to who was the king at\nthat time.\" (E.T.C)\n       ^^xokg us viuh iqLrd izn'kZ vks0vks0,l0 5 &3 ds ist 158 ds\nf}rh; dkye dks ns[kdj dgk fd ;g okD; fd ^^blds iwoZ mlus\nlrj[k \u00bclkdsr vFkok v;ks\/;k\u00bd esa Msjk Mkyk Fkk**] dFku xyr gS]lgh\nugha gS] vkSj ,slk dksbZ o.kZu ehjkr&,&elwnh esa ugha feyrk gSA\n^^ehjkr&,&elwnh** esa lrj[k esa Msjk Mkyus dh ckr dgh x;h gS] ysfdu\n;g lrj[k] lkdsr ;k v;ks\/;k gS ;g ckr lgh ugha gSA lrj[k\n\u00bclrfj[k\u00bd QStkckn vkSj ckjkcadh ds chp esa fLFkr ,d LFkku dk uke gS\ntks vo\/k {ks= esa iM+rk gSA ftldh nwjh orZeku v;ks\/;k ls 50 ehy ls\nvf\/kd gksxhA ---- {ks= ls esjk rkRi;Z u rks v;ks\/;k gS vkSj u lrfj[k\ncfYd blls esjk rkRi;Z lEiw.kZ vo\/k {ks= ls gSA** \u00bcist 349&350\u00bd\n       \"After looking at second column of page 158 of his\nbook, exhibit O.O.S 5-3, the witness stated that the\nsentence reading as 'prior to this he had camped at\nSatrakh (Saket or Ayodhya)' , is wrong and is not correct\nand no such reference is found in Mirat-e-masoodi. The\nMirat-e-masoodi mentions about camping at Satrakh, but it\nis not correct that this Satrakh is Saket or Ayodhya.\nSatrakh (Satrikh) is a place situated between Faizabad and\nBarabanki, which falls in Awadh area and whose distance\nwould be more than 50 miles from the present Ayodhya. ...\nBy area, I neither mean Ayodhya nor Satrikh and instead I\nmean the complete Awadh zone.\" (E.T.C)\n       ^^ehjkrs , elwnh esa lkykj elwn ds v;ks\/;kk vkus dh ckr ugha\ndgh x;h gS ;g eSa Lohdkj dj pqdk gwa ysfdu bl ckr dh lEHkkouk\nvHkh Hkh cuh gqbZ gS fd mlds lSfudksa dh fdlh Vksyh us tUe Hkwfe eafnj\ndks {kfr igqapkbZ gks D;ksafd vkt gh eSa FkksM+h nsj igys crk pqdk gwa fd\nguqeku x<+h esa lkykj elwn ds lSfud vf\/kdkjh [oktk feV~Bs dh dcz\ngksus dh ckr dgh gSA** \u00bcist 350\u00bd\n       "The Mirat-e-masoodi nowhere mentions about\n                                                                      1580\n\nSalar Masood visiting Ayodhya. I have admitted this, but\nthis probability still exists that certain group of his soldier\nmay have caused damage to Janmbhumi temple because I\nhave stated a short while ago that the existence of the\ngrave of Khwaja Miththe,              an army officer of Salar\nMasood, has been claimed at Hanumangarhi." (E.T.C)\n        ^^[oktk feV~ B s dh dcz v;k s\/ ;k esa gk su s vFkok muds\nlkykj      elwn      ds     lS f ud   vf\/kdkjh      gk su s     dh   ckr\nehjkrs& ,&el wn h es a ugh a vkrh gS A 1955 esa fcgkj ls izdkf'kr\nguqeku x<+h dk bfrgkl** uked iqLrd ftlds ys[kd veR;Z & flag gSa]\nus bl ckr dk gokyk viuh iqLrd esa fn;k gS vkSj dgk gS fd [oktk\nfeV~Bs ds dcz dh ckr dks ,d b';w cuk;k x;k Fkk blh vk\/kkj ij eSaus\nv;ks\/;k esa elwn ds lsukvksa ds vkdze.k dh ckr vkSj mlds eafnjksa ds\n{kfrxzLr djus ds ckjs esa fy[kk gSA eSaus viuh iqLrd izn'kZ vks0vks0,l0\n5&3 esa veR;Z flag dh iqLrd ^6 guqeku x<+h ds bfrgkl dk gokyk\nugha fn;k gS vkSj u gh eSaus viuh iqLrd esa [oktk feV~Bs ds dcz ds gksus\ndk gokyk fn;k gSA** \u00bcist 351\u00bd\n        "The Mirat-e-masoodi neither mentions about\nexistence of the grave of Khwaja Miththe at Ayodhya nor\nabout he being an army officer of Salaar Masood. This fact\nhas been referred in the book titled 'Hanumangarhi Ka\nItihas', published in 1955 from Bihar and written by\nAmartya Singh, and it has been mentioned that the fact of\nKhwaja Miththe's grave had also been made an issue. On\nthis basis, I have written about Ayodhya's invasion by the\narmy of Masood and the destruction of its temples. In my\nbook, exhibit O.O.S 5-3, I have neither referred to Amartya\nSingh's book 'Hanumangarhi Ka Itihas'                         nor have I\nreferred     about        existence    of    grave        of     Khwaja\nMiththe."(E.T.C)\n        ^^Lo;a dgk fd ehjkr&,&elwnh dks bfrgkl dh iqLrd dk ntkZ\n                                                                      1581\n\n        ugha izkIr gSA bls fgLVksfjdy jksekal ;k ,sfrgkfld miU;kl dgk x;k\n        gS ftlesa rF; ,oa dYiukvksa dk [kqydj mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] ,slk\n        bfy;V ,.M Mkmlu us dgh gSA** \u00bcist 354\u00bd\n              "Stated on his own that the Mirat-e-masoodi is not\n        recognized as a history book. It is said to be historical\n        romance or historical novel, in which facts and\n        imaginations have been used liberally, which is so claimed\n        by Elliot and Dawson." (E.T.C)\n              ^^bl i`"B ij dze la0 5 ds uhps nh x;h fVIi.kh ls eSa vc bl\n        le; iwjh rjg lger ugha gwWaA --- xokg us viuh iqLrd ds i`"B 176\n        ds dze la0 21 ds uhps nh x;h fVIi.kh ds izFke okD;ka'k ^^lkykj elwn\n        ds vkdze.k ds yxHkx lkr n'kdksa ds ckn** dks ns[kdj dgk fd eS a vc\n        blls Hkh lger ugh a gwW aA ** \u00bcist 355&356\u00bd\n              "At present, I do not completely agree with the\n        comment contained below serial no.5 of this page. . . . . . . .\n        . . . . .After looking at part of the first sentence of the\n        comment under serial no.21 of page 176 of his book\n        reading as 'after about seven decades of invasion of Salar\n        Masood', the witness stated that now I do not agree with\n        this as well." (E.T.C)\n1431.         Now coming back to "Fyzabad Gazetteer 1928"\n(supra) page 155, it mentions:\n              "In 1528 Babar built the mosque at Ajudhya on the\n        traditional spot where Rama was born."\n1432.         Again in the later part a directory is appended and\ndeals with Ayodhya at page 179\/180, it says:\n              "It is locally affirmed that at the time of the\n        Musalman conquest there were three important Hindu\n        shrines at Ajodhya and little else. There were the\n        Janamsthan temple, the Swargaddwar and the Treta-ka-\n        Thakur, and each was successively made the object of\n                                                                   1582\n\n        attention of different Musalman rulers. The Janamasthan\n        was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In\n        1528 A.D. Babar came to Ajodhya and halted here for a\n        week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built\n        a mosque, still known as Babar's mosque. The materials of\n        the old structure were largely employed, and many of the\n        columns are in good preservation; they are of close-\n        grained black stone, called by the natives kasauti, and\n        carved with various devices. Their length is from seven to\n        eight feet, and the shape square at the base, centre and\n        capital, the rest being round or octagonal. The mosque\n        has two inscriptions, one on the outside and the other on\n        the pulpit; both are in Persian and bear the date 935\n        Hiji. Of the authenticity of the inscriptions there can be\n        no doubt, but no record of the visit to Ahodhya is to be\n        found in the Musalman historians. It must have occurred\n        about the time of his expedition to Bihar."\n1433.         Here also Nevill in the footnote has placed reliance\non Elliot and Dowson's "History of India" Vol. 4 page 283\nwhich is english translation of "Tuzak-I Babari" which is said to\nbe Leyden and Erskine's translation as per the preface of the\nbook. We have gone through the entire page 283 of the said\nbook but do not find any fact mentioned about the construction\nof disputed site or building mentioned therein.\n1434.         After   independence     under    the   authority     of\nGovernment of Uttar Pradesh (Revenue Department) District\nGazetteers of Uttar Pradesh in the revised form were published.\nThe "Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers-Faizabad" by Smt.\nEsha Basanti Joshi (Book No. 17) was published in 1960 printed\nat the Indian Press (Private) Ltd., Allahabad. Copy of the\n                                                               1583\n\nfrontispiece and pages No.34, 36, 46, 47, 352 and 354 have been\nfiled as paper No.107C1\/54-61 i.e. Ex.13, Suit-5 (Register 20,\npages 109-123). With reference to the construction of disputed\nbuilding by Babar and the period it says:\n        "The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the\n        birthplace of Rama. It seems that in 1528 A.D. Babur\n        visited Ayodhya and under his orders this ancient temple\n        was destroyed and on the site was built what came to be\n        known as Babur's mosque. The material of the old temple\n        was largely employed in building the mosque and a few of\n        the original columns are still in good preservations; they\n        are of cloe grained black stone (kasauti) bearing various\n        Hindu bas-reliefs (see Plate I), the outer beam of the main\n        structure being of sandal wood. The height of the columns\n        is seven to eight feet, the shape of the base, the middle\n        section and the capital is square, the rest being round or\n        octagonal. There are two inscriptions in Persian, one on\n        the outside and the other on the pulpit bearing the date\n        935 Hijri."\n1435.      Broadly, we find and in fact it is even admitted by Sri\nJilani that the sole basis for determining the period of\nconstruction of the disputed building and to co-relate it with\nEmperor Babar is\/are the inscription(s) said to be installed in the\ndisputed building referred to in certain Gazetteers etc. The text\nof these inscriptions have been given in different books which\nneeds threadbare scrutiny to find out whether the disputed\nbuilding was constructed in 1528 by or under the order of\nEmperor Babar is correct or not.\n1436.      The first document which has reproduced the text of\nsaid inscription(s) is the publication of Archaeological Survey\n                                                                                 1584\n\nof India titled as "The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur; with\nnotes on Zafarabad, Sahet-Mahet and Other Places in the\nNorth-Western Provinces and Oudh by A. Fuhrer; Original\nedition 1889 (reprinted in 1994) by the Director General\nArchaeological Survey of India, New Delhi (hereinafter referred\nto as "Fuhrer's Report"). This is edited by Z.A.Desai. Chapter-\nX thereof refers to the inscriptions i.e., no. XL; XLI; XLII found\nat Ayodhya and is supported with the inscriptions found by\nFuhrer at Ayodhya. It says that there were three inscriptions\nwherefrom he (Fuhrer) formed the opinion that the said building\nwas constructed at Ayodhya in A.H. 930, or A.D. 1523, by Mir\nKhan, on the very spot where the old temple Janam Asthanam\nof Ramachandra was standing.\n1437.         The inscription No. XL was over the central mihrab,\nwritten in Arabic characters and gives twice the Kalimah as\nunder:\n        \u202b\u0633\u0648\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u06c1\u202c\n               \u064f \u202b\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0651\u0644\u06c1 \u064f\u0645\u062d\u0651\u0645\u062f \u064e\u0631\u202c\n                                 \u0651\u202b\u0644 \u0627\u202c           \u202b\u0633\u0648\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u06c1\u202c\n                                                       \u064f \u202b\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0651\u0644\u06c1 \u064f\u0645\u062d\u0651\u0645\u062f \u064e\u0631\u202c\n                                                                         \u0651\u202b\u0644 \u0627\u202c\n         "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is His Prophet."\n                                        (English Translation by "the Author")\n1438.           Inscription No. XLI was found on the mimbar (right\nhand side of the disputed building) written in Persian poetry,\nthe metre being Ramal, in six lines:\n        \u202b\u0628\u0645\u0646\u0634\u0627\u06d2 \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u062e\u062f \u06cc\u0648 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u06ba\u202c\n        \u202b\u0628\u0634\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u06a9\u06c1 \u0628\u0627 \u06a9\u0627\u062e \u06af\u0631\u062f\u0648\u06ba \u0639\u0646\u0627\u06ba\u202c\n        \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u06a9\u0631\u062f\u06c1 \u0627\u06cc\u06ba \u062e\u0627 \u0646\u06c1 \u067e\u0627\u06cc\u062f\u0627\u0631\u202c\n        \u202b\u0627\u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0633\u0639\u0627\u062f\u062a \u0646\u0634\u0627\u0646 \u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u062e\u0627\u06ba\u202c\n        \u202b\u0628\u0645\u0627\u0646\u062f\u06c1 \u06c1\u0645\u06cc\u0634\u06c1 \u0686\u0646\u06cc\u06ba \u0628\u0627\u06cc\u0646\u0634\u202c\n        \u202b\u0686\u0646\u0627\u06ba \u0634\u06c1\u0631 \u06cc\u0627\u0631 \u0632\u0645\u06cc\u0646 \u0648 \u0632\u0645\u0627\u06ba\u202c\n        **1- cea'kk;s ckcj [kn;w tgka\n            c'kkus fd ck dk[k+ xjnwW buka\n        2- fcuk dnkZ&,&[+kku&,&ik;snkj\n                                                                                                   1585\n\n            vehjs lvknr fu'kka ehj [kka\n         3- cekun ges'kk pquka ckfu;'k\n            pquka 'kgfj;kjs t+ehuks t+eka**\n                                                                    (Hindi Transliteration)\n         **1- fo'o lezkV ckcj ds vkns'kkuqlkj vkdk'k tSls egy ds HkO; ds\n         lkFkA\n         2- lqn`<+ ?kj dk vk\/kkj j[kk HkkX;oku uokc ehj [kka usA\n         3- mldk ,slk laLFkkid vkSj i`Fkoh vkSj ;qx dk ,slk lezkV lnSo\n         ftfor jgsA"\n                                                                          (Hindi Translation)\n         "1. By order of Babar, the kind of the world,\n         2. This firmament-like, lofty,\n         3. Strong building was erected.\n         4. By the auspicious noble Mir Khan.\n         5. May ever remain such a foundation,\n         6. And such a king of the world."\n                                           (English Translation by "the Author")\n1439.              Inscription XLII was found above the entrance door\nof the disputed building written in Persian poetry, the metre\nbeing Ramal in ten lines. He further says that some characters of\nthe second and whole third lines are completely defaced:\n                                      \u202b\u0628\u0633\u0645 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u06c1 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d \u0670\u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u06cc\u0645\u202c\n\u202b\u0628\u0646\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0645 \u0627\u0646\u06a9\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u06c1\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4 \u06a9\u0646\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062f \u062e\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0644\u0642 \u0628\u0642\u0644\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0645 \u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0648\u062f\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c\n         \u202b\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u202c                                                    \u202b\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u202c\n         \u202b\u0632\u0645\u06cc\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u06ba \u0631\u0627 \u0686\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0648\u06ba \u0645\u062b\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0644 \u0634\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0627\u062f\u0645\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c             \u202b\u0686\u0646\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0627\u06c1 \u0634\u06c1\u0627\u06c1\u0646\u0634\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u06c1 \u0645\u0634\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u06c1\u0648\u0631 \u0627\u0642\u0644\u06cc\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0645\u202c\n         \u202b\u06a9\u062c\u062c\u06c1 \u062e\u0627\u0642\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0646 \u062f\u0648\u0644\u062c\u062c\u062a \u0648 \u0641\u0639\u0641\u062c\u062c\u0648\u0631 \u062b\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c              \u202b\u062f\u0631\u0627\u06ba \u062d\u0636\u062c\u062c\u0631\u062a \u06cc\u06a9\u062c\u062c\u06cc \u0645\u06cc\u062c\u062c\u0631\u06cc \u0645\u0639\u0638\u062c\u062c\u0645\u202c\n         \u202b\u06a9\u062c\u062c\u06c1 \u0646\u06c1\u0635\u062c\u062c\u062f \u0633\u062c\u062c\u06cc \u0628\u062c\u062c\u0648\u062f \u06be\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0631\u062a \u0628\u062c\u062c\u062f\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c                    \u202b\u0628\u0646\u062c\u062c\u0627\u06d2 \u0639 \u06c1\u062f \u062f\u06cc\u062c\u062c\u06ba \u062a\u0627\u0631\u06cc\u062c\u062c\u062e \u0645\u06cc\u0645\u062c\u062c\u0648\u06ba\u202c\n         \u202b\u0628\u0686\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062a\u0631\u0648 \u062a\u062e\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062a \u0628\u062e\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062a \u0632\u0646\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062f\u06af\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c                  \u202b\u062e\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062f\u0627\u06cc\u0627 \u062f\u0631 \u062c \u06c1\u0627\u06ba \u0628\u0627\u0634\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0627\u06c1 \u0628\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0627\u062f\u0627\u202c\n         \u202b\u06a9\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062f \u062f\u0631 \u062f\u0648\u0631 \u06af\u06cc\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062a\u06cc \u06a9\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0645\u0631\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c                   \u202b\u0641\u0634\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0646\u062f \u062f\u0631 \u062c \u06c1\u0627\u06ba \u0628\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u06af\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0644 \u062e\u06cc\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0631\u202c\n         \u202b\u06a9\u0632\u06cc\u062c\u062c\u062c\u06ba \u0645\u0633\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062f \u062d\u0635\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0631\u06cc \u06be\u0633\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062a \u0628\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c                   \u202b\u0645\u0634\u06cc\u0631\u0633\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0644\u0637\u0646\u062a \u062a\u062c\u062c\u062c\u062f\u0628\u06cc\u0631 \u0645\u0644\u06a9\u062c\u062c\u062c\u0634\u202c\n         \u202b\u06be\u0630\u0627\u0644\u0642\u0637 \u0639\u06c3 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0627\u0631\u06cc\u062e \u0648 \u0635\u0641\u062a \u0645\u0633\u062c\u062f \u0628\u062e\u0637 \u0646\u062d\u06cc\u0641 \u0639\u0628\u062f \u0636\u0639\u06cc\u0641 \u0641\u062a\u062d \u0627\u0644\u0644\u06c1 \u063a\u0648\u0631\u06cc\u202c\n                                                                                         1586\n\n\u202b\u0645\u062d\u0631\u0631\u202c\n^^fclfeYykfgjZgekfujZghe\n1- cukes vka fd--------------------------------\n      dqun [kkfyd+ cdyes tkosnkuh\n2- ---------------------------------------------------\n    -----------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
3- pquka ‘kkga’kgs e’kgwjs vd+yhe
\n    t+eha jk pwa felkyss ‘kknekuh
\n4- njka gt++jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt++e
\n    fd [k+kdk+u nkSyrks o Q+x+Qwjs&lkuh
\n5- fcuk;s egns nha rkjh[+ksa eSewa
\n      uqg ln lh cqon fgtjr cnkuh**
\n6- [kqnk;k gj tgka ck ‘kkg cknk
\n      cfp=ks r[+rks c[+rs ft+Unxkuh
\n7- Q+’kukn nj tgka ckcj xqys [k+Sj
\n    dqun nj nkSjs xsrh dkejkuh
\n8- eq’khjs lyrur rnchjs eqyd’k
\n    dt+ha efLtn fglkjs gLr ckuh
\n    gkt+y fdrvrqRrkjh[k+ o flQ+rs efLtn c&[k+rs ughQ+ vCns t+bZQ
\n    Q+rgqYykg x+kSjh eqgjZj^^
\n                                                            (Hindi Transliteration by Court)
\n^^1- ml gLrh ds uke ls tks ——————— mRifRrdrkZ mldks dye }kjk
\nvej dj nsrk gSA
\n2- ——————————–\n<\/p>\n
3- fo’o dk ,slk izfl} lezkV ftldk vfLrRo i`Fkoh ds fy;s izlUurk
\ndk mnkgj.k gSA
\n4- ml ‘kkgh njckj dk ,d fo’kky uokc gS tk [k+kd+ku \u00bcphuh ‘kkldksa
\ndh mikf\/k\u00bd tSlk lkSHkkX;o’k vkSj }rh; Q+x+dqj                                \u00bcphuh ‘kkldksa dh
\nmikf\/k\u00bd gSA
\n5- \/keZ ds bl egn \u00bcxgokjs vFkkZr efLtn\u00bd ds vk\/kkj dh ‘kq H k frfFk
\n930 fgtjh iz r hr djksA
\n6- ,s! [kqnk lalkj ds ckn’kkg ds lkFk mldk rkt] flagklu] HkkX; vkSj
\n                                                                         1587<\/span><\/p>\n
        thou lnSo ckdh jgs
\n        7- ckcj lezkV lalkj esa usfd;ksa ds iq”iksa dh o”kkZ djrk jgs vkSj mls
\n        lQ+yrk feyrh jgs
\n        8- ‘kklu dk lykgdkj vkSj ns’k dk iz’kkld tks bl efLtn ds fd+ys
\n        dk vk\/kkj j[kus okyk gSA
\n        frfFk dk ;g fdrk vkSj efLtn dk fooj.k fucZy xqyke QrgqYykg xkSjh
\n        ds dEt++ksj fyfi }kjk fy[kk x;kA^^
\n                                             (Hindi Translation by Court)
\n        “1.    In the name of God, the merciful, the element.\n<\/p>\n
        2.     In the name of him who ……; may God perpetually
\n        keep him in the world.\n<\/p>\n
        3.     ………..\n<\/p>\n
        4.     Such a sovereign who is famous in the world, and in
\n        person of delight for the world.\n<\/p>\n
        5.     In his presence one of the grandees who is another
\n        king of Turkey and China.\n<\/p>\n
        6.     Laid this religious foundation in the auspicious
\n        Hijra 930.\n<\/p>\n
        7.     O God ! May always remain the crown, throne and
\n        life with the king.\n<\/p>\n
        8.     May Babar always pour the flowers of happiness;
\n        may remain successful.\n<\/p>\n
        9.     His counsellor and minister who is the founder of
\n        this fort masjid.\n<\/p>\n
        10.    This poetry, giving the date and eulogy, was written
\n        by the lazy writer and poor servant Fath-allah-Ghorl,
\n        composer.”\n<\/p>\n
                                         (English Translation by Author)
\n1440.          After referring the aforesaid inscriptions and text,
\nFuhrer on page 68, Chapter X has made the following
\nobservations:\n<\/p>\n
                                                               1588<\/span><\/p>\n
        “The old temple of Ramachandra at Janamasthanam must
\n        have been a very fine one, for may of its columns have been
\n        used by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar’s
\n        masjid. These are of strong, close-grained, dark-coloured
\n        or black stone, called by the natives kasauti, “touch-stone
\n        slate,” and carved with different devices. They are from
\n        seven to eight feet long, square at the base, centre and
\n        capital, and round or octagonal intermediately.”<\/p>\n
1441.          The second extremely relied work is “Babur-
\nNama” by A.S. Beveridge (first published in 1921) (reprinted
\nin LPP 1989, 1997, 2000), two volumes in a single bound book
\n(Book No. 6). Besides the book itself, extract of some of the
\npages of the said book (of different editions) have also been
\nfiled by the parties which are exhibits as under:\n<\/p>\n
        (i)    Paper No. 78 A-2\/ 21-24 (Ex. J5, Suit-4) (Register
\n               Volume 13, page 39-45)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (ii)   Paper No. 87 B-1\/ 7 (Ex. J8, Suit-4)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (iii) Paper No. 87 B-1\/ 8 (Ex. J9, Suit-4)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (iv) Paper No. C2-163\/ 1-2 (Ex. J13, Suit-4) (Register
\n               Vol. 34 page no. 73-74)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (v)    Paper No. 43A1\/ 22-24 (Ex. T3, Suit-4) (Register
\n               Vol. 18 page 45-49)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (vi) Paper No. C2-156\/ 1-5 (Ex. Q2, Suit-5) (Register
\n               Vol. 34 page 37-45)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (vii) Paper No. 107C1\/ 71-74 (Ex.16, Suit-5) (Register
\n               20 page 145-159)
\n1442.          Appendix U at page LXXVII, LXXVIII and LXXIX
\nrefers to two such inscriptions, one inside the mosque and
\nanother outside the mosque. Photocopy of the aforesaid pages of
\nAppendix U have been placed on record as Exhibit T3 (Suit-4)
\n                                                                          1589<\/span><\/p>\n
(Paper No. 43A-1\/22-24), (Register 18 page 45-49). It appears
\nfrom Appendix U that she got the text of the two inscriptions
\nthrough the Deputy Commissioner of Fyzabad on an enquiry
\nmade by her husband about two inscriptions mentioned by
\nseveral Gazetteers said to be existed on the Babar mosque at
\nAyodhya. However, at the bottom, note 2, she says that while
\nreproducing the text a few slight changes in the turm of
\nexpression have been made for clearness sake. The text of the
\ninscription inside the mosque as quoted in Babar-Nama by
\nA.S. Beveridge is as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   \u202b\u0628\u0641\u0631\u0645\u0648\u062f\u06c1 \u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u06a9\u06c1 \u0639\u062f\u0644\u0634\u202c
\n                   \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u06cc\u0633\u062a \u062a\u0623 \u06a9\u0627\u062e \u06af\u0631\u062f\u0648\u06ba \u064f\u0645\u0644\u0642\u06cc\u202c
\n                   \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627 \u06a9\u0631\u062f \u0627\u06cc\u06ba \u064f\u0645\u06c1\u0628\u0637 \u064f\u0642\u062f\u0633\u06cc\u0627\u06ba\u202c
\n                   \u202b\u0627\u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0633\u0639\u0627\u062f\u062a \u0646\u0634\u0627\u0646 \u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc\u202c
\n                   \u202b\u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc \u0686\u0648 \u0633\u0627\u0644 \u0628\u0646\u0627\u06cc\u0634\u202c
\n                   \u202b\u0639\u06cc\u0627\u06ba \u0634\u062f \u06a9\u06c1 \u06af\u0641\u062a\u0645 \u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc\u202c
\n     **\u00bc1\u00bd cQjewn&,&’kkgs ckcj fd vny’k] fcukbLr ck&dk[k+ xjnwW
\n     eqykdh+A
\n     \u00bc2\u00bd fcuk dnZ&,&egcrs dqnfl;ka jk          vehjs lvknr fu’kka ehj ckd+h
\n     \u00bc3\u00bd cqon [kSjs ckd+h o lkys fcukb’k         v;ka ‘kqn pwa xqQre cqon [k+Sj
\n     ckd+h**
\n                                       (Hindi Transliteration by Court)
\n     **1- lezkV ckcj ds vkns’kkuqlkj ftldk U;k; ,d ,slh bekjr gS tks
\n     vkdk’k ds egy ls tk feyh gSA
\n     2- HkkX;oku uokc ehj ckd+h us Qfj’rksa ds mrjus ds bl LFkku dh
\n     vk\/kkj f’kyk j[khA
\n     3- blds vk\/kkj dk o”kZ pwafd ,d [kSj ckd+h \u00bc’kk’or HkykbZ\u00bd gSA vr% esjk
\n     ;g dFku Li”V gqvk **coqn [kSj ckd++h** \u00bc;g Hkyk dkjukek lnSo ckdh
\n     jgs\u00bd^^
\n                                 (Hindi Translation by Court)
\n     “(1) By the command of the Emperor Babur whose justice
\n                                                                            1590<\/span><\/p>\n
        is an edifice reaching up to the very height of the heavens.
\n        (2)    The good-hearted Mir Baqi built this alighting place
\n        of angles.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (3)    It will remain an everlasting bounty, and (hence) the
\n        date of its erection became manifest from my words: It will
\n        remain an everlasting bounty.” (E.T.C.)
\n1443.          The text of the inscription outside the mosque
\nquoted in Beveridge’s “Babar-Nama” is as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u062e\u0627\u0644\u0642 \u062c\u0645\u0644\u06c1 \u0639\u0627\u0644\u0645 \u0644\u0645\u06a9\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c      \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0645 \u0623\u0646\u06a9\u06c1 \u062f\u0627\u0646\u0627\u06be\u0633\u062a \u0627\u06a9\u0628\u0631\u202c
\n        \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0633\u0631\u0648\u0631 \u0627\u0646\u0628\u06cc\u0627\u0626 \u062f\u0648 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c      \u202b\u062f\u0631\u0648\u062f \u0645\u0635\u0637\u0641 \u0670\u06cc \u0628\u0639\u062f \u0627\u0632\u0633\u062a\u0627\u06cc\u0634\u202c
\n        \u202b\u0641\u0633\u0627\u0646\u06c1 \u062f\u0631 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u06ba \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u0642\u0644\u0646\u062f\u0631 \u06a9\u06c1 \u0634\u062f \u062f\u0631 \u062f\u0648\u0631\u06af\u06cc\u062a\u06cc \u06a9\u0627\u0645\u0631\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c
\n        **1- cukes vkafd nkuk gLr vdcj
\n        fd [+kkfyd+ tqeyk vkye ykedkuh
\n        2- nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt+ lrk;’k
\n        fd ljoj vafc;k&,&nks tgkuh
\n        3- Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj d+yUnj
\n        fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh**
\n                                                     (Hindi Transliteration)
\n        **1- mlds uke ls tks lcls egku cqf}eku gS tks lkjs lalkj dk
\n        L=”Vk ,oa LFkku dh dSn ls eqDr gS
\n        2- mldh iz’kalk ds ckn eksgEen eqLrQk lYyYykgks vySfg olYye ij
\n        n:n gks tks nksuksa lalkj ds ufc;ksa ds ljnkj gSaA
\n        3- ckcj dyanj dk ;g pjpk lkjs lalkj esa O;kid gS fd og ,d
\n        lQy lezkV gSaA**
\n                                                             (Hindi Translation)
\n        “1. In the name of One who is Great (and) Wise (and) who
\n        is Creator of the whole world and is free from the bondage
\n        of space.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        2. After His praise, peace and blessings be on Prophet
\n        Muhammad, who is the head of all the Prophets in both the
\n        worlds.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                1591<\/span><\/p>\n
        3. In the world, it is widely talked about Qalandar Babur
\n        that he is a successful emperor.” (E.T.C.)
\n1444.         With respect to the second inscription that is outside
\nthe mosque, the Beveridge said that it is incomplete.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1445.         The third set of text of inscription we are confronted
\nwith, is that published in “Epigraphia Indica-Arabic &
\nPersian Supplement (In continuation of Epigraphia Indo-
\nMoslemica) 1964 and 1965” reprinted 1987 published by the
\nDirector General Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.
\nOn page 49, the chapter begins with the heading “Inscriptions of
\nEmperor Babur” said to be written by the Late Maulvi M.
\nAshraf Husain and edited by Z.A.Desai. Editor’s note in the
\naforesaid Chapter is of some importance:\n<\/p>\n
        “A rough draft of this article by the author, who was my
\n        predecessor, was found among sundry papers in my office.
\n        At the time of his retirement in 1953, he had left a note
\n        saying that it might be published after revision by his
\n        successor. Consequently, the same is published here after
\n        incorporation of fresh material and references and also,
\n        extensive revision and editing. The readings have been also
\n        checked, corrected and supplemented with the help of my
\n        colleague, Mr. S.A.Rahim, Epigraphical Assistant,-Editor.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1446.         On page 58 under sub-chapter VIII-X, “Inscriptions
\nDated A.H. 935, from Ajodhya”, the author has referred to three
\ninscriptions said to have existed at Babur’s mosque. The author’s
\ncomments about those inscriptions are:\n<\/p>\n
        “These three records are from Ajyodhya, in Fyzabad
\n        district of Uttar Pradesh. Ajodhya, called Ayodhya in
\n        ancient works, is a place of great antiquity. It was the
\n        earliest capital of the kingdom of Kosala in the later Vedic
\n                                                         1592<\/span><\/p>\n
period, which may be traced down to 600 B.C. In the fifth
\nand sixth centuries after Christ, the Gupta dynasty ruled
\nover it and called it Saket, by which name it is also known
\nin the Ramayana. From the seventh century onwards, a
\nperiod of neglect ensued and according to Muslim
\nhistorians, parties enjoyed hunting in its vicinity.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The chief fame of Ajodhya lies in its being the birth-<\/p>\n
place of Sri Rama, the deified son of Raja Dasaratha and
\nhero of the Ramayana. At the Muslim conquest, three
\nimportant temples are reported to have existed here, viz.
\nJanmasthana or birth-place Temple, the Treta-ki-Thakur or
\nthe place where Sri Rama performed a great sacrifice in
\ncommemoration of which he set up images of himself and
\nhis wife Sita, and the Svargadvaram or Rama-Darbar,
\nwhich is believed to be the place where he was cremated.
\nThe second and third are popularly believed to have been
\npulled down by Aurangzeb, and on the site of the first the
\npresent Baburi mosque is stated to have been built. The
\nsupposition is apparently anachronistic inasmuch as
\nAurangzeb was born about a century after A.H. 935, the
\ndate of Babur’s record, and so the demolition could not
\nhave taken place so late.\n<\/p>\n
      The Baburi-Masjid, which commands a picturesque
\nview from the riverside, was constructed according to
\nA.Fuhrer in A.H. 930 (1523-24 A.D.) but his chronology,
\nbased upon incorrect readings of inscriptions supplied to
\nhim, is erroneous. Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi only in
\nA.H. 933 (1526 A.D.), and moreover, the year of
\nconstruction, recorded in two of the three inscriptions
\nstudied below, is clearly A.H. 935 (1528-29 A.D.). Again, it
\n                                                        1593<\/span><\/p>\n
was not built by Mir Khan as stated by him. The order for
\nbuilding the mosque seems to have been issued during
\nBabur’s stay at Ajodhya in A.H. 934 (1527-28 A.D.), but
\nno mention of its completion is made in the Babur Nama.
\nHowever, it may be remembered that his diary for the year
\nA.H. 934 (1527-28 A.D.) breaks off abruptly, and throws
\nthe reader into the dark in regard to the account of Oudh.\n<\/p>\n
      The mosque consists of three compartments, each
\ncrowned by a dome. The squinch-arches and stalactite
\npendentives turn each aisle of the prayer-chamber into a
\nsquarish room. The drums of the domes inside were
\noriginally relieved by arched recesses, and the central
\ndome was embellished with ornamental incised plaster
\ndiscs, but the present domes were only reconstructed in
\nthe thirties of this century and are devoid of any original
\nfeatures.\n<\/p>\n
      The mosque contains a number of inscriptions. On
\nthe eastern facade is a chhajja, below which appears a
\nQuranic text and above, an inscription in Persian verse.
\nOn the central mihrab are carved religious texts such as
\nthe Kalima (First Creed), etc. On the southern face of the
\npulpit was previously fixed a stone slab bearing a Persian
\ninscription in verse. There was also another inscription in
\nPersian verse built up into the right hand side wall of the
\npulpit. Of these, the last-mentioned two epigraphs have
\ndisappeared. They were reportedly destroyed in the
\ncommunal vandalism in 1934 A.D., but luckily, I
\nmanaged to secure an inked rubbing of one of them
\nfrom Sayyid Badru’l Hasan of Fyzabad. The present
\ninscription, restored by the Muslim community, is not only
\n                                                                  1594<\/span><\/p>\n
        in inlaid Nasta’liq characters, but is also slightly different
\n        from the original, owing perhaps to the incompetence of
\n        the restorers in deciphering it properly.\n<\/p>\n
              The readings and translations of the historical
\n        epigraphs mentioned above, except in the case of one, were
\n        published by Fuhrer and Mrs. Beveridge, but their
\n        readings are so incomplete, inaccurate and different from
\n        the text that their inclusion in this article is not only
\n        desirable but also imperative.\n<\/p>\n
              The epigraph studied below was inscribed on a slab
\n        of stone measuring about 68 by 48 cm., which was built up
\n        into the southern side of the pulpit of the mosque, but is
\n        now lost, as stated above. It is edited here from the
\n        estampage obtained from Sayyid Badru’l Hasan of
\n        Fyzabad. Its three-line text consists of six verses in
\n        Persian, inscribed in ordinary Naskh characters within
\n        floral borders. It records the construction of the mosque by
\n        Mir Baqi under orders from emperor Babur and gives the
\n        year A.H. 935 (1528-29 A.D.) in a chronogram.”
\n1447.         The inscriptions found at the southern side of the
\npulpit of the mosque is said to be found inscribed on a slab of
\nstone measuring about 68 by 48 cm. He says that the original is
\nlost. The quoted inscription is one edited from the estampage
\nobtained from Sayyid Badru’l Hasan of Fyzabad. Further
\nexplanation at note 4 at the bottom at page 59 given by author is
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
        “It may be argued that since this epigraph is not quoted in
\n        Fuhrer’s SAJ, the slab had already disappeared before he
\n        wrote. But that is not the case, since the tablet was found
\n        there in 1906-07 A.D. by Maulavi M. Shuhaib of the office
\n                                                                                 1595<\/span><\/p>\n
        of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra
\n        (Annual       Progress      Report       of    the    Office       of    the
\n        Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra, for 1906-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        07.”Appendix-D
\n1448.           The first inscription’s text which author has
\nmentioned at plate XVII (b) is as under:\n<\/p>\n
        \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0626 \u0627\u0633\u062a \u0628\u0623 \u06a9\u0627\u062e \u06af\u0631\u062f\u0648\u06ba \u0645\u0644\u0642\u06cc\u202c         \u202b\u0628\u0641\u0631\u0645\u0648\u062f\u06c1 \u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u06a9\u06c1 \u0639\u062f\u064e\u0644\u0633\u202c
\n        \u202b\u0627\u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0633\u0639\u0627\u062f\u062a \u0646\u0634\u0627\u06ba \u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc\u202c           \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627 \u06a9\u0631\u062f\u06c1 \u0627\u06cc\u06ba \u064f\u0645\u06c1\u0628\u0637 \u064f\u0642\u062f\u0633\u06cc\u0627\u06ba\u202c
\n        \u202b\u0639\u06cc\u0627\u06ba \u0634\u062f \u0686\u0648 \u06af\u0641\u062a\u0645 \u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc\u202c      \u202b\u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc \u0648 \u0633\u0627\u0644 \u0628\u0646\u0627\u06cc\u0634\u202c
\n        **\u00bc1\u00bd cQjewn&,&’kkg ckcj fd vny’k]
\n              fcukbsLr ck&dk[k+ xjnwW eqykdh+A
\n        \u00bc2\u00bd fcuk dnZg bZa egcrs dqnfl;ka jk
\n           vehjs lvknr fu’kka ehj ckd+h
\n        \u00bc3\u00bd cqon [kSjs ckd+h o lkys fcukb’k]
\n           v;ka ‘kqn pwa xqQre cqon [k+Sj ckd+h**
\n                                                      (Hindi Transliteration)
\n        **1- lezkV ckcj ds vkns’kkuqlkj ftldk U;k; ,d ,slh bekjr gS tks
\n        vkdk’k ds egy ls tk feyh gSA
\n        2- HkkX;oku uokc ehj ckd+h us Qfj’rksa ds mrjus ds LFkku dh vk\/kkj
\n        f’kyk j[khA
\n        3- og [kSj ckdh \u00bclnSo jgus okyk ,d Hkyk dkjukek\u00bd gS vkSj mlds
\n        vk\/kkj dk o”kZ ;wa Li”V gqvk tc eSaus dgk **coqn [kSj ckd+h^^A^^
\n                                                      (Hindi Transliteration)
\n        “(1) By the order of king Babur whose justice is an
\n        edifice, meeting the palace of the sky (i.e. as high as the
\n        sky).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (2)     This descending place of the angels was built by the
\n        fortunate noble Mir Baqi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (3)     It will remain an everlasting bounty, and (hence) the
\n        date of its erection became manifest from my words: It will
\n        remain an everlasting bounty.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                   1596<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     (English Translation by Author)
\n1449.         The Fuhrer’s inscription no. XLI which he mentions
\nthat the same was found inside the mosque on the mimbar (right
\nhand side of the disputed building) has been turmed as second
\ninscription by Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain. It consists of three
\ncouplets arranged in six lines. He (Hussain) clearly admits non
\nexistence of the said inscription by observing “the epigraphical
\nTablet” which was built up into right hand side wall of the pulpit,
\ndoes not exist now, and, therefore, the text of the inscription is
\nquoted here from Furher’s work, for the same reason, its
\nillustration could not be given.” Sri Husain\/Desai however, did
\nnot agree to the reading of the inscription by Fuhrer and
\nobserved that Furher’s reading does not appear free from
\nmistakes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1450.         About the third inscription, on page 60\/61 of the
\nbook, the author has given narration as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “The third record of Babur in the Ajodhya mosque,
\n        comprising a fragment of eight Persian verses of mediocre
\n        quality and a colophon, appears over the central entrances
\n        to the prayer-chamber above the chajja. The four-line text
\n        is executed in fairly good Naskh characters in relief amidst
\n        floral borders, on a slab measuring about 2 m. by 55 cm.
\n        The text is fairly well preserved, and Fuhrer must have
\n        been misinformed to affirm that ‘a few characters of the
\n        second and the whole third lines are completely defaced’.
\n        The purport of the record is the same as that of the
\n        previous epigraphs, but here an additional edifice is also
\n        mentioned : In verse six, in line three, a fort-wall (hisar) is
\n        said to have been built along with the mosque in A.H. 935
\n        (1528-29 A.D.), by Mir Baqu, who is here called the second
\n                                                                            1597<\/span><\/p>\n
        Asaf and councillor of the state.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1451.           The text of the third inscription is as under :\n<\/p>\n
                        \u202b\u0628\u0633\u0645 \u0627\u0651\u0644\u0644\u06c1 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u06cc\u0645 \u0648 \u0628\u06c1 \u062b\u0642\u062a\u06d2\u202c
\n        \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u062e\u0627\u0644\u0642 \u062c\u0645\u0644\u06c1 \u0639\u0627\u0644\u0645 \u0644 \u0645\u06a9\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c            \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0645 \u0622\u0646\u06a9\u06c1 \u0627\u0648 \u062f\u0627\u0646\u0627\u0633\u062a \u0627\u06a9\u0628\u0631\u202c
\n        \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0633\u0631\u0648\u0631 \u0627\u0646\u0628\u06cc\u0627 \u0632\u0628\u062f\u06c1 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u06ba\u06d2\u202c              \u202b\u062f\u0648\u0650\u0631 \u0645\u0635\u0637\u0641\u06d2 \u0628\u0639\u062f \u0627\u0632\u062b\u0646\u0627\u06cc\u0634\u202c
\n        \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0634\u062f \u062f\u0631\u062f\u0648\u0631 \u06af\u06cc\u062a\u06cc \u06a9\u0627 \u0645\u0631\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c            \u202b\u0641\u0633\u0627\u0646\u06c1 \u062f\u0631 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u0646 \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u0642\u0644\u0646\u062f\u0631\u202c
\n        \u202b\u0632\u0645\u06cc\u0646 \u0631\u0627\u0686\u0648\u06ba \u0645\u062b\u0627\u0644 \u0622\u0633\u0645\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c              \u202b\u0686\u0646\u0627\u06ba \u06a9\u0634 \u06c1\u0641\u062a \u06a9\u0634\u0648\u0631\u062f\u0631 \u06af\u0631\u0641\u062a\u06c1\u202c
\n        \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0646\u0627\u0645\u0634 \u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc \u0622\u0635\u0641 \u062b\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c           \u202b\u062f\u0631\u0622\u06ba \u062d\u0636\u0631\u062a \u06cc\u06a9\u06cc \u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0645\u0639\u0638\u0645\u202c
\n        \u202b\u06a9\u0632\u06cc\u0646 \u0645\u0633\u062c\u062f \u0648 \u062d\u0635\u0627\u0631\u06c1\u0633\u062a \u0628\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c                \u202b\u0645\u0634\u06cc\u0631 \u0633\u0644\u0637\u0646\u062a \u062a\u062f\u0628\u06cc\u0631 \u0645\u0644\u06a9\u0634\u202c
\n        \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0686\u062a\u0631\u0648\u062a\u062e\u062a \u0648 \u0628\u062e\u062a \u0648 \u0632\u0646\u062f\u06af\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c             \u202b\u062e\u062f\u0627\u06cc\u0627 \u062f\u0631 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u06ba \u067e\u0627\u06cc\u0646\u062f\u06c1 \u0628\u0627\u062f\u0627\u202c
\n        \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0646\u06c1\u0635\u062f \u0633\u06cc \u067e\u0646\u062c \u0628\u0648\u062f \u0646\u0634\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c            \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0621 \u0639\u06c1\u062f \u0632\u06cc\u0646 \u062a\u0627\u0631\u06cc\u062e \u0645\u06cc\u0645\u0648\u0646\u202c
\n           \u202b\u062a\u0645\u062a \u06c1\u0630\u0627 \u0644\u062a\u0648\u062d\u06cc\u062f \u0648 \u0646\u0639\u062a \u0648 \u0645\u062f\u062d \u0648 \u0635\u0641\u062a \u0646\u0648\u0631\u0627\u0644\u0651\u0644\u06c1 \u0628\u0631\u06be\u0627\u0646\u06c1 \u062e\u0637 \u0639\u0628\u062f\u0627\u0644\u0636\u0639\u06cc\u0641\u202c
\n                                  \u202b\u0646\u062d\u06cc\u0641 \u0641\u062a\u062d \u0627\u0644\u0651\u0644\u06c1 \u0645\u062d\u0645\u062f \u063a\u0648\u062f\u06d2\u202c
\n        **1- nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt+ luk;’k
\n        fd ljoj vafc;k tqCnk tgkuh
\n        2- Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj dyUnj
\n        fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh
\n        3- pquka d’k gQ~+r fd’koj nj fxjQ+rk
\n        t+eha jk pwa felkys vklekuh
\n        4- njka gt+jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt+e
\n        fd uke’k ehj ckd+h vkLQ+ lkuh
\n        5- eq’khjs lyrur rnchj eqyd’k
\n        dt+ha efLtnks fglkj gLr ckuh
\n        6- [kqnk;k nj tgka ikbUnk cknk
\n         fd fp=ks r[+rks c[+rks ft+Unxkuh
\n        7- fcuk;s vgns t+ha rkjh[+k eSewa
\n        fd uqg ln lh iat cqon fu’kkuh
\n        rEer gkt+RrkSghnq o ukr o eng o flQ+r uOojYykgq cqjgkugq [kRrs
\n        vCnqTt+bZQ+ ughQ+ Q+rgqYykg eksgEen x+kSjhA**
\n                                                        (Hindi Transliteration)
\n        **1- ml \u00bc[kqnk\u00bd dh iz’kalk ds ckn eksgEen eqLrQk lYykYykgks vySfg
\n                                                               1598<\/span><\/p>\n
olYye ij n:n gks tks ufc;ksa ds ljnkj vkSj nqfu;k ds loZJs”B gSA
\n2- ckcj dyanj dk pjpk lkjs lalkj esa gS fd og ,d lQ+y lezkV gSA
\n3- og ,slk lezkV gS fd ftlus lkrksa ns’kksa ij fot; izkIr dj fy;k]
\nvkdk’k ds leku i`Foh dks Hkh vius dCts esa dj fy;kA
\n4- ml ‘kkgh njckj dk ,d fo’kky uokc gS ftldk uke ehj ckdh gS
\nf}rh; vkflQ \u00bcvkflQ+ mikf\/k j[krk gS\u00bdS
\n5- ‘kklu dk lykgdkj vkSj mlds ns’k dk iz’kkld tks bl efLtn
\nvkSj fdys dk vk\/kkj j[kus okyk gSA
\n6- ,s! [kqnk lalkj esa mldk rkt] flagklu] HkkX; vkSj thou lnSo ckd+h
\njgsA
\n7- bl ;qx ds bl bekjr dh cqfu;kn dh ‘kqHk frfFk dh fu’kkuh 935
\ngSA**
\n                                             (Hindi Translation)
\n“(1) In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And in Him is my trust.\n<\/p>\n
(2)     In the name of One who is Wise, Great (and) Creator
\nof all the universe (and) is spaceless.\n<\/p>\n
After His praise, blessings be upon the Chosen one (i.e. the
\nProphet), who is the head of prophets and best in the
\nworld.\n<\/p>\n
The Qalandar-like (i.e. truthful) Babur has become
\ncelebrated (lit. a story) in the world, since (in his time) the
\nworld has achieved prosperity.\n<\/p>\n
(3)     (He is) such (an emperor) as has embraced (i.e.
\nconquered) all the seven climes of the world in the manner
\nof the sky.\n<\/p>\n
In his court, there was a magnificent noble, named Mir
\nBaqi the second Asaf, councillor of his government and
\nadministrator of his kingdom, who is the founder of this
\nmosque and fort-wall.\n<\/p>\n
(4) O God, may he live for ever in this world, with fortune
\n                                                                        1599<\/span><\/p>\n
        and life and crown and throne. The time of the building is
\n        this auspicious date, of which the indication is nine
\n        hundred (and) thirty five (A.H. 935=1528-29 A.D.).\n<\/p>\n
               Completed was this praise of God, of Prophet and of
\n        king. May Allah illumine his proof. Written by the weak
\n        writer and humble creature, Eathu’llah Muhammad
\n        Ghori.”\n<\/p>\n
                                             (English Translation by Author)
\n1452.          PW-15, Sushil Srivastava in his book “The
\nDisputed Mosque-A Historical Enquiry” published in 1991 by
\nVistaar Publications, New Delhi has also given text of two
\ninscriptions at page 86 of the book which are as under:\n<\/p>\n
        (A) Inscription above the pulpit inside the mosque
\n                      \u202b\u0628\u0641\u0631\u0645\u0648\u062f\u06c1 \u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u06a9\u06c1 \u0639\u062f\u0644\u0634\u202c
\n                      \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u06cc\u0633\u062a \u062a\u0623 \u06a9\u0627\u062e \u06af\u0631\u062f\u0648\u06ba \u064f\u0645\u0644\u0642\u06cc\u202c
\n                      \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627 \u06a9\u0631\u062f \u0627\u06cc\u06ba \u064f\u0645\u06c1\u0628\u0637 \u064f\u0642\u062f\u0633\u06cc\u0627\u06ba\u202c
\n                      \u202b\u0627\u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0633\u0639\u0627\u062f\u062a \u0646\u0634\u0627\u0646 \u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc\u202c
\n                      \u202b\u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc \u0686\u0648 \u0633\u0627\u0644 \u0628\u0646\u0627\u06cc\u0634\u202c
\n                      \u202b\u0639\u06cc\u0627\u06ba \u0634\u062f \u06a9\u06c1 \u06af\u0641\u062a\u0645 \u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631\u202c
\n        **c Qjewn;s ‘kkg ckcj fd vny’k]
\n        fcuk;sLr rk dk[ks xnwZa eqykdhA
\n        fcuk dnZ bZa eqgcrs dqnfl;ka]
\n        vehjs lvknr fu’kku ehj ckdhA
\n        cqon [kSjs ckdh! Pkw lkys fcuk;’k]
\n        v;ka ‘kqn fd xqQ~re cqon [kSj ckdhA**
\n                                          (Hindi Transliteration by Author)
\n        **’kkg ckcj ds vkns’kkuqlkj ftldk U;k;]
\n        ,d ,slh ,ekjr gS tks vkdk’k dh \u00c5apkbZ rd igqaprh gSA
\n        fuekZ.k djk;k bl fQfj’rksa ds mrjus ds LFkku dks]
\n        lkSHkkX;’kkyh vehj] ehj ckdh us]
\n        con [kSjs ckdh \u00bc;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgs\u00bd tks mlds fuekZ.k dk o”kZ
\n                                                                        1600<\/span><\/p>\n
      gS-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ;g Li”V gks x;k tks eSa dgwa fd ;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgsA**
\n                                        (Hindi Transliteration by Author)
\n      “(1) By the order of king Babar whose justice is an edifice
\n      meeting the pace of sky (i.e. as high as the sky).
\n      (2) this descending place of the angels was built by the
\n      fortunate noble Mir Baqi.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (3) it will remain an everlasting bounty and (hence) the
\n      date of its erection became manifest from my words: it will
\n      remain an everlasting bounty.” (English Translation by
\n      Author)
\n      (B)    Inscription at the entrance of the mosque i.e. the
\nouter inscription
\n      \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0645 \u0627\u06ba \u06a9\u06c1 \u062f\u0627\u0646\u0627 \u06c1\u0633\u062a \u0627\u06a9\u0628\u0631\u202c
\n      \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u062e\u0627\u0644\u0642 \u062c\u0645\u0644\u06c1 \u0639\u0627\u0644\u0645 \u0644\u0645\u06a9\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c
\n      \u202b\u062f\u0631\u0648\u062f \u0645\u0635\u0637\u0641 \u0670\u06cc \u0628\u0639\u062f \u0627\u0632\u0633\u062a\u0627\u06cc\u0634\u202c
\n      \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0633\u0631\u0648\u0631 \u0627\u0646\u0628\u06cc\u0627\u0626 \u062f\u0648 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c
\n      \u202b\u0641\u0633\u0627\u0646\u06c1 \u062f\u0631 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u06ba \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u0642\u0644\u0646\u062f\u0631\u202c
\n      \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0634\u062f \u062f\u0631 \u062f\u0648\u0631\u06af\u06cc\u062a\u06cc \u06a9\u0627\u0645\u0631\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c
\n      **cukes vkafd nkuk gLr vdcj
\n      fd [kkfyd tqeyk vkye ykedkuh
\n      nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt lrk;’k
\n      fd ljoj vafc;k;s nks tgkuh
\n      Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj dyUnj
\n      fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh**
\n                                                     (Hindi Transliteration)
\n      **1- mlds uke ls tks lcls egku cqf}eku gS tks lkjs lalkj dk
\n      lz”Vk ,oa LFkku dh dSn ls eqDr gS
\n      2- mldh iz’kalk ds ckn eksgEen eqLrQk lYyYykgks vySfg olYye ij
\n      n:n gks tks nksuksa tgka esa ufc;ksa ds ljnkj gSaA
\n      3- ckcj dyanj dk ppkZ lalkj esa gS tks lalkj esa ,d lQy lezkV gqvk
\n                                                                       1601<\/span><\/p>\n
        gSA**
\n                                                        (Hindi Translation)
\n        “1. In the name of One who is Great (and) Wise (and) who
\n        is Creator of the whole world and is free from the bondage
\n        of space.\n<\/p>\n
        2. After His praise, peace and blessings be on Prophet
\n        Muhammad, who is the head of all the Prophets in both the
\n        worlds.\n<\/p>\n
        3. The world has the house of Qalandar Babur, who has
\n        been a successful emperor in the world.” (E.T.C.)
\n1453.           The text of two inscriptions has also been given in
\nAppendix “Gha” on page 659 and 660, “Mugalkalin Bharat-
\nBabar (1526-1530 AD)” translated by Syed Athar Abbas Rizvi
\n(first published in 1960 and in 2010 published for first time by
\nRajkamal Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi). The photocopy of
\nAppendix D (Parishisht Gha) page 659 and 660 of the above
\nbook along with its title page has been filed as Exhibit 91 (Suit-\n<\/p>\n
4) (Register 16, Pages 164-166) and the same reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
         (A) \u202b\u0628\u0641\u0631\u0645\u0648\u062f\u06c1 \u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u06a9\u06c1 \u0639\u062f\u0644\u0634\u202c
\n                \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u06cc\u0633\u062a \u062a\u0623 \u06a9\u0627\u062e \u06af\u0631\u062f\u0648\u06ba \u064f\u0645\u0644\u0642\u06cc\u202c
\n                \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627 \u06a9\u0631\u062f \u0627\u06cc\u06ba \u064f\u0645\u06c1\u0628\u0637 \u064f\u0642\u062f\u0633\u06cc\u0627\u06ba\u202c
\n                \u202b\u0627\u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0633\u0639\u0627\u062f\u062a \u0646\u0634\u0627\u0646 \u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc\u202c
\n                \u202b\u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc \u0686\u0648 \u0633\u0627\u0644 \u0628\u0646\u0627\u06cc\u0634\u202c
\n                \u202b\u0639\u06cc\u0627\u06ba \u0634\u062f \u06a9\u06c1 \u06af\u0641\u062a\u0645 \u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631\u202c
\n                *c Qjewn;s ‘kkg ckcj fd vny’k]
\n                fcuk;sLr rk dk[ks xnwZa eqykdhA
\n                fcuk dnZ bZa eqgcrs dqnfl;ka]
\n                vehjs lvknr fu’kku ehj ckdhA
\n                cqon [kSjs ckdh! Pkw lkys fcuk;’k]
\n                v;ka ‘kqn fd xqQ~re cqon [kSj ckdhA**
\n                                                               1602<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  (Hindi Transliteration by Author)
\n**’kkg ckcj ds vkns’kkuqlkj ftldk U;k;]
\n,d ,slh ,ekjr gS tks vkdk’k dh \u00c5apkbZ rd igqaprh gSA
\nfuekZ.k djk;k bl fQfj’rksa ds mrjus ds LFkku dks]
\nlkSHkkX;’kkyh vehj] ehj ckdh us]
\ncon [kSjs ckdh \u00bc;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgs\u00bd tks mlds fuekZ.k dk o”kZ
\ngS-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
;g Li”V gks x;k tks eSa dgwa fd ;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgsA**
\n                                     (Hindi Translation by Author)
\n“(1) By the order of king Babar whose justice is an edifice
\nmeeting the pace of sky (i.e. as high as the sky).
\n(2) This descending place of the angels was built by the
\nfortunate noble Mir Baqi.\n<\/p>\n
(3)It will remain an everlasting bounty and (hence) the date
\nof its erection became manifest from my words: it will
\nremain an everlasting bounty.” (E.T.C.)
\n(B)    \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0645 \u0627\u0646\u06a9\u06c1 \u062f\u0627\u0646\u0627 \u06be\u0633\u062a \u0627\u06a9\u0628\u0631\u202c
\n       \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u062e\u0627\u0644\u0642 \u062c\u0645\u0644\u06c1 \u0639\u0644\u0645 \u0644 \u0645\u06a9\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c
\n       \u202b\u062f\u0631\u0648\u062f \u0645\u0635\u0637\u0641 \u0670\u06cc \u0628\u0639\u062f \u0627\u0630 \u0633\u062a\u0627\u06cc\u0634\u202c
\n       \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0633\u0631\u0648\u0631 \u0627\u0646\u0628\u06cc\u0627\u06cc \u062f\u0648 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c
\n       \u202b\u0641\u0633\u0627\u0646\u06c1 \u062f\u0631 \u062c\u06be\u0627\u06ba \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u06a9\u0644\u0646\u062f\u0631\u202c
\n       \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0634\u062f \u062f\u0631 \u062f\u0648\u0631 \u06af\u06cc\u062a\u06cc \u06a9\u0627\u0645\u0631\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u202c
\n       ^^ cuke vkafd nkuk gLr vdcj]
\n       fd [kkfyds tqeyk vkye yk edkuhA
\n       n:ns eqLrQk ckn vt lrkb’k]
\n       fd ljojs vfEc;k;s nks tgkuhA
\n       Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj dyUnj]
\n       fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xsrh dkejkuhA**
\n                                  (Hindi Transliteration by Author)
\n**mlds uke ls tks fd egku~ Kkuh gS]
\ntks leLr lalkj dk l`”Vk vkSj fcuk ?kj dk gSA
\n                                                                          1603<\/span><\/p>\n
        mldh Lrqfr ds mijkUr eqLrQk ij n:n]
\n        tks nksuksa yksdksa ds ufc;ksa ds ljnkj gSaA
\n        lalkj esa ppkZ gS fd ckcj dyUnj]
\n        dky pdz esa mls lQyrk izkIr gqbZA**
\n                                     (Hindi Translation by Author)
\n        ” In His name who is all wisdom,
\n        Who is creator of the entire universe and who is abodeless.
\n        After His praise peace be on Prophet Mohammad,
\n        Who is the head of all the Prophets in both the worlds.
\n        It is the talk of the world that Qalandar Babur,
\n        Attained success with the movement of the time-wheel.”
\n        (E.T.C.)
\n1454.           In another book titled as “Babar” by Dr. Radhey
\nShyam, first published in 1978 by Janaki Prakashan Allahabad,
\nthe text of three inscriptions at the building in dispute in
\nAppendix VI, Item VIII-X at pages 505 and 506 is given as
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
                (A) \u202b\u0628\u0641\u0631\u0645\u0648\u062f\u06c1 \u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u06a9\u06c1 \u0639\u062f\u0644\u0634\u202c
\n                        \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u06cc\u0633\u062a \u062a\u0623 \u06a9\u0627\u062e \u06af\u0631\u062f\u0648\u06ba \u064f\u0645\u0644\u0642\u06cc\u202c
\n                        \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627 \u06a9\u0631\u062f \u0627\u06cc\u06ba \u064f\u0645\u06c1\u0628\u0637 \u064f\u0642\u062f\u0633\u06cc\u0627\u06ba\u202c
\n                        \u202b\u0627\u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0633\u0639\u0627\u062f\u062a \u0646\u0634\u0627\u0646 \u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc\u202c
\n                        \u202b\u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc \u0686\u0648 \u0633\u0627\u0644 \u0628\u0646\u0627\u06cc\u0634\u202c
\n                        \u202b\u0639\u06cc\u0627\u06ba \u0634\u062f \u06a9\u06c1 \u06af\u0641\u062a\u0645 \u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc\u202c
\n        *c Qjewn;s ‘kkg ckcj fd vny’k]
\n        fcuk;sLr ck dk[ks xnwZa eqykdhA
\n        fcuk dnZ bZa eqgcrs dqnfl;ka]
\n        vehjs lvknr fu’kku ehj ckdhA
\n        cqon [kSjs ckdh! Pkw lkys fcuk;’k]
\n        v;ka ‘kqn fd xqQ~re cqon [kSj ckdhA**
\n                                                       (Hindi Transliteration)
\n        **’kkg ckcj ds vkns’kkuqlkj ftldk U;k;]
\n                                                                 1604<\/span><\/p>\n
,d ,slh ,ekjr gS tks vkdk’k dh \u00c5apkbZ rd igqaprh gSA
\nfuekZ.k djk;k bl fQfj’rksa ds mrjus ds LFkku dks]
\nlkSHkkX;’kkyh vehj] ehj ckdh us]
\ncon [kSjs ckdh \u00bc;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgs\u00bd tks mlds fuekZ.k dk o”kZ
\ngS-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
;g Li”V gks x;k tks eSa dgwa fd ;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgsA**
\n                                               (Hindi Translation)
\n“(1) By the order of king Babar whose justice is an edifice
\nmeeting the pace of sky (i.e. as high as the sky).
\n(2) This descending place of the angels was built by the
\nfortunate noble Mir Baqi.\n<\/p>\n
(3)    It will remain an everlasting bounty and (hence) the
\ndate of its erection became manifest from my words: it will
\nremain an everlasting bounty.”\n<\/p>\n
                                   (English Translation by Author)
\n(B)    \u202b\u0628\u0645\u0646\u0634\u0627\u06d2 \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u062e\u062f \u06cc\u0648 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u06ba\u202c
\n       \u202b\u0628\u0634\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u06a9\u06c1 \u0628\u0627 \u06a9\u0627\u062e \u06af\u0631\u062f\u0648\u06ba \u0639\u0646\u0627\u06ba\u202c
\n       \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u06a9\u0631\u062f\u06c1 \u0627\u06cc\u06ba \u062e\u0627 \u0646\u06c1 \u067e\u0627\u06cc\u062f\u0627\u0631\u202c
\n       \u202b\u0627\u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0633\u0639\u0627\u062f\u062a \u0646\u0634\u0627\u0646 \u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u062e\u0627\u06ba\u202c
\n       \u202b\u0628\u0645\u0627\u0646\u062f\u06c1 \u06c1\u0645\u06cc\u0634\u06c1 \u0686\u0646\u06cc\u06ba \u0628\u0627\u06cc\u0646\u0634\u202c
\n       \u202b\u0686\u0646\u0627\u06ba \u0634\u06c1\u0631 \u06cc\u0627\u0631 \u0632\u0645\u06cc\u0646 \u0648 \u0632\u0645\u0627\u06ba\u202c
\n**1- ce’kk;s ckcjs [kn;w tgka
\nclkus fd ck dk[k xjnwW bukW
\n2- fcuk dnkZ bZa [kku&,&ik;snkj
\nvehjs lvknr fu’kka ehj [kka
\n3- cekang ges’kk pquha ckfu;’k
\npquka ‘kgfj;kjs tehuks teka**
\n                                            (Hindi Transliteration)
\n**1- fo’o lezkV ckcj ds vkns’kkuqlkj vkdk’k tSls egy ds lekuA
\n2- bl lqn`<+ ?kj dk vk\/kkj j[kk HkkX;oku uokc ehj [kka usA
\n3- mldk ,slk laLFkkid vkSj i`Foh vkSj ;qx dk ,slk lezkV lnSo ftfor
\n                                                                   1605<\/span><\/p>\n
jgsA”\n<\/p>\n
                                                   (Hindi Translation)
\n“(1) Under the commands of Babar, emperor of the world,
\na sky-like palace
\n(2) (that is to say) this strong house of God was founded by
\nthe fortunate noble Nawab Mir Khan
\n(3)May ever remain such a founder of edifice, and such a
\nking of the world and age.” (E.T.C)<\/p>\n
        (C)   \u202b\u0628\u0633\u0645 \u0627\u0651\u0644\u0644\u06c1 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u06cc\u0645 \u0648 \u0628\u06c1 \u062b\u0642\u062a\u06d2\u202c<\/p>\n
\u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u062e\u0627\u0644\u0642 \u062c\u0645\u0644\u06c1 \u0639\u0627\u0644\u0645 \u0644 \u0645\u06a9\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c          \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0645 \u0622\u0646\u06a9\u06c1 \u0627\u0648 \u062f\u0627\u0646\u0627\u0633\u062a \u0627\u06a9\u0628\u0631\u202c
\n\u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0633\u0631\u0648\u0631 \u0627\u0646\u0628\u06cc\u0627 \u0632\u0628\u062f\u06c1 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u06ba\u06d2\u202c            \u202b\u062f\u0648\u0650\u0631 \u0645\u0635\u0637\u0641\u06d2 \u0628\u0639\u062f \u0627\u0632\u062b\u0646\u0627\u06cc\u0634\u202c
\n\u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0634\u062f \u062f\u0631\u062f\u0648\u0631 \u06af\u06cc\u062a\u06cc \u06a9\u0627 \u0645\u0631\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c           \u202b\u0641\u0633\u0627\u0646\u06c1 \u062f\u0631 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u0646 \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u0642\u0644\u0646\u062f\u0631\u202c
\n\u202b\u0632\u0645\u06cc\u0646 \u0631\u0627\u0686\u0648\u06ba \u0645\u062b\u0627\u0644 \u0622\u0633\u0645\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c           \u202b\u0686\u0646\u0627\u06ba \u06a9\u0634 \u06c1\u0641\u062a \u06a9\u0634\u0648\u0631\u062f\u0631 \u06af\u0631\u0641\u062a\u06c1\u202c
\n\u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0646\u0627\u0645\u0634 \u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc \u0622\u0635\u0641 \u062b\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c         \u202b\u062f\u0631\u0622\u06ba \u062d\u0636\u0631\u062a \u06cc\u06a9\u06cc \u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0645\u0639\u0638\u0645\u202c
\n\u202b\u06a9\u0632\u06cc\u0646 \u0645\u0633\u062c\u062f \u0648 \u062d\u0635\u0627\u0631\u06c1\u0633\u062a \u0628\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c              \u202b\u0645\u0634\u06cc\u0631 \u0633\u0644\u0637\u0646\u062a \u062a\u062f\u0628\u06cc\u0631 \u0645\u0644\u06a9\u0634\u202c
\n\u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0686\u062a\u0631\u0648\u062a\u062e\u062a \u0648 \u0628\u062e\u062a \u0648 \u0632\u0646\u062f\u06af\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c            \u202b\u062e\u062f\u0627\u06cc\u0627 \u062f\u0631 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u06ba \u067e\u0627\u06cc\u0646\u062f\u06c1 \u0628\u0627\u062f\u0627\u202c
\n\u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0646\u06c1\u0635\u062f \u0633\u06cc \u067e\u0646\u062c \u0628\u0648\u062f \u0646\u0634\u0627\u0646\u06d2\u202c           \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0621 \u0639\u06c1\u062f \u0632\u06cc\u0646 \u062a\u0627\u0631\u06cc\u062e \u0645\u06cc\u0645\u0648\u0646\u202c
\n   \u202b\u062a\u0645\u062a \u06c1\u0630\u0627 \u0644\u062a\u0648\u062d\u06cc\u062f \u0648 \u0646\u0639\u062a \u0648 \u0645\u062f\u062d \u0648 \u0635\u0641\u062a \u0646\u0648\u0631\u0627\u0644\u0651\u0644\u06c1 \u0628\u0631\u06be\u0627\u0646\u06c1 \u062e\u0637 \u0639\u0628\u062f\u0627\u0644\u0636\u0639\u06cc\u0641\u202c
\n                        \u202b\u0646\u062d\u06cc\u0641 \u0641\u062a\u062d \u0627\u0644\u0651\u0644\u06c1 \u0645\u062d\u0645\u062f \u063a\u0648\u062f\u06d2\u202c
\n**\u00bc1\u00bd fclfeYykfgjZgekfujZghe o c&fld+rh
\n\u00bc2\u00bd cukes vkafd \u00c5 nkukLr vdcj & fd [k+kfyd+ tqeyk vkye
\nykedkuh
\nnw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt+ luk;’k & fd ljoj vafc;k tqCnk tgkuh
\nQlkuk nj tgka ckcj d+yUnj & fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh
\n\u00bc3\u00bd pquka d’k gQ~Qr fd’koj nj fxjQ+rk & t+eha jk pwa felkys
\nvklekuh
\nnjka gt+jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt+e & fd uke’k ehj ckd+h vkLQ+ lkuh
\neq’khjs lyrur rnchj eqyd’k & dt+ha efLtnks fglkj gLr ckuh
\n\u00bc4\u00bd [kqnk;k nj tgka ikbUnk cknk & fd fp=ks r[+rks c[+rks ft+Unxkuh
\nfcuk;s vgns t+ha rkjh[k+ eSewa & fd uqg ln lh iat cqon fu’kkuh
\nrEer gkt+RrkSghn o ukr eng o flQ+r uOojYykgq cqjgkugq [+kRrs
\n                                                                 1606<\/span><\/p>\n
vCnqTt+bZQ+
\nughQ+ Q+ugqYykg eksgEen x+kSjhA**
\n                                           (Hindi Transliteration)
\n**vYykg ds uke ls tks vR;Ur d:.kke; vkSj n;koku gS] vkSj mlds
\nHkjksls ij
\n1- mlds uke ls tks lcls egku cqf}eku gS tks lkjs lalkj dk l`”Vk ,oa
\nLFkku dh dSn ls eqDr gS
\n2- mldh iz’kalk ds ckn eksgEen eqLrQk lYyYykgks vySfg olYye ij
\nn:n gks tks ufc;ksa ds ljnkj vkSj lalkj ds loZJs”B O;fDr gSA
\n3- ckcj dyanj dk pjpk lkjs lalkj esa O;kid gS fd og ,d lQy
\nlezkV gqvk gSA
\n4- og ,slk lezkV gS fd ftlus lkrksa ns’kksa ij fot; izkIr dj fy;k]
\ni`Foh dks Hkh vkdk’k ds leku dCts esa dj fy;kA
\n5- ml ‘kkgh njckj dk ,d fo’kky uokc gS ftldk uke ehj ckdh
\nf}rh; vkflQ gS
\n6- ‘kklu dk lykgdkj vkSj mlds ns’k dk iz’kkld tks bl efLtn
\nvkSj fdys dk f’kykfu;kl djus okyk gSA
\n7- ,s! [kqnk lalkj esa mldk rkt] flagklu] HkkX; vkSj thou lnSo ckd+h
\njgsA
\n8- bl ;qx ds bl bekjr dh cqfu;kn dh ‘kqHk frfFk dh fu’kkuh 935
\ngSA**
\n                                              (Hindi Translation)
\n        “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the merciful,
\nand in Him is my trust.\n<\/p>\n
(1) In the name of One who is Wise, Great and Creator of
\nall the universe and is spaceless.\n<\/p>\n
(2) After he praise, blessing be upon the Choosen one (i.e.
\nthe Prophet) who is the head of the Prophets and best in
\nthe world.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The Qalandar like Babar has attained fame in the
\nwhole world to the effect that he has been a successful
\n                                                                   1607<\/span><\/p>\n
        emperor.\n<\/p>\n
        (4) He is such an emperor as has conquered all the seven
\n        climes of the world and also captured the earth as in case
\n        of sky.\n<\/p>\n
        (5) In that royal court there was a magnificent noble
\n        named Mir Baqi, the second Asaf.\n<\/p>\n
        (6) (He is) councillor of the Government and administrator
\n        of his kingdom, who is the founder of this mosque and fort-
\n        wall.\n<\/p>\n
        (7) O! God, may he live for ever in this world, with crown
\n        and throne and fortune and life.\n<\/p>\n
        (8) The time of this building of this age is this auspicious
\n        date, of which the indication is 935.” (E.T.C.)
\n1455.           From perusal of the text of the inscription said to be
\nfound inside the mosque i.e., the 6-lines inscription it is evident
\nthat the text quoted by Fuhrer, Beveridge and Maulvi F. Ashraf
\nHussain has apparent and demonstrable differences. The first
\nline of the text by the three reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
        *cea'kk;s ckcj [kn;w tgka\"                 (Fuhrer)\n        **cQjewn&,&'kkgs ckcj fd vny'k]**         (Beveridge)\n<\/pre>\n
        **cQjewn&,&’kkg ckcj fd vny’k]** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)
\n1456.           Similarly, we find difference in line 2 which is
\ndemonstrated as under:\n<\/p>\n
         **c’kkus fd ck dk[k+ xjnwW buk a **      (Fuhrer)
\n         **fcukbLr ck&dk[k+ xjnwW eqykdh+A**    (Beveridge)
\n         **fcukbsLr ck&dk[k+ xjnwW eqykdh+A** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)
\n1457.           The third line is also not the same.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         **fcuk dnkZ &,&[+k ku&,&ik;sn kj* *      (Fuhrer)
\n        **fcuk dnZ&,&egcrs dqnfl;ka jk**         (Beveridge)
\n        **fcuk dnZg bZa egcrs dqnfl;ka jk** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)
\n                                                                                    1608<\/span><\/p>\n
1458.            The fourth line of Fuhrer is different than what is
\ncontained in Beveridge and Maulvi Ashraf Hussain as is evident
\nfrom the following:\n<\/p>\n
        **vehjs lvknr fu’kka ehj [kka**                           (Fuhrer)
\n        **vehjs lvknr fu’kka ehj ckd+h**                        (Beveridge)
\n         **vehjs lvknr fu’kka ehj ckd+h** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)
\n1459.            Fifth line of all the three is different as demonstrated
\nbelow:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        **cekun ges’ kk pq u k a ckfu;’k**                         (Fuhrer)
\n        **cqon [kSjs ckd+h fd rkjh[+k efLtn]**                    (Beveridge)
\n        **cqon [kSjs ckd+h o lkys fcukb’k]**             (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)
\n1460.            Sixth line of Beveridge and Maulvi F. Ashraf
\nHussain is the same but different from Fuhrer as seen below:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        **pq u k a ‘kgfj;kj s t+e huk s t+e k a **                 (Fuhrer)
\n        **v;ka ‘kqn pwa xqQre cqon [k+Sj ckd+h**                  (Beveridge)
\n        **v;ka ‘kqn pwa xqQre cqon [k+Sj ckd+h** (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
\n1461.            The next inscription which according to Fuhrer was
\na ten-line Persian poetry, Beveridge could get only three lines
\nthereof and termed incomplete, Maulvi M.Ashraf Husain
\nhowever found complete and running in about 10\/11 lines. The
\ndistinction therein are:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Line-1             ^^fclfeYykfgjZgekfujZghe”                   (Fuhrer)
\n                 No such line is found in Beveridge’s text.
\n                 ^*fclfeYykfgjZgekfujZghe o fcgh fldrh**
\n                                                          (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)
\n        Line-2 ^^cukes vka fd——————————^^     (Fuhrer)
\n                    **cukes vkafd nkuk gLr vdcj** (Beveridge)
\n                   ^^cukes vkafd \u00c5 nkukLr vdcj**
\n                                                           (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
\n        Line-3 ^^dqun [kkfyd+ cdyes tkosnkuh**                          (Fuhrer)
\n                                                                           1609<\/span><\/p>\n
                 ^^fd [+kkfyd+ tqeyk vkye ykedkuh**        (Beveridge)
\n                **fd [kkfyd tqeyk vkye ykedkuh**
\n                                              (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
\n        Line- 4: completely defaced in the text of Furher but
\n        Beveridge and Maulvi F.Ashraf have given the following
\n        text:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                ^^nw: n eqLrQk ckn vt+ lrk;’k**           (Beveridge)
\n                     ^^nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt+ luk;’k** (Maulvi F.Ashraf
\n        Hussain)
\n        Line-5 : Completely defaced in Furher’s text but in
\n        Beveridge’s and Maulvi F.Ashraf’s text it is quoted as
\n        under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 ^^fd ljoj vafc;k&,&nks tgkuh**          (Beveridge)
\n                      ^^fd ljoj vafc;k tqCnk tgkuh** (Maulvi F.Ashraf
\n        Hussain)
\n        Line-6 : Completely defaced in Furher’s text but in
\n        Beveridge’s and Maulvi F.Ashraf’s text it is quoted as
\n        under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 ^^Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj d+yUnj**      (Beveridge)
\n                 ^^lkuk nj tgka ckcj dyUnj** (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
\n        Line-7 : Completely defaced in Furher’s text but in
\n        Beveridge’s and Maulvi F.Ashraf’s text it is quoted as
\n        under:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                ^*fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh**           (Beveridge)
\n                ^*fd ‘kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh*^ (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
\n1462.            After Line-7 Beveridge does not give any further
\ntext but has given remark that the inscription was incomplete
\nbut Furher and Maulvi F.Ashraf Husain have given the
\nfollowing text:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Line-8 ^^pquka ‘kkga’ kg s e’kgwj s vd+y he **      (Fuhrer)
\n                                                                           1610<\/span><\/p>\n
        ^^pquka d’k gQ~+r fd’koj nj fxjQ+rk**
\n                                                  (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
\nLine-9 ^^t+eha jk pwa fu’kkus ‘kknekuh**                      (Fuhrer)
\n        ^^t+eha jk pwa felkys vklekuh**                      (Maulvi F.Ashraf
\nHussain)
\nLine-10 *^njka gt++jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt++e** (Fuhrer)
\n        ^^njka gt+jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt+e** (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
\nLine-11 ^^fd [k +k dk + a & nkSyrk s Q+x +Q w j s& lk uh **         (Fuhrer)
\n        *^fd uke’k ehj ckd+h vkLQ+ lkuh**
\n                                                      (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
\nLine-12             ………………………….           (Fuhrer)
\n        *eq’khjs     lyrur          rnchj        eqyd’k*^ (Maulvi F.Ashraf
\nHussain)
\nLine-13             ………………………….           (Fuhrer)
\n        ^^dt+ha efLtnks fglkj gLr ckuh**
\n                                                  (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
\nLine-14             ………………………….           (Fuhrer)
\n        ^^[kqnk;k nj tgka ikbUnk cknk**                      (Maulvi F.Ashraf
\nHussain)
\nLine-15             ………………………….           (Fuhrer)
\n        ^*fd fp=ks r[+rks c[+rks ft+Unxkuh**
\n                                                  (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
\nLine-16            *^^fcuk;s egns nh a rkjh[+ksa eSewa**            (Fuhrer)
\n                   ^^fcuk;s vgns t+h a rkjh[+k eSewa**
\n                                                  (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
\nLine-17            *uqg ln lh cqon fgtjr cnkuh**                    (Fuhrer)
\n                   *fd uqg ln lh iat cqon fu’kkuh**
\n                                                      (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)
\nLine-18             ………………………….           (Fuhrer)
\n                   *rEer gkt+RrkSghnq o ukr o eng o flQ+r uOojYykgq
\n                                                                 1611<\/span><\/p>\n
                  cqjgkugq [kRrs vCnqTt+bZQ+ ughQ+ Q+rgqYykg eksgEen
\n                  x+kSjhA**             (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)<\/p>\n
1463.       We are extremely perturbed by the manner in which
\nAshraf Husain\/Desai have tried to give an impeccable authority
\nto the texts of the alleged inscriptions which they claim to have
\nexisted on the disputed building though repeatedly said that the
\noriginal text has disappeared. The fallacy and complete
\nmisrepresentation on the part of author in trying to give colour
\nof truth to this text is writ large from a bare reading of the write
\nup. We are really at pains to find that such blatant fallacious
\nkind of material has been allowed to be published in a book
\npublished under the authority of ASI, Government of India,
\nwithout caring about its accuracy, correctness and genuineness
\nof the subject. We have already given write up of Ashraf
\nHusain. Firstly, he said that the mistake was committed in
\nnumber of inscriptions. He claims that on the eastern fa\u00e7ade is a
\nChhajja below which appears a Quranic text and above thereto
\nan inscription in Persian verse. Then he says that on the central
\nmehrab are carved religious text such as Kalma (First creed),
\netc. Then he says that on the southern face of the pulpit
\npreviously there affixed a stone slab bearing a Persian
\ninscription in verse and another inscription in Persian verse was
\nbuilt up into right hand side wall of the pulpit. Both these
\ninscriptions i.e., the one claimed to be on the southern face of
\nthe pulpit and the other on the right hand side wall of the pulpit
\nare said to be non-available by observing “of these the last
\nmentioned two epigraphs have disappeared”.             The time of
\ndisappearance according to Maulvi Ashraf Husain was 1934
\nA.D. when a communal riot took place at Ayodhya. However,
\nhe claimed to have got an inked rubbing on one of the two
\n                                                                 1612<\/span><\/p>\n
inscriptions from Syed Badrul Hasan of Faizabad. The
\nwhereabouts of Syed Badrul Hasan , who he was, what was his
\nstatus, in what way and manner he could get that ink rubbing of
\nthe said inscription and what is the authenticity to believe it to
\nbe correct when original text of the inscription are not known.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There is nothing to co-relate the text he got as the correct text of
\nthe inscription found in the disputed building claimed to have
\nlost in 1934.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1464.     He also admits that the existing inscription which was
\nrestored by Muslim community was ‘inlaid nastaliq’ character
\nbut simultaneously says that the restored inscription is slightly
\ndifferent from the original and this distinction he attributes
\nperhaps to the incompetence of the restorer in deciphering it
\nproperly. When the original was already lost and there was
\nnothing to verify the text of restored inscription with the
\noriginal, neither the restored one can be relied upon nor it is
\nunderstandable as to how he could have any occasion to
\ncompare the restored one with the alleged nonest\/lost original
\none. It appears that the text which he got from Syed Badrul
\nHasan of Faizabad treated by him to be correct and taking it as
\nthe original text he has proceeded accordingly. It is also
\ninteresting to note that in the footnote realising this difficulty at
\nitem no.4, he has said that this tablet was found in 1906-07 A.D.
\nby Maulvi M. Suhaib of the office of Regional Archaeological
\nSurveyor, Northern Survey        (Annual progress report of the
\noffice of Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Survey Agra for
\n1906-1907), Appendix ‘D’). We however, find it difficult to
\nunderstand this reference if the inscription was fixed on the wall
\nof the disputed building, the question of finding tablet by
\nMaulvi M.Ashraf Husain does not arise. If what he intends to
\n                                                             1613<\/span><\/p>\n
suggest is that the inscription was noticed by Maulvi M. Suhaib
\nin 1906-07 and he has made some reference in the annual
\nprogress report of 1906-1907, the text of the inscription if was
\npublished in the said report, the author ought to have taken
\nmaterial from such report and not from a stranger namely Syed
\nBadrul Hasan of Faizabad whose credentials and authenticity is
\nunknown and whether any such person actually existed or not,
\neven this is doubtful, as has been argued by Sri Mishra and we
\nfind substance therein.\n<\/p>\n
1465.      The matter does not rest here. Ashraf Husain has
\ncritically commented upon the reading of one or two
\ninscriptions as published by Fuhrer and Beveridge stating that
\n“….their readings are so incomplete, inaccurate and different
\nfrom the text that their inclusion in this article is not only
\ndesirable but also imperative.”\n<\/p>\n
1466.       Once the alleged two inscriptions are lost and one of
\nsuch inscriptions according to Sri Husain was found by Fuhrer
\nwho has published its text, without having either the inscription
\nitself with him (Husain) or the authenticated stampage of the
\ntext of such inscription, how there could be any occasion for
\nHusain to claim that the text given by Fuhrer is incorrect.
\nSimilarly, he also could not have any occasion to compare that
\ntext with that of Beveridge. Admittedly, the date of publication
\nof such inscription by Fuhrer and A.S. Beveridge is before the
\ndate of disappearance i.e. 1934 as alleged by Ashraf Hussain.
\nTherefore, so far as Fuhrer and Beveridge are concerned they
\ncould have an occasion to peruse the inscription that was
\ninstalled before 1934 but so far as Maulvi M. Ahsraf Husain is
\nconcerned, this occasion in his own words, could not have
\narisen. The text, description and whatever had been set up by
\n                                                               1614<\/span><\/p>\n
Ashraf Husain in respect of the above inscription is unbelievable
\nand lacks trustworthiness. We are constrained to observe at this
\nstage that in the matter of historical events and that too, when it
\nbears a religious importance and the matter has also seen serious
\ndisputes between two communities, the persons who are
\nconnected with history etc. must behave responsibly and before
\nmaking any write up, should check up, cross check and verify
\nvery carefully what they are writing since the consequences of
\ntheir write up may be dangerous and irreparable.
\n1467.      We move on to one more aspect. Even the text of the
\ninscription which Ashraf Husain has given in plate 17(b), he
\nsays that the same is not what was printed in the existing
\ninscription as restored by Muslim community after 1934 riots
\nbut the same is an added version from the stampage obtained
\nfrom Syed Badrul Hasan of Faizabad. At this stage, we are
\nunable to compare even the restored text of the inscription as the
\nsame is not available and Maulvi M. Ashraf Hussain instead of
\ngiving the existing text as it is of the restored inscription has
\nchanged it according to his whims and caprices.
\n1468.      Coming to the authenticity of the text of the two
\ninscriptions given by Beveridge, we find that she herself had
\nneither read the said texts nor visited Ayodhya at any point of
\ntime. She claims to have received copy of the text through some
\ncorrespondence made by her husband, Henry Beveridge, an
\nI.C.S. Officer in British India Government.
\n1469.      The text of two inscriptions are the copy which she
\nclaims to have received from Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad
\non an inquiry made by her husband. In this regard at page 656,
\nfoot note 3 at the bottom she has said:\n<\/p>\n
        “that he spent a few days near Aud (Ajodhya) to settle its
\n                                                              1615<\/span><\/p>\n
        affairs. The D.G. Of Fyzbaa (H.E. Nevill) p.173 says “In
\n        1528 AD, Babur came to Ajodhya (Aud) and halted a week.
\n        The destroyed the ancient temple” (marking the birth-place
\n        of Rama) “and on its site built a mosque, still known as
\n        Babur’s Mosque….. It has two inscriptions, one on the
\n        outside, one on the pulpit; both are in Persian; and bear
\n        the date 935 AH.” This date may be that of the competition
\n        of the building.–(Corrigendum:-On f.339 n. 1, I have too
\n        narrowly restricted the use of the name Sarju. Babur used
\n        it to describe what the maps of Arrowsmith and Johnson
\n        shew, and not only what the Gazetteer of India Map of the
\n        United Provinces does,. It applies to the Sarda (f.339) as
\n        Babur uses it when writing of the fords.”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1470.       Perhaps she went through the description of the
\ndisputed site in the light of the observations made by Sri Nevill
\nwho wrote 1904 -1905 Gazetteer (Supra). Whether the alleged
\ntext made available to her by the Dy. Commissioner, Faizabad
\nwas an ink stampage of the text of the alleged two inscriptions
\nor it was obtained by him through somebody else by reading the
\ncontents or the manner in which the said text was collected, is
\nnot known. Rather there appears to be something otherwise.
\nFootnote 2 on page        lxxvii , Appendics ‘U’ of Baburnama
\n(Memoirs of Babur) shows that some changes were made by
\nBeveridge also:\n<\/p>\n
              “2. A few slight changes in the turn of expressions
\n        have been made for clearness sake.”\n<\/p>\n
1471.         To what extent the corrections have been made and
\nwhat was necessity thereof is not ascertainable. Why a verbatim
\nreproduction could not be made is also not understandable. At
\nleast there is nothing on record enabling us to examine this
\n                                                                 1616<\/span><\/p>\n
aspect of the matter. The second inscription, text whereof is
\nquoted at page lxxviii, Appendices ‘U’ of Baburnama by
\nBeveridge, we find that the same is incomplete and the reason
\nassigned by Beveridge is that it is not now legible. The text of
\nsecond inscription was not legible to Beveridge whose book was
\nfirst published in 1914\/1921. We fail to understand how its
\ncomplete text could be available to Maulvi M. Ashraf Husain
\nafter more than forty years thereafter who got it published in
\nEpigraphia Indica -Arabic and Persian Supplement 1965
\n(supra).\n<\/p>\n
1472.           From the text of A. Fuhrer the period of construction
\nof the disputed building is not 1528 AD and it also does not say
\nthat the same was built by Mir Baqi. The inscription no. XLI,
\nline four mentions the name of Mir Khan and inscription no.
\nXLII shows the period of construction as Hijra 930. The text
\ngiven by Sri Sushil Srivastava, PW 15 in his book “The
\nDisputed Mosque-A Historical Enquiry” is based on the text of
\ntwo inscriptions given by A.S. Beveridge and Prof. Radhey
\nShyam as is evident from page 78-79 of his statement. Athar
\nHussain’s text is the reproduction from Beveridge. Dr. Radhey
\nShyam has taken the text of three inscriptions from M. Ashrat
\nHussain’s write-up published in Epigraphia Indica-Arabic and
\nPersian Supplement in 1964-65.\n<\/p>\n
1473.         The apparent distinction, as appear from Fuhrer’s
\nreading of the inscription, is:\n<\/p>\n
        (a)     There is no mention of word of “honour” before the
\n                name of Babar.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (b)     Instead of “Mir Baqi” it mentions “Mir Khan”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (c)     There is no use of the word “mosque” but it
\n                mentions “lofty building” and also shows no
\n                                                             1617<\/span><\/p>\n
              dedication to Almighty.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        This is in respect to the first inscription.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1474.      Then comes the second inscription, where the marked
\ndistinction is the date i.e. 930 A.H. (1523 AD). It is a well
\nknown fact that in 1523 AD Babar was not in Hindustan but in
\nKandhar\/Kabul.\n<\/p>\n
1475.      Archaeological Survey of India also published a book
\n“The Monumental Antiquities And Inscriptions In The North-
\nWestern Provinces And Oudh” described and arranged by A.
\nFuhrer published by the Superintendent, Government Press, N.-
\nW. Provinces and Oudh, 1891. Copy of the frontispiece as well
\nas pages No.295, 296 and 297 thereof have been filed as Paper
\nNo.107C1\/33-36 i.e. Ex.9, Suit-5 (Register Vol.20, Pages 67-\n<\/p>\n
73). We have the entire book published in 1967 by Rameshwar
\nSingh, Indological Book House, Varanasi (Book No.94). Pages
\nNo.295-297 are verbatim the same filed as paper Nos.107C1\/34-\n<\/p>\n
36. About construction of building in dispute, on page 297 it
\nsays, “It is locally affirmed that at the Musalman conquest there
\nwere three important Hindu temples at Ayodhya; these were the
\nJanamasthanam, the Svargadvaram, and the Treta-ke-Thakur.
\nOn the first of these Mir Khan built a masjid, in A.H. 930,
\nduring the reign of Babar, which still bears his name.” The
\nreference has been made to Archaeological Reports (New
\nSeries), Vol.1, page 67.\n<\/p>\n
1476.      Ex. 81 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 216C1\/1-21) consists of
\ncertain pages from book “Babarnama” translated by Yugjeet
\nNavalpuri, first published 1974, third publication 1996, 1998
\nand reprint 2002 by Sahitya Academy, New Delhi. The Editorial
\nNote says that the book consist of Hindi translation by
\nNavalpuri of F.G. Talbot’s Edition of the “Memoirs of Baber”.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            1618<\/span><\/p>\n
However, the Chapter “Introduction” running from Page 9 to 18,
\npages 438 to 456 giving history from AH (1527 AD) and then
\nfor the year AH 936, page 510 has been filed. Sri Jilani from the
\nabove extract of the book has sought to submit that there is no
\nmention either of entry of Babar to Ayodhya or any act of
\ndemolition of any temple or construction of a Mosque. For the
\ndate of construction of the disputed building in 1528 AD, he
\nrefers to Footnote 48 on page 447 which refers two inscriptions
\nat the disputed building as under :\n<\/p>\n
             ^^48- \u00bcusfoy\u00bd ^ftyk xtsfV;j Q+Stkckn* esa fy[kk gS% ^^1529 bZ0 esa
\n      ckcj v;ks\/;k \u00bcvo\/k\u00bd vk;k vkSj ,d lIrkg jgkA mlus izkphu eafnj
\n      \u00bcjke&tUeLFkku\u00bd rqM+okdj mlds LFkku ij elftn cuokbZA – – -** bl
\n      elftn ij nks vfHkys[k gSaA \u00bc1\u00bd elftn ds Hkhrj%
\n      ^^cQ+jewn;s ‘kkfg ckcj fd vny’k cukbZLr rk dkf[k+ xjnwa eqykdh
\n      cuk djnbZ eqgfcrs dqnfl;kWA vehjs lvknr&fu’kkWa ehj ckdh
\n      cqon [kS+j ckd+h pq lkys cukb’k v;kWa ‘kq) fd xqQ~re cqon [kS+j ckd+h!
\n      \u00bc^^xxu&rqax gS U;k; dk lkS\/k ftldk mlh ‘kkg ckcj dk vkns’k ikdj
\n      cuh nsonwrksa dh ;g vorjf.kdk ! fej ehj ckd+h dks lkSHkkX; dk oj !
\n      ^cqon [kS+j ckd+h !* & dgk Li”V eSaus%^cqon [kSj ckd+h* gS fuekZ.k&oRlj!**
\n      \u00bcv;ks\/;k ds ^f’kd+nkj*\u00bd ehjckdh \u00bc’kd+koqy] ^ehM~0ck’kh* ;kuh ^gtkjk*]
\n      \u00bcrk’kdanh\u00bd us ckcj ds vkns’k ij elftn cuk;h FkhA ;gkWa igyk ^cqon
\n      [kSj ckd+h* \u00be \u00bc1\u00bd ;g vPNkbZ vej jgs*] \u00bc2\u00bd ^ckd+h ehj&0*\u00bd dk
\n      dq’kyeku gS tks lkjs lalkj dk l`”Vk ,oa
\nLFkku dh dSn ls eqDr gS
\n2- mldh iz’kalk ds ckn eksgEen eqLrQk lYyYykgks vySfg olYye ij
\nn:n gks tks ufc;ksa ds ljnkj vkSj lalkj ds loZJs”B O;fDr gSA
\n3- ckcj dyanj dk pjpk lkjs lalkj esa O;kid gS fd og ,d lQy
\nlezkV gqvk gSA
\n4- og ,slk lezkV gS fd ftlus lkrksa ns’kksa ij fot; izkIr dj fy;k]
\ni`Foh dks Hkh vkdk’k ds leku dCts esa dj fy;kA
\n5- ml ‘kkgh njckj dk ,d fo’kky uokc gS ftldk uke ehj ckdh
\nf}rh; vkflQ gS
\n6- ‘kklu dk lykgdkj vkSj mlds ns’k dk iz’kkld tks bl efLtn
\nvkSj fdys dk f’kykfu;kl djus okyk gSA
\n7- ,s! [kqnk lalkj esa mldk rkt] flagklu] HkkX; vkSj thou lnSo ckd+h
\njgsA
\n8- bl ;qx ds bl bekjr dh cqfu;kn dh ‘kqHk frfFk dh fu’kkuh 935
\ngSA** (Hindi Translation)
\n        “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the merciful,
\nand in Him is my trust.\n<\/p>\n
(1) In the name of One who is Wise, Great and Creator of
\nall the universe and is spaceless.\n<\/p>\n
(2) After he praise, blessing be upon the Choosen one (i.e.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                1623<\/span><\/p>\n
        the Prophet) who is the head of the Prophets and best in
\n        the world.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) The Qalandar like Babar has attained fame in the
\n        whole world to the effect that he has been a successful
\n        emperor.\n<\/p>\n
        (4) He is such an emperor as has conquered all the seven
\n        climes of the world and also captured the earth as in case
\n        of sky.\n<\/p>\n
        (5) In that royal court there was a magnificent noble
\n        named Mir Baqi, the second Asaf.\n<\/p>\n
        (6) (He is) councillor of the Government and administrator
\n        of his kingdom, who is the founder of this mosque and fort-
\n        wall.\n<\/p>\n
        (7) O! God, may he live for ever in this world, with crown
\n        and throne and fortune and life.\n<\/p>\n
        (8) The time of this building of this age is this auspicious
\n        date, of which the indication is 935.” (E.T.C.)
\n                Note: The above inscription was read by Shukh
\n        Karamatullah (D.W. 5) who climbed up the arch by means
\n        of a ladder and ?the verses are written in Arabic
\n        characters.”\n<\/p>\n
1479.       In the book Ayodhya Ka Itihas by Sri Avadhwasi
\nLala Sitaram, first published in 1932, reprinted in 2001,
\npublished by Arya Book Depot, New Delhi, the transcript of the
\nin-script has been mentioned at page 115\/116 which is a
\nverbatim copy of the text quoted by A.S. Beveridge. The learned
\nauthor has given, however, totally different reasons and history
\nof the construction of the disputed building. There is nothing to
\nshow the basis on which he has written the said history. Sri
\nJilani has castigated the contents of this entire book of Lala
\n                                                              1624<\/span><\/p>\n
Sitaram contending that neither he was a historian nor there is
\nany authority mentioned in his book to generate confidence for
\nwhat has been written therein, therefore, this book is not
\nreliable. This author retired from the office of Deputy Collector
\nas appearing from the Forward of his book written by Sri
\nDevendra Swaroop.\n<\/p>\n
1480.    The above discussion tells us that basically there are
\nthree version in respect to the text or transcript of the
\ninscriptions fixed on the disputed building. The text available to
\nA.Fuhrer says that “a firmament-like lofty strong building was
\nerected by an auspicious noble Mir Khan under the command of
\nBabar in the year 930 AH i.e. 1523 AD and foundation of the
\nsaid building was laid down by the King of China and Turkey in
\npresence of Babar”. The transcript made available to Beveridge
\nreveal that “under the command of Emperor Babar, good
\nhearted Mir Baki built that alighting place of angels in 935 AH
\ni.e. 1528-29”. The last one is that of ASI report of 1964-65
\nedited by Z.A.Desai, the transcript whereof says that “by the
\norder of King Babar that descending place of Angles was built
\nby the fortunate noble Mir Baki”. In respect to another
\ninspection, Desai text says that “a lofty building and lasting
\nhouse (of God) was founded by Mir (and) Khan (Baqi)”. The
\nwords placed within brackets are that of Mr. Husain or Dr.
\nDesai’s own insertion and do not find place in the text of the
\ninscription as such.\n<\/p>\n
1481.     The fourth one, which can be said to be very recent
\nand inspire more confidence than other is the one when pursuant
\nto the order of the learned Civil Judge, Faizabad, Sri A. Akhtar
\nAhasan made inspection of the disputed structure on 26th March,
\n1946 and obtained text of two inscriptions fixed on the disputed
\n                                                                 1625<\/span><\/p>\n
building at that time. This text, as is reproduced in judgment
\ndated 30.03.1946 (Ex. A42, Suit-1) in R.S. No.29\/1945 says that
\nin the first inscription the words are “by the order of Shah
\nBabar, Amir Mir Baki built the resting place of angles in 923
\nA.H. i.e. 1516-17 AD”. In respect to second inscription, he says
\nthat “Mir Baki of Isphahan in 935 AH i.e. 1528-29 AD”. We
\nfind that the reading of text of inscriptions by Civil Judge,
\nFaizabad was earlier than Dr. Z.A.Desai’s publication yet there
\nis a good variance with the text of the estampage procured and
\ntranscribed by Desai.\n<\/p>\n
1482.     In the entire Babar-Nama i.e. all the translations made
\nby various writers, we are not informed that the words “Mir
\nBaki Isfahani” has been mentioned at any place. What has been
\nsaid is Baki Tashkendi and various other Bakis but not Mir Baki
\nIsfahani. We are informed by Sri P.N.Mishra, which is not
\ndisputed by other learned counsels, that Taskend is a city of
\nUzbekistan while Isfahan is a province of Iran.
\n1483.     Sri Mishra, on the basis of the above facts submits that
\nBaki Isfahani and Baki Taskandi cannot be regarded as one and
\nthe same person. Baki Isfahani a person not known to Babar
\nhaving not been mentioned in Babarnama could not have any
\nkind of authority at all in the period of Babar. It is therefore safe
\nto presume that it is fictitious name which adds and fortify the
\nargument that the inscription has been implanted later on with a
\ntranscription which is fictitious and false and had no factual
\nauthenticity.\n<\/p>\n
1484.     The above discussion raises a serious doubt over the
\ngenuinity and authenticity of the text or transcript of the
\ninscriptions and the time when they were fixed on the disputed
\nbuilding. To base a finding in a judicial proceeding while
\n                                                                  1626<\/span><\/p>\n
adjudicating a dispute of this nature, it would be improper and
\nagainst the all cannons of the principles applicable in such
\nmatter. However, there are some more facts and material which
\nneeds to be considered before recording a final opinion on the
\nmatter.\n<\/p>\n
1485.      The very first document\/historical book in this regard
\nis “Tuzuk-i-babri”, i.e., “Baburnama” or “daily diary of Babar”
\nwhich has been translated and published by several well known
\nauthors and some of them are considered to be the authentic
\nwork internationally also. Broadly the learned counsels for the
\nparties and the Expert Historians have also not disputed
\nauthenticity of such work which we now propose to refer.
\n1486.      Babur-nama       (Tuzuk-i-babri)      commences        its
\ndescription from 899 Hizra (1493-94 AD). In the total life span
\nof 47 years and 10 months, the description of only 18 years of
\nBabur’s life is available and that too in various spans. The
\nperiod, for which the details are not available, are as under:\n<\/p>\n
        1. History from the birth (14th February, 1483 AD) till
\n        Singhasanarohan Ramazan 899 Hijri (June 14, 1494 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        2. Description from 908 Hijri (1503 AD) till 909 Hijri
\n        (1504 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        3. Description from 914 Hijri (1508 AD) till 925 Hijri
\n        (1519 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4. Description from 4 Safar 926 Hijri(15th January 1520
\n        AD) till 30 Muharram 932 Hijri (16th November, 1525
\n        AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        5. Description from 13 Rajab 934 Hijri (3rd April 1528
\n        AD) till 2 Muharram 934 Hijri (17th September, 1528 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        6. History of following days of 934 Hijri (1528-29 AD):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (a) 1, 2 Muharram 934 Hijri (16, 17th September
\n                                                               1627<\/span><\/p>\n
             1528 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (b) 21 Muharram 934 Hijri (6th October 1528 AD) to
\n             26 Muharram 934 Hijri (11th October 1528 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (c) 6 Safar 934 Hijri (20th October 1528 AD) to 8
\n             Safar 934 Hijri (22nd October 1528 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (d) 11 Safar 934 Hijri (25th October 1528 AD) to 20th
\n             Safar 934 Hijri (3rd November 1528 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (e) 29 Safar 934 Hijri (12th November 1528 AD) to 8
\n             Rabi-ul-Avval (20th November 1528 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (f) 15 Rabi-ul-Avval (27th November 1528 AD) to
\n             18 Rabi-ul-Avval (1st December 1528 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (g) 24 Rabi-ul-Avval (7th December 1528 AD) to 28
\n             Rabi-ul-Avval (11th December 1528 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (h) 13 Rabi-ussani (25th December 1528 AD) till 15
\n             Rabi-ussani (27th December 1528 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (i) 6 Jamadi-ul-Avval (16th January 1529 AD) till 9
\n             Jamadi-ul-Avval (19th January 1529 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (j) 19 Shavval (25th June 1529 AD) till 30 Shavval
\n             (6th July 1529 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (k) 5 Zikad (11th July 1528 AD) till 11 Zikad (17th
\n             July 1529 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (l) 20 Zikad (27th July 1529 AD) till 4 Zilhijja (10th
\n             August 1529 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (m) 11 Zilhijja (17th August 1529 AD) till 29 Zilhijja
\n             (4th September 1529 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        7. 4 Muharram 936 Hijri (8th September 1529 AD) till 6
\n        Jamadi-ul-Avval 937 Hijri (26th December 1530 AD).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1487.      In India, Babar came in 1526 AD and the description
\navailable of that period till his death is as under:\n<\/p>\n
        1. From 1 Safar 932 Hijri (17 November 1525 AD) till 12
\n                                                               1628<\/span><\/p>\n
        Rajab 934 Hijri (2nd April 1528 AD)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        2. From 3 Muharram 934 Hijri (18th September 1528 AD)
\n        till 3 Moharram 936 Hijri (7th September 1529 AD). In
\n        this way the description of only three days of first month
\n        of 936 Hijri is available. The description of many days in
\n        between 935 Hijri is also not available.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1488.        The missing record is of the period 2nd April, 1528
\nA.D. to 17th September, 1528 A.D. which is crucial for this
\nmatter. Out of this period, 2nd April, 1528 to 15th April, 1528
\nwas part of 934 A.H. and 15th September, 1528 to 17th
\nSeptember, 1528 was part of 935 A.H. It means in the crucial
\nyear i.e. 935 A.H., the missing record is only of three days.
\nTherefore, non mention of anything about disputed in 935 A.H.
\nbuilding in Babar-Nama does not sound to any reason.
\n1489.        On crossing of the Babar’s army led by his commander
\nSultan Chin Taimur, they found that Bayazid and Biban had
\nalready fled away and therefore, no fight at Ayodhya could have
\noccurred. That being so, the question of killing of any Muslim
\nand making of grave at the disputed site does not arise.
\n1490.        The Manuscripts (in short “MS”) of Baburnama, as
\navailable has been noticed by Mrs. A.S. Beveridge based on the
\nmagazine published by Royal Asiatic Society, Landon in 1900
\nAD:\n<\/p>\n
        1.     MS written by Babur\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        2.     MS sent to Khwaja Kalan\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        3.     MS written by Humaun\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4.     MS possessed by Alphinston\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        5.     MS kept at British Museum, Landon\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        6.     MS in the India office of British Government\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        7.     MS of Asiatic Society, Bengal
\n                                                                1629<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        8.     MS at Mysore\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        9.     MS of Biblothika Lindesiyana.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        10.    MS at Hyderabad\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        11.    MS of St. Peteres Berg University.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        12.    MS kept at foreign office of St. Peters Berg\n<\/p>\n
        13.    MS kept at Asiatic Society Museum of St. Peters
\n               Berg\n<\/p>\n
        14.    MS of Bukhara\n<\/p>\n
        15.    MS of Nazerbe Turkistan
\n1491.         It is said that probably Babur got prepared two MS but
\npresently none is available \/ traceable. Similarly MS sent to
\nKhwaja Kalan, which is referred in his (Babur’s) description
\ndated 4th March, 1529 is also not available\/traceable. Even
\notherwise since it is said to have been sent on 4th March, 1529, it
\ncould not have been completed after 4th March, 1959. MS of
\nMysore that is possessed by Tepu Sultan is also not available \/
\ntraceable.\n<\/p>\n
1492.         Elphinston purchased the MS of Babur at Peshawar in
\n1809 AD, which probably was prepared between 1543 to 1593
\nAD and the said MS is kept in the Advocate’s library, Edimbara.
\n1493.         Dr. Leyden translated some of the part of Babur’s
\nautobiography from the MS of Elphinston and Erskin made
\ncorrections in his translation on the basis of the said MS.
\n1494.         MS of Biblothika Lindesiyana was purchased in 1865
\nAD and is incomplete.\n<\/p>\n
1495.         MS of Hyderabad was made available to Mrs.
\nBeveridge from the library of Sir Salar Jang. It is said to be
\nprepared in 1700 AD. It is most complete available MS, as
\nclaimed by Mrs. A.S. Beveridge. She has written her translation
\nof ‘Baburnama’ on the basis thereof.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            1630<\/span><\/p>\n
1496.     MS of St. Petersberg is said to have been prepared
\nfrom another MS copied in 1617 AD. Dr. George Jaikab Kehar
\nprepared the said MS in 1737 but the MS where from it was
\nprepared is not traceable. Elminski published Turkish Edition
\nof Baburnama in 1857 AD on the basis of the said MS and
\nFrench translation of Babur-nama made by Dr. Pevet Kotele
\nwas also based on the said MS.\n<\/p>\n
1497.     From the reading of translation of ‘Babur-nama’ we do
\nnot find any title thereof. However, now it is commonly known
\nas “Babur-nama” or “Tuzuk-i-babri” by all.
\n1498.    In the earlier part of Babur-nama i.e. upto 1508-09
\nAD, it is in the form of history where the details have been
\ngiven of various events occurred in different years but from
\n1519 AD till end, it is a day to day description.
\n1499.    Baburnama was originally written in Turkish. Initially,
\nit was translated in Persian prose by Sheikh Zain Wafai Kwafi.
\nOne of the MS of the said translation is in Raza Library,
\nRampur, U.P. (India) and another is in British Museum, Landon.
\nAnother Persian translation was made by Mirza Payanda Hasan
\nGajnavi in 1586 AD under the orders of Behroz Khan Gajnavi,
\nwho in fact made a partial translation and it was completed by
\nMohd. Kuli Mugul Hisari. The most universal popular Persian
\ntranslation was made by Mirza Abdurrahim Khane Khana Bin
\nBairam Khan (Abul Fazal) in 1589 AD.\n<\/p>\n
1500.    The first English translation of Babur-nama was
\nattempted by “Dr. John Leyden” in 1810 AD. However, he
\ncould not complete the same and died in August, 1811 AD. At
\nthe same time “William Erskine” also commenced his English
\ntranslation from Persian under the instructions of General Sir
\nJohn Malcom and Elphinstone and completed his work in 1813
\n                                                                  1631<\/span><\/p>\n
AD. Thereafter he found that there was a lot of differences in
\nthe work of Dr. John Leyden. Since Leyden had commenced
\nhis translation from Turkish MS, Erskine made corrections in
\nhis translation and this work was published in 1826 AD under
\nthe title “Memoirs of Zehir-ed-Din Muhammad Babur” by
\n“John Laden and William Erskine”.\n<\/p>\n
1501.          Another translation was made in English by Mrs.
\nAnnette Susannah Beveridge, (hereinafter referred to as
\n“Beveridge”) under the title “Babur-nama (Memoirs of Babur)”.
\nInitially her translation was published in four parts as under :-\n<\/p>\n
        i.       History prior to Babur’s victory of Kabul (the period
\n                 relating to Phargana) – published in 1912 AD.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        ii.      From Kabul Victory till India victory ; published in
\n                 1914 AD
\n        iii.     From India’s victory till end ; published in 1917 AD
\n        iv.      Introduction, Glossary etc. ; published in 1921 AD
\n1502.          The complete four parts in two volumes were
\npublished collectively in 1922 under the title “The Babar Nama
\nin English”.\n<\/p>\n
1503.          French translation was made by Pevet-de-Kotele
\npublished in 1871 AD.\n<\/p>\n
1504.          The learned counsels for the parties have not disputed
\nthat the contents of the book of Beveridge’s translation of
\nBabur-Nama available to the Court has no difference with the
\nphotocopies of some of the pages filed as Exhibits, detailed
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
1505.          The parties agree that amongst various books
\ntranslating “Babur-nama, Mrs. Beveridge’s translation is the
\nmost authentic and complete. The ‘Affairs of Hindustan’
\ncommences from page 439 which says:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 1632<\/span><\/p>\n
        “The centre of interest in Babur’s affairs now moves from
\n        Qandahar to a Hindustan torn by faction, of which faction
\n        one result was an appeal made at this time to Babur by
\n        Daulat Khan Ludi (Yusuf-khail) and ‘Alau’d-din ‘Alam
\n        Khan Ludi for help against Ibrahim.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1506.         The details of meeting of Dilawar Khan and Babur
\ngiving an occasion to him to come to India has been written by
\nMrs. Beveridge on page 440 as under :\n<\/p>\n
        “b. Reception of Dilawar Khan in Kabul.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Wedding festivities were in progress when Dilawar
\n        Khan reached Kabul. He presented himself, at the Char-
\n        bagh may be inferred, and had word taken to Babur that an
\n        Afghan was at his Gate with a petition. When admitted, he
\n        demeaned himself as a suppliant and proceeded to set forth
\n        the distress of Hindustan. Babur asked why he, whose
\n        family had so long eaten the salt of the Ludis, had so
\n        suddenly deserted them for himself. Dilawar answered that
\n        his family through 40 years had uphelf the Ludi throne, but
\n        that Ibrahim maltreated Sikandar’s amirs, had killed 25 of
\n        them without cause, some by hanging, some burned alive,
\n        and that there was no hope of safety in him. Therefore, he
\n        said, he had been sent by many amirs to Babur whom they
\n        were ready to obey and for whose coming they were on the
\n        anxious watch.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        “c.     Babur asks a sign.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                At the dawn of the day following the feast, Babur
\n        prayed in the garden for a sign of victory in Hindustan,
\n        asking that it should be a gift to himself of mango or betel,
\n        fruits of that land. It so happened that Daulat Khan had
\n        sent him, as a present, half-ripened mangoes preserved in
\n                                                               1633<\/span><\/p>\n
        honey ; when these were set before him, he accepted them
\n        as the sign, and from that time forth, says the chronicler,
\n        made preparation for a move on Hindustan.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1507.      Babur’s expedition to India (Hindustan) this time was
\nthe fourth one and commenced in 930 AH i.e. 10th November,
\n1523 AD. The first battle ensued between Babur and Bihar
\nKhan leaving a section of army of Ibrahim Ludi at Lahor since
\nDaulat Khan had already fled therefrom. Babur defeated Bihar
\nKhan and his troops followed Bihar Khan fugitive men into
\nLahor, plundered the town and burned some of the bazars.
\nThereafter Babur moved to Dibalpur and samething happened
\nthereat also i.e. it was stormed, plundered and put to the sword.
\nWe need not go into further details about other battles except the
\nmajor battle against Ibrahim Lodi son of Sikundar Lodi (An
\nAfghan) at Panipat which he (Babar) won on 20th April, 1526
\nA.D. This battle resulted in killing of about 40-50 thousand
\nsoldiers. Babur immediately appointed Humayun to reach Agra
\nand take over the palace as also to mount guard over the
\nTreasure. Some of the confidents of Babur were directed to keep
\nwatch on the Treasuries at Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
1508.      On 21st April, 1526, Babur visited bank of Jumna, on
\n24th April, 1526 A.D., he visited Sheikh Nizamud-din Auliya’s
\nTomb on the bank of river Jumna at Delhi and also made an
\nexcursion into the Fort of Delhi where he spent night. On next
\nday i.e. 25th April, 1526 A.D., he visited Khwaja Qutbud-din’s
\nTomb, and the Tombs and residences of Suleman Ghiyasu’d-din
\nBalban and Suleman Alauud-din Khilji and his Minar, the Hoze-
\nshamsi, Hoze-i-khas and the Tombs and gardens of Suleman
\nBuhlul Ludi and Sikandar Ludi. On page 476, Mrs. Beveridge
\nmention:\n<\/p>\n
                                                               1634<\/span><\/p>\n
        “We bestowed the Military Collectorate (shiqdarlighi) of
\n        Dihli on Red Wali, made Dost Diwan in the Dihli district,
\n        sealed the treasuries, and made them over to their charge.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1509.      On 28th April, 1526 A.D. Babur moved on for Agra
\nand also made an excursion to Tughluqabad. He reached near
\nAgra on 4th May, 1526 A.D. and stayed at the mansion of
\nSulaiman Farmuli in a suburb of Agra and moved on the next
\nday to Jalal Khan’s house. At Agra the garrison did not
\nsurrender to Humayun, and, therefore he sat down to watch the
\nroads out of Agra till the arrival of Babur.
\n1510.      The king of Gualiar (Gwaliar) had died in the battle of
\nPanipat but his son and other family members were at Agra at
\nthat time. When Humayun reached Agra, they tried to flee away,
\nbut could not due to the close guard of outside ways by
\nHumayun’s army. They offered a mass of jewels and valuables
\nincluding the diamond Koh-i-nur to Humayun which was
\noffered by Humayun to Babur on his arrival but Babur gave it to
\nHumayun back. It is said that the said diamond weigh about 320
\nratis (8 misqals). On 10th May, 1526 AD, Babur entered the fort
\nof Sultan Ibrahim Ludi at Agra.\n<\/p>\n
1511.     The biography though said to have been written de die
\nin diem, but the record of some period being not available, the
\nbiography in respect to those dates is admittedly missing.
\nRegarding his activities at Ayodhya, from a perusal of Page 602
\nof the book, it appears that he reached at some distance above
\nthe junction of rivers Ghaghara and Saryu on 28.3.1528, i.e.,
\nSaturday the 7th Rajab 934 A.H. The area reigned by Shaikh
\nBayazid Baqi Shaghawal, along with some others crossed the
\nriver and conquered the place. Babur stayed on the Bank of
\nSaryu for sometimes. The autobiography contains the date 2nd
\n                                                                 1635<\/span><\/p>\n
April 1528 but thereafter there is a break of narrative between
\n2nd April to 18th September 1528 AD, i.e. Jumada II 12th, 934
\nA.H. and Moharram III 935 A.H.\n<\/p>\n
1512.      What happened at Ayodhya, whether Babur actually
\nvisited Ayodhya or not, nothing is mentioned about it in the said
\nautobiography. The contents of his autobiography of dated
\n28.3.1528 and 2.4.1528 as contained on Page-602 are
\nreproduced as under :\n<\/p>\n
        “(March 28th) On Saturday the 7th of Rajab we dismounted
\n        2 or 3 kurohs from Aud above the junction of the Gagar
\n        (Gogra) and Sird(a). Till today Shaikh Bayazid will have
\n        been on the other side of the Sird(a) opposite Aud, sending
\n        letters to the Sultan and discussing with him, but the Sultan
\n        getting to know his deceitfulness, sent word to Qaracha at
\n        the Mid-day Prayer and made ready to cross the river. On
\n        Qaracha’s joining him, they crossed at once to where were
\n        some 50 horsemen with 3 or 4 elephants. These men could
\n        make no stand; they fled, a few having been dismounted,
\n        the heads cut off were sent in.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Following the Sultan there crossed over Bi-khub
\n        (var. Ni-khub) Sl. and Tardi Beg (the brother) of Quj Beg,
\n        and Baba Chuhra (the Brave), and Baqi Shahghawal,
\n        Those who had crossed first and gone on, pursued Shaikh
\n        Bayazid till the Evening Prayer, but he flung himself into
\n        the jungle and escaped. Chin-timur dismounted late on the
\n        bank of standing-water, rode on at mid-night after the
\n        rebel, went as much as 40 kurohs (80 m.), and came to
\n        where Shaikh Bayazid’s family and relations (nisba?) had
\n        been; they however must have fled. He sent gallopers off in
\n        all directions from that place; Baqi Shaghawal and a few
\n                                                               1636<\/span><\/p>\n
        braves drove the enemy like sheep before them, overtook
\n        the family and brought in some Afghan prisoners.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              We stayed a few days on that ground (near Aud) in
\n        order to settle the affairs of Aud. People praised the land
\n        laying along the Sird(a) 7 or 8 kurohs (14-16 m.) above
\n        Aud, saying it was hunting-ground. Mir Muhammad the
\n        raftsman was sent out and returned after looking at the
\n        crossing over the Gagar-water (Gogra) and the Sird(a)-
\n        water (Chauka?).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (April 2nd) On Thursday the 12th of the month I rode out
\n        intending to hunt.”      (emphasis added)
\n1513.      Page 617 of the above book, mentions activities of
\n22.10.1528 as under :\n<\/p>\n
        “(Oct. 22nd) By this time the treasure of Iskandar and
\n        Ibrahim in Dihli and Agra was at an end. Royal orders
\n        were given therefore, on Thursday the 8th of Safar, that
\n        each stipendiary (wajhdar) should drop into the Diwan, 30
\n        in every 100 of his allowance, to be used for war-material
\n        and appliances, for equipment, for powder, and for the pay
\n        of gunners and matchlockmen.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1514.      For the period, i.e., 2.4.1528 to 18.9.1528, the record
\nof biography whereof is not available, during this period of five
\nand half months, the Babur is said to have proceeded to Junpur
\n(Jaunpur), Chausa, Baksara (Baksar) etc. and was ill for 40
\ndays. Beveridge on Pages 603 and 604 of Babur-Nama has said:\n<\/p>\n
        “Mr. Erskine note (Mems. p.381n.) that he found the gap in
\n        all MSS. he saw and that historians of Hindustan throw no
\n        light upon the transactions of the period. Much can be
\n        gleaned however as to Babur’s occupations during the 5\u00bd
\n        months of the lacuna from his chronicle of 935 AH. which
\n                                                                 1637<\/span><\/p>\n
        makes several references to occurrences of “last year” and
\n        also allows several inferences to be drawn. From this
\n        source it becomes know that the Afghan campaign the
\n        record of which is broken by the gap, was carried on and
\n        that in its course Babur was at Jun-pur (f. 365), Chausa (f.
\n        365b) and Baksara (f. 366-366b); that he swam the Ganges
\n        (f. 366b) bestowed Sarun on a Farmuli Shaikh-zada (f.
\n        374b and f. 377), negociated with Rana Sanga’s son
\n        Bikramajit (f. 342b), ordered a Char-bagh laid out (f. 340),
\n        and was ill for 40 days (F. 346b). It may be inferred too
\n        that he visited Dulpur (f. 353b), recalled “Askari (f. 339),
\n        sent Khwaja Dost-i-khawand on family affairs to Kabul (f.
\n        345b), and was much pre-occupied by the disturbed state of
\n        Kabul (see his letters to Humayun and Khawaja Kalan
\n        written in 935 AH.).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              It is not easy to follow the dates of events in 935 AH.
\n        because in many instances only the day of the week or a
\n        “next day” is entered. I am far from sure that one passage
\n        at least now found s.a. 935 AH. does not belong to 934 AH.
\n        It is not in the Hai. Codex (where its place would have
\n        been on f. 363b), and, so far as I can see, does not fit with
\n        the dates of 935AH. It will be considered with least trouble
\n        with its context and my notes (q.v. f.363b and ff. 366-
\n        366b).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1515.      From Page 679 of ‘Babur-Nama’ by Beveridge, it
\nfurther appears that Babur received message on 27.5.1529 about
\ntaking of ‘Luknur’ by Baqi and one Abdullah (kitabdar). The
\nextract of the autobiography dated 27.5.1529 is reproduced as
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
        “(May 27th) On Friday (19th) I rode out to visit Sikandarpur
\n                                                               1638<\/span><\/p>\n
        and Kharid. Today came matters written by ‘Abdu’l-lah
\n        (kitabdar) and Baqi about the taking of Luknur.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                 (emphasis added)
\n1516.      On 28.5.1529, it is mentioned that the Babur sent one
\nKuki along with a troop to join Baqi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1517.      At Page 680 the author (Beveridge) has mentioned
\nabout a surprise survival of some record of 934 A.H. and has
\nwritten that this part of the writing appears to be in respect to
\nAud (Ayodhya) where Babur spent some days in 934 A.H. It
\nreads as under :\n<\/p>\n
        “After spending several days pleasantly in that place where
\n        there   are   gardens,   running   waters,   well-designed
\n        buildings, trees, particularly mango-trees, and various
\n        birds of coloured plumage, I ordered the march to be
\n        towards Ghazipur.”         (emphasis added)
\n1518.      Pages 684 and 685, refer the dates 13th June 1529
\nA.D., 17th June 1529 A.D. and 20th June 1529 A.D., and say that
\nBaqi joined Babur in pursuit of Biban and Bayazid near Dalmud
\n(Dalmau) and Baqi was given leave along with his army of Aud
\n(Ayodhya) on 20th June 1529 A.D.
\n1519.      “John Layden and William Erskine’s” book on
\n“Babar\/ Babur-Nama” also does not throw any light on this
\naspect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1520.      “Lieut.-Colonel F.G. Talbot” in his book “Memoirs
\nof Baber Emperor of India-First of the Great Moghuls”, first
\npublished in 1909 (first Indian reprint 1974 published by Ess
\nEss Publications, Delhi) has said that with an intent to set up an
\nEmpire in India, he set out on march in 1525 A.D. along with
\nabout 12 thousands men. On 29th December, 1525 A.D., he
\nreached at Sialkot. Here he has given his experience with Jats
\n                                                                  1639<\/span><\/p>\n
and Gujers in the following words :\n<\/p>\n
              “Every time that I have entered Hindustan, the Jats
\n        and Gujers have regularly poured down in prodigious
\n        numbers, from their hills and wilds, in order to carry off
\n        oxen and buffaloes. These were the wretches that really
\n        inflicted the chief hardships, and were guilty of the severest
\n        oppressions on the country.” (Page 174)
\n1521.      Therefrom he proceeded to Panipat where he defeated
\nIbrahim Lodi, Sultan of Delhi in April 1526 A.D. On page 187
\nto 188, Talbot has narrated Baber’s memoirs after defeating
\nIbrahim Lodi as under :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “On Thursday, the 28th of Rejeb, about the hour of
\n        afternoon prayers, I entered Agra, and took up my
\n        residence at Sultan Ibrahim’s palace. From the time when I
\n        conquered the country of Kabul, which was in the year
\n        1504, till the present time I had always been bent on
\n        subduing Hindustan. Sometimes, however, from the
\n        misconduct of my Amirs and their dislike of the plan,
\n        sometimes from the cabals and opposition of my brothers, I
\n        was prevented from prosecuting any expedition into that
\n        country, and its provinces escaped being overrun. At length
\n        these obstacles were removed. There was now no one left,
\n        great or small, noble or private man, who could dare to
\n        utter a word in opposition to the enterprise. In the year
\n        1519, I collected an army, and having taken the fort of
\n        Bajour by storm, put all the garrison to the sword. I next
\n        advanced into behreh, where I prevented all marauding
\n        and plunder, imposed a contribution on the inhabitants,
\n        and having levied it to the amount of four hundred
\n        thousand shahrukhis in money and goods, divided the
\n                                                                 1640<\/span><\/p>\n
        proceeds among the troops who were in my service, and
\n        returned back to Kabul. From that time till the year 1526, I
\n        attached myself in a peculiar degree to the affairs of
\n        Hindustan, and in the space of these seven or eight years
\n        entered it five times at the head of an army. The fifth time,
\n        the Most High God, of his grace and mercy, cast down and
\n        defeated an enemy so mighty as Sultan Ibrahim, and made
\n        me the master and conqueror of the powerful empire of
\n        Hindustan.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1522.      The Empire of Hindustan on Page 189 of Talbot’s
\nMemoirs of Baber (supra) is described in the following words :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “The empire of Hindustan is extensive, populous and
\n        rich. On the east, the south, and even the west, it is
\n        bounded by the Great Ocean. On the north, it has kabul,
\n        Ghazni, and Kandahar. The capital of all Hindustan is
\n        Delhi.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1523.      He also narrated that on one hand Baber criticised the
\ncountry     he    has   recently   invaded   and    conquered    but
\nsimultaneously he has expressed very high opinion. Page 190 of
\nthe Book ‘Memoirs of Baber’ (supra) says:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “Hindustan is a country that has few pleasures to
\n        recommend it. The people are not handsome. They have no
\n        idea of the charms of friendly society, of frankly mixing
\n        together, or of familiar intercourse. They have no genius,
\n        no comprehension of mind, no politeness of manner, no
\n        kindness or fellow-feeling, no ingenuity or mechanical
\n        invention in planning or executing their handicraft works,
\n        no skill or knowledge in design or architecture; they have
\n        no good horses, no good flesh, no grapes or musk-melons,
\n        no good fruits, no ice or cold water, no good food or bread
\n                                                                    1641<\/span><\/p>\n
        in their bazars, no baths or colleges, no candles, no
\n        torches, not even a candlestick.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               The chief excellency of Hindustan is, that it is a large
\n        country, and has abundance of gold and silver. Another
\n        convenience of Hindustan is, that the workmen of every
\n        profession and trade are innumerable, and without end.
\n        For any work, or any employment, there is always a set
\n        ready, to whom the same employment and trade have
\n        descended from father to son for ages.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1524.        Though it is not necessary for the present purpose to
\ndiscuss Babur-nama at great length since we are not concerned
\nwith the history of Babur or his invasion to India, laying of
\nempire here-at, and its other political, social and other
\nconsequences but in the light of the respective arguments
\nadvanced by the parties it may be of some importance to have a
\nbird eye view of some incidental relevant aspects borne out
\nfrom the description given in Babur-nama. Sri Mishra said that
\nBabar was a thorough religious person. In fact the submission of
\nSri Misra that Babar was a deeply indulged religious man, had
\nno hatred towards idols, never visited Ayodhya and, therefore,
\nhad     no     occasion   to   order    for   construction    of   any
\nbuilding\/disputed building, i.e., mosque at Ayodhya, are duly
\nconcurred and in fact in the line of what has been argued by Sri
\nJilani and other counsels appearing for various Muslim parties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This however is in direct contradiction to the arguments of Sri
\nH.S.Jain, M.M. Pandey, A.K.Pandey etc.
\n1525.        In Beveridge’s Babur-Nama on page 15, the quality
\nand habits of Babar are described:\n<\/p>\n
        “He was a true believer (Hanafi mazhablik) and pure in
\n        the Faith, not neglecting the Five Prayers and, his life
\n                                                            1642<\/span><\/p>\n
through, making up his Omissions. He read the Quran very
\nfrequently and was a disciple of his Highness Khawaja
\n‘Ubaidu’l-lah (Ahrari) who honoured him by visits and
\neven called him son. His current readings were the two
\nQuintets and the Masnawi of histories he read chiefly the
\nShah-nama. He had a poetic nature, but no taste for
\ncomposing verses. He was so just that when he heard of a
\ncaravan returning from Khitai as overwhelmed by snow in
\nthe mountains of Eastern Andijan, and that of its thousand
\nheads of houses (awiluq) two only had escaped, he sent his
\noverseers to take charge of all goods and, though no heirs
\nwere near and though he was in want himself, summoned
\nthe heirs from Khurasan and Samarkand, and in the course
\nof a year or two had made over to them all their property
\nsafe and sound.\n<\/p>\n
      He was very generous; in truth, his character rose
\naltogether to the height of generosity. He was affable,
\neloquent and sweet-spoken, daring and bold. Twice out-
\ndistancing all his braves, he got to work with his own
\nsword, once at the Gate of Akhsi, once at the Gate of
\nShahrukhiya. A middling archer, he was strong in the fist,-
\nnot a man but fell to his blow. Through his ambition, peace
\nwas exchanged often for war, friendliness for hostility.\n<\/p>\n
      In his early days he was a great drinker, later on
\nused to have a party once or twice a week. He was good
\ncompany, on occasions reciting verses admirably. Towards
\nthe last he rather preferred intoxicating confects and,
\nunder their sway, used to lose his head. His disposition was
\namorous, and he bore many a lover’s mark. He played
\ndraughts a good deal, sometimes even threw the dice.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 1643<\/span><\/p>\n
1526.      The treasure, Baber received at Agra was distributed to
\nhis son Humayun and other relatives, army men and also sent to
\nhis relatives in Samarkand and Khurasan:\n<\/p>\n
        “(May 12th) On Saturday the 29th of Rajab the examinations
\n        and distribution of the treasure were begun. To Humayun
\n        were given 70 laks from the Treasury, and, over and above
\n        this, a treasure house was bestowed on him just as it was,
\n        without ascertaining and writing down its contents. To
\n        some begs 10 laks were given, 8, 7, or 6 to others. Suitable
\n        money-gifts were bestowed from the Treasury on the whole
\n        army, to every tribe there was, Afghan, Hazara, ‘Arab,
\n        Biluch etc. to each according to its position. Every trader
\n        and student, indeed every man who had come with the
\n        army, took ample portion and share of bounteous gift and
\n        largess. To those not with the army went a mass of treasure
\n        in gift and largess, as for instance, 17 laks to Kamran, 15
\n        laks to Muhammad-i-zaman Mirza, while to ‘Askari, Hindal
\n        and indeed to the whole various train of relations and
\n        younger children went masses of red and white (gold and
\n        silver), of plenishing, jewels and slaves. Many gifts went to
\n        the begs and soldiery on that side (Tramontana). Valuable
\n        gifts (saughat) were sent for the various relations in
\n        Samarkand, Khurasan, Kashghar and ‘Iraq. To holy men
\n        belonging to Samarkand and Khurasan went offerings
\n        vowed to God (nuzur); so too to Makka and Madina. We
\n        gave one Shahrukhi for every soul in the country of Kabul
\n        and the valley-side of Varsak, man and woman, bond and
\n        free, of age or non-age.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1527.      The revenue of the country held by Babar in 1528
\nA.D. from Bhira to Bihar was 52 krurs (judged by Erskine in
\n                                                                  1644<\/span><\/p>\n
1854 A.D. at about Pound 4,212,000).\n<\/p>\n
1528.       At the time Babar invaded India, it was governed by
\nfive Musalman Rulers and two Pagans which he described as
\nrespected and independent Rulers. Besides them, there were
\nmany Rais and Rajas in the hills and jungles, held in little
\nesteem. The seven Principle Rulers are described on page 481 to
\n484 of Babur-Nama by Beveridge:\n<\/p>\n
              “At the date of my conquest of Hindustan it was
\n        governed by five Musalman rulers (padshah) and two
\n        Pagans (kafir). These were the respected and independent
\n        rulers, but there were also, in the hills and jungles, many
\n        rais and rajas, held in little esteem (kichik karim).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              First, there were the Afghans who had possession of
\n        Dihli, the capital, and held the country from Bhira to
\n        Bihar. Junpur, before their time, had been in possession of
\n        Sl. Husain Sharqi (Eastern) whose dynasty Hindustanis
\n        call Purabi (Eastern). His ancestors will have been cup-
\n        bearers in the presence of Sl. Firuz Shah and those
\n        (Tughluq) sultans :they became supreme in Junpur after his
\n        death. At that time Dihli was in the hands of Sl. ‘Alau’u’-din
\n        (Alam Khan) of the Sayyid Dynasty to whose ancestor
\n        Timur Beg had given it when, after having captured it, he
\n        went away. Sl. Buhlul Lodi and his son (Sikandar) got
\n        possession of the capital Junpur and the capital Dihli, and
\n        brought both under one government (88I AH.–1476 AD).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Secondly, there was Sl. Muhammad Muzaffer in
\n        Gujrat; he departed from the world a few days before the
\n        defeat of Sl. Ibrahim. He was skilled in the Law, a ruler
\n        (padshah) seeking after knowledge, and a constant copyist
\n        of the Holy Book. His dynasty people call Tank. His
\n                                                         1645<\/span><\/p>\n
ancestors also will have been wine-servers to Sl. Firuz
\nShah and those (Tughluq) sultans; they became possessed
\nof Gujrat after his death.\n<\/p>\n
      Thirdly, there were the Bahmanis of the Dakkan
\n(Deccan, i.e., South), but at the present time no
\nindependent authority is left them; their great begs have
\nlaid hands on the whole country, and must be asked for
\nwhatever is needed.\n<\/p>\n
      Fourthly, there was Sl. Mahmud in the country of
\nMalwa, which people call also Mandau. His dynasty they
\ncall Khilij (Truk). Rana Sanga had defeated Sl. Mahmud
\nand taken possession of most of his country. This dynasty
\nalso has become feeble. Sl. Mahmud’s ancestors also must
\nhave been cherished by Sl Firuz Shah; they became
\npossessed of the Malwa country after his death.\n<\/p>\n
      Fifthly, there was Nasrat Shah in the country of
\nBengal. His father (Husain Shah), a Sayyid styled
\n‘Alau’u’d-din, had ruled in Bengal and Nasrat Shah
\nattained to rule by inheritance. A surprising custom in
\nBengal is that hereditary succession is rare. The royal
\noffice is permanent and there are permanent offices of
\namirs, wazirs and mansab-dars (officials). It is the office
\nthat Bengalis regard with respect. Attached to each office
\nis a body of obedient, subordinate retainers and servants. If
\nthe royal heart demand that a person should be dismissed
\nand another be appointed to sit in his place, the whole body
\nof subordinates attached to that office become the (new)
\nofficeholder’s. There is indeed this peculiarity of the royal
\noffice itself that any person who kills the ruler (padshah)
\nand seats himself on the throne, becomes ruler himself;\n<\/p>\n
                                                        1646<\/span><\/p>\n
amirs, wazirs, soldiers and peasants submit to him at once,
\nobey him, and recognize him for the rightful ruler his
\npredecessor in office had been. Bengalis say, “We are
\nfaithful to the throne; we loyally obey whoever occupies
\nit”. As for instance, before the reign of Nasrat Shah’s
\nfather ‘Alau’u’d-din, an Abyssinian (Habshi, named
\nMuzaffar Shah) had killed his sovereign (Mahmud Shah
\nIlyas), mounted the throne and ruled for some time.
\n‘Alau’u’d-din killed that Abyssinian, seated himself on the
\nthrone and became ruler. When he died, his son (Nasrat)
\nbecame ruler by inheritance. Another Bengali custom is to
\nregard it as a disgraceful fault in a new ruler if he expend
\nand consume the treasure of his predecessors. On coming
\nto rule he must gather treasure of his own. To amass
\ntreasure Bengalis regard as glorious distinction. Another
\ncustom in Bengal is that from ancient times parganas have
\nbeen assigned to meet the charges of the treasury, stables,
\nand all royals expenditure and to defray these charges no
\nimpost is laid on other lands.\n<\/p>\n
      These five, mentioned above, were the great
\nMusalman rulers, honoured in Hindustan, many-legioned,
\nand broad-landed. Of the Pagans the greater both in
\nterritory and army, is the Raja of Bijanagar.\n<\/p>\n
      The second is Rana Sanga who in these latter days
\nhad grown great by his own valour ans sword. His original
\ncountry was Chitur; in the downfall from power of the
\nMandaus Sultans, he became possessed of many of their
\ndependencies such as Rantanbur, Sarangpur, Bhilsan and
\nChandiri. Chandiri I stormed in 934 AH. (1528 A.D.)
\nand, by God’s pleasure, took it in a few hours; in it was
\n                                                                   1647<\/span><\/p>\n
        Rana Sanga’s great and trusted man Midni Rao; we
\n        made general massacre of the Pagans in it and, as will
\n        be narrated, converted what for many years had been a
\n        mansion of hostility, into a mansion of Islam.\n<\/p>\n
                 There are very many rais and rajas on all sides and
\n        quarters of Hindustan, some obedient to Islam, some,
\n        because of their remoteness or because their places are
\n        fastnesses, not subject to Musalman rule.”
\n1529.      From the above it does appear that Babar’s visit to
\nIndia for its conquest was a well intended plan and fulfillment of
\na dream which he had. At page 478 Mrs. Beveridge has written:\n<\/p>\n
                 “From the date 910 at which the country of Kabul
\n        was conquered, down to now (932 AH.) (my) desire for
\n        Hindustan had been constant, but owing sometimes to the
\n        feeble     counsels   of   begs,   sometimes   to   the   non
\n        accompaniment of elder and younger brethren, a move on
\n        Hindustan had not been practicable and its territories had
\n        remained unsubdued. At length no such obstacles were left;
\n        no beg, great or small (beg begat) of lower birth, could
\n        speak an opposing word. In 925 AH. (1519 AD.) we led an
\n        army out and, after taking Bajaur by storm in 2-3 gari (44-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        66 minutes), and making a general massacre of its
\n        people, went on into Bhira. Bhira we neither over-ran nor
\n        plundered; we imposed a ransom on its people, taking
\n        from them in money and goods to the value of 4 laks of
\n        shahrukhis and having shared this out to the army and
\n        auxiliaries, returned to Kabul. From then till now we
\n        laboriously held tight to Hindustan, five times leading
\n        an army into it. The fifth-time, God the Most High, by his
\n        own mercy and favour, made such a foe as Sl. Ibrahim the
\n                                                              1648<\/span><\/p>\n
        vanquished and loser, such a realm as Hindustan our
\n        conquest and possession.” (emphasis added)
\n1530.      It also appears therefrom that Babur treated himself to
\nbe the third invader who have conquered and ruled Hindustan.
\nFirst according to him was Mahmud of Ghazni (also called
\nMahmud Ghaznavi), a “Turk” by race, who invaded India on
\nseveral occasions and though died in 1030 AD but his
\ndescendants set long on the seat of Government in Hindustan.
\nThe second was Shihabuddin of Ghur (also known as
\n“Muhammad Ghori”) who died in 1206 AD and then the third
\nwas Babur.\n<\/p>\n
1531.      It thus appear that Babur did not came to Hindustan
\nwith an intention to spread Islam religion but he had intention to
\nconquer and rule the country. It is true that Hindustan in the
\npresent form under a single hand could not have been there in
\n1526 AD and on the contrary it was independently ruled by
\nseveral Rulers treating each part as a country but as a whole also
\nit used to be called by Babar as “Hindustan”. This is also
\nevident from page 479 of the aforesaid book where it is
\nmentioned:\n<\/p>\n
             “All Hindustan was not under one supreme head
\n        (padshah), but each Raja ruled independently in his own
\n        country.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1532.      It thus cannot be doubted that most of the persons,
\nwho ruled Indian sub-continent at that time were followers of
\nIslam with whom Baber fought to set up his empire.
\n1533.      About the construction of buildings in general and the
\nworkmen for construction work, on page 520 of            “Babur-
\nNama” by Beveridge, she said:\n<\/p>\n
             “Another good thing in Hindustan is that it has
\n                                                                1649<\/span><\/p>\n
        unnumbered and endless workmen of every kind. There is a
\n        fixed caste (jam’i) for every sort of work and for every
\n        thing, which has done that work or that thing from father to
\n        son till now. Mulla Sharaf, writing in the Zafar-nama about
\n        the building of Timur Beg’s Stone Mosque, lays stress on
\n        the fact that on it 200 stone-cutters worked, from
\n        Azarbaijan, Fars, Hindustan and other countries. But 680
\n        men worked daily on my buildings in Agra and of Agra
\n        stone-cutters only; while 1491 stone-cutters worked daily
\n        on my buildings in Agra, Sikri, Biana, Dulpur, Gualiar
\n        and Kuil. In the same way there are numberless artisans
\n        and workmen of every sort in Hindustan.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1534.      There is mention of buildings in Babur-Nama at
\ndifferent places including temple of Gwalior, mosque at Delhi,
\nAgra, Gwalior and other several places but it is true that neither
\nthere is mention of demolition of any religious place by Babar in
\nAwadh area nor there is anything to show that he either entered
\nAyodhya or had occasion to issue any direction for construction
\nof a building and in particular a Mosque at Ayodhya.
\n1535.      The Babar’s camping at Ghaghar has also been
\ndescribed by William Erskine in his book “History of India
\nunder Baber” (May 1845), though published for the first time
\nin 1854 after his death (Book No. 65) (Published in 1994 by M\/s
\nAtlantic Publishers and Distributors). Erskine came to India in
\n1803 AD as Secretary of Sri James Mackintosh at Bombay and
\nlater came to be appointed as Master in equity in the Recorder
\nof Bombay Court but had to leave India in 1823 on suspicion of
\nembezzlement. He was born in 1773 and died in 1852. After
\nreturn from India he spent rest of his life in Scotland occupying
\nthe post of Provost of Saint Andrews in 1837-38 AD. It says:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                1650<\/span><\/p>\n
        “Baber, having brought the war of Chanderi to a
\n        conclusion, lost no time in marching to meet the danger
\n        that threatened him in the East. Having repassed the
\n        Jamna, he proceeded without intermission towards Kanauj.
\n        On the road, he learned that his suspicions of Sheikh
\n        Bayezid’s fidelity had not been unfounded. That chief had
\n        joined Baban and Maaruf, the leaders of the revolt, with
\n        his whole army; so that Baber’s troops had been compelled
\n        to retreat across the Ganges, to evacuate even Kanauj and
\n        to fall back on Raberi, movements that had enabled the
\n        enemy to take Shemsabad, a rich town in the Doab, by
\n        storm.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1536.      In “History of India under Baber” by William
\nErskine (Supra) on page 87, there is a footnote showing that
\nMir or Mirza was a title:\n<\/p>\n
              “The princes of Taimur’s family, even those who held
\n        the supreme power, had not yet assumed the title of shah or
\n        padshah, king of emperor; they were called Mir or Mirza,
\n        and often Sultan. In the text, however, the ruling prince is
\n        often called King, for distinction’s sake; following the
\n        usage of historians in general, and even of Baber himself.
\n        The title of Sultan was not confined to the sovereign, many
\n        chiefs, and children of chiefs, especially among the Moghul
\n        tribes, being called by that name, which is an Arabic term,
\n        nearly equivalent to Lord. The titles, Mir, Mirza, and Shah,
\n        came also, in process of time, to be very commonly given to
\n        religious guides and holy men, or mendicants, and, from a
\n        sort of flattery, were often continued to the descendants as
\n        part of the family name. The title of Mirza, in later times,
\n        has been lavished by common usage on secretaries and
\n                                                                  1651<\/span><\/p>\n
        clerks; and in general on all who pretend to learning.
\n        Mirza is merely mirzadeh, son of a Mir.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1537.      The reference of Oudh in the said book of Earskine is
\non page 406, 443 and 450. Referring Lodhi dynasties
\nexpansions on page 406-407 Easrskine has written:\n<\/p>\n
              “Behlul’s son, Sultan Sekander Lodi, a prince of
\n        talent, in a reign of thirty years, enlarged the kingdom still
\n        farther. In the Est, he subdued Behar, the last province that
\n        remained in the possession of the Sherki kings; and even
\n        advanced into Bengal, where Sultan Husein Shah had
\n        taken refuge. By a convention concluded with Sultan Ala-
\n        ed-din of Bengal, it was agreed, that Sekander should
\n        retain Behar, Tirhut, Sirkar Saran, and all that he had
\n        conquered; that he should not again invade Bengal; and
\n        that neither prince should support the enemies of the other.
\n        On the west, he gained possession of Dhulpur and
\n        Chanderi, and received the submission of the Raja of
\n        Gualiar and and other princes; so that, at his death, his
\n        kingdom had attained a very great extent, containing the
\n        Penjab, the Doab, the provinces of Oud, Laknau, Juanpur
\n        and Behar, besides a wide tract of country to the west of
\n        the Jamna, from the Satlej to Bandelkand. These extensive
\n        possessions, however, though under one king, had no very
\n        strong principle of cohesion. The monarchy was a
\n        congeries of nearly independent principalities, jagirs and
\n        provinces, each ruled by a hereditary chief, or by a
\n        zemindar or delegate from Delhi; and the inhabitants
\n        looked more to their immediate governors, who had
\n        absolute power in the province, and in whose hands,
\n        consequently, lay their happiness or misery, than to a
\n                                                                  1652<\/span><\/p>\n
        distant and little known sovereign. It was the individual,
\n        not the law, that reigned. The Lodi princes, not merely to
\n        strengthen their own power, but from necessity, had in
\n        general committed the government of the province, and the
\n        chief offices of trust, to their own countrymen, the Afghans;
\n        so that men of the Lodi, Fermuli, and Lohana tribes, held
\n        all the principal jagirs; which, from the habitual modes of
\n        thinking of their race, they considered as their own of right,
\n        and purchased by their swords, rather than as due to any
\n        bounty or liberality on the part of the sovereign.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1538.      Again on page 441-443 while referring political
\ncondition of the area under rule of Ebrahim Lodhi who was
\ndefeated by Babar in April 1526 AD, Earskine has said
\n(including the description of political sovereignty on Ayodhya):\n<\/p>\n
              “But, though Baber had been victorious in the field,
\n        and was in possession of the two great capitals of the
\n        kingdom, it soon appeared that his situation, far from being
\n        one of safety or ease, was surrounded with difficulty and
\n        danger. He and his army were strangers to the people
\n        whom he had subdued; and a mutual dislike soon
\n        manifested itself between his soldiers and the inhabitants of
\n        Agra, his head-quarters. The peasantry, as well as the
\n        fighting men of the country, shunned and fled from his
\n        followers. The north of India, at the time of Baber’s
\n        conquest, still retained much of its original Hindu
\n        organization;    its   system   of   village   and    district
\n        administration and government; its division into numerous
\n        little chieftainships, or petty local governments; and, in
\n        political revolutions, the people looked much more to their
\n        own immediate rulers, than to the prince who governed in
\n                                                      1653<\/span><\/p>\n
the capital. Except at Delhi and Agra, the inhabitants
\neverywhere fortified their towns, and prepared to resist.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The invasion was regarded as a temporary inundation, that
\nwould speedily pass off. Every man in authority raised
\ntroops, and put himself in a condition to act. Those who
\nheld delegated authority or jagirs, being generally
\nAfghans, were consequently hostile to the new state of
\nthings. They soon came to an understanding among
\nthemselves, and took measures for mutual co-operation.
\nRaja Hasan Khan of Mewat, in the neighborhood of Agra,
\nwas the grand instigator of the opposition; which was
\nsupported by Nizam Khan, in Biana; Muhammed Zeitun, in
\nDhulpur; Tatar Khan Sarang-Khani, in Gualiar; Husein
\nKhan Lohani, in Raberi; Kutb Khan, in Etawa; Alim Khna
\nJilal Khan Jighat, in Kalpi; Kasim Sambhali, in Sambhal;
\nand Marghub, a slave, in Mahawan, within twenty kos of
\nAgra. Indeed, all of these chiefs were immediately around
\nAgra, or close upon its borders. They looked for aid from
\nRana Sanga, the powerful chief of Cheitur; who, on his
\npart, laid claim to a great part of the right bank of the
\nJamna. These Western Afghans wished to place Sultan
\nMahmud Lodi, a Brother of the late Sultan Ibrahim, on the
\nthrone of Delhi; and so to preserve the Afghan and the
\nLodi dynasty.\n<\/p>\n
     In the Eastern provinces of Juanpur and Oud, the
\nopposition presented even a more regular form. There, the
\nconfederacy of Afghan chiefs, who had been in open
\nrebellion against Ibrahim for two years before his death,
\nstill continued. The revolt was originally headed by Nasir
\nKhan Lohani, Maaruf Fermuli, and others. The insurgents,
\n                                                                1654<\/span><\/p>\n
        we have seen, had elected Baber Khan Lohani, the son of
\n        Deria Khan of Behar, for their king; and proclaimed him,
\n        under the name of Sultan Muhamed Shah. They now
\n        possessed, not only Behar, but nearly the whole territories
\n        of the old Sherki monarchy, especially the country on the
\n        left bank of the Ganges; and had even crossed to the right
\n        bank of the river, and taken possession of Kanauj, and
\n        advanced into the Doab. Sultan Ibrahim had sent an army,
\n        under Mustafa Fermuli and Firuz Khan Sarang-khani, to
\n        reduce the rebels to obedience. Mustafa had met the
\n        revolted chiefs, and defeated them in some well-contested
\n        actions. On his death, which occurred some time before the
\n        defeat of Sultan Ibrahim, he was succeeded in the
\n        command by Sheikh Bayezid, his younger brother. The
\n        army under his orders was formidable; and it was
\n        naturally to be expected, that, changed as circumstances
\n        now were, the two armies opposed to each other in the
\n        field, being both Afghans, would lay aside their mutual
\n        animosities, and, animated by national feelings, unite to
\n        expel Baber, the common enemy.”\n<\/p>\n
1539.      The Afghan Chiefs who rule in various territories of
\nIndia without any subordination, when realized that the Babar
\nmay settle in India ending their unlimited authority, their further
\naction is described at page 443\/444:\n<\/p>\n
              “It was clear that the Afghan chiefs, who till now had
\n        ruled with nearly unlimited authority both in Delhi and
\n        Behar, must be ruined if Baber settled in Hindustan, They,
\n        therefore, stirred up, with great success, the apprehensions
\n        of the natives, whether Musulman or Hindu, by the most
\n        false and groundless reports. The people of the country
\n                                                                1655<\/span><\/p>\n
        were told, that they had every thing to dread from their
\n        barbarous invaders; that they would be robbed of their
\n        property; that their wives and children would be
\n        dishonoured; their temples profaned or destroyed. Baber
\n        and his army had reached Agra in May, in that climate the
\n        hottest season of the year. The inhabitants, in terror, fled
\n        before them, and abandoned their dwellings, so that no
\n        grain or provender could be procured for man or beast.
\n        The villagers fled to the waste, and infested the highways,
\n        plundering and robbing on every side. The roads became
\n        impassable. Baber’s force was so small that he was unable
\n        to send out detachments sufficient to protect the different
\n        districts. To add to these difficulties, the heats that year
\n        happened to be uncommonly intense, so that many of his
\n        men,    who   were       from   more   temperate   climates,
\n        unaccustomed to the burning sun of India, dropped down
\n        and died on the spot.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1540.       However, the manner in which the Babar manage the
\nthings has been said on page 446 showing that Awadh was
\nassigned to Bayazid Fermuli. To take possession of the assigned
\nterritory, Humayun moved alongwith army and on page 450 it
\nhas mentioned:\n<\/p>\n
               “Humayun, after putting to fight the Afghan army,
\n        crossed the Ganges and took possession of Juanpur. He
\n        next marched to Ghazipur, intending to attack Nasir
\n        Khan’s army, which had retired into that neighborhood.
\n        But the Afghans, on his approach, retired behind the
\n        Gogra, as it would appear, into the territory of Bengal; and
\n        a detachment that he sent to pursue them returned, after
\n        plundering the country of Kherid and Behar. Having thus
\n                                                               1656<\/span><\/p>\n
        expelled them from the Juanpur territory, he left Shah Mir
\n        Husein, in the city of Juanpur, supported by Sultan Juneid
\n        Birlas with some of his best troops; and Sheikh Bayezid in
\n        Oud, with every means of maintaining the country; and
\n        then, in compliance with orders which he received from his
\n        father, recrossed into the Doab; and marching back by
\n        Kalpi, of which he gained possession by the submission of
\n        Alim Khan, rejoined the Emperor at Agra, bringing Alim
\n        Khan along with him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1541.      The movement of Babar in the last week of March
\n1528 AD near Awadh is described on page 487:\n<\/p>\n
        “The Emperor sending Sultan Chin Taimur, with a strong
\n        force to pursue them, himself advanced and occupied
\n        Laknau on the 21st, and passed the Gumti. Moving again in
\n        pursuit of the retreating enemy, he encamped, on the 28th,
\n        four or five miles above Oud, at the junction of the Gogra
\n        and Sirwu. Till then, Sheikh Bayazid had maintained his
\n        ground beyond the Sirwu, and had prevented Sultan Chin
\n        Taimur, Baber’s general, from crossing. Being now
\n        reinforced, however, Chin Taimur effected a passage, and
\n        found the Afghans in full retreat. He followed them with
\n        great alacrity, slew numbers of them, and dispersed their
\n        army. Sheikh Bayezid threw himself into a jungle and
\n        escaped. Chin Taimur, after a pursuit of sixty miles,
\n        reached a spot which the families of the fugitives had left
\n        but a short time before. The light force was now divided
\n        into several parties, who followed the flying enemy in
\n        different directions. Their baggage and families were
\n        overtaken and seized; and several Afghans brought in as
\n        prisoners. The success was complete.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                               1657<\/span><\/p>\n
1542.      Here also there is no mention of anyone as Mir Baqi or
\nabout entry of Babar in Awadh. It was submitted that there was
\nno occasion for Babar either to demolish a temple or to
\nconstruct a mosque at Ayodhya in 1528 AD.\n<\/p>\n
1543.      On page 443, he has described the state of affairs at
\nAyodhya in 1526 that the Afghan Chief at Oud revolted against
\nIbrahim Lodi about two years back his death and the revolt was
\noriginally headed by Nasir Khan Lohani, Maaruf Fermuli and
\nothers. After the death of Mustafa Fermuli, Sheikh Bayezid
\nsucceeded him in his command who was his younger brother.
\n1544.      On page 450, he mentions that Humayun after taking
\npossession of Jaunpur left Shah Mir Husein thereat supported by
\nSultan Juneid Birlas along with some of his best troops and
\nSheikh Bayezid in Oud along with every means of maintaining
\nthe country and thereafter crossed Doab and marched towards
\nKalpi of which he gained possession after surrender of Alim
\nKhan and immediately thereafter he rejoined the Emperor at
\nAgra. In 1527, Babar proceeded on his march to fight against
\nRajputs where he defeated Rana Sanga. This victory has been
\ndescribed on page 473, Erskine’s History of India (supra) as
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
        “No victory could be more complete. The enemy were quite
\n        broken and dispersed. The whole fields around were
\n        strewed with the dead, as well as the roads to Biana and
\n        Alwar. Among the slain were Hasan Khan Mewati, who fell
\n        by a matchlock shot; Raul Udi Singh, of Dongerpur; Rai
\n        Chanderbhan Chohan; Manikchand Chohan, and many
\n        other chiefs of note. Baber directed a tower of heads to be
\n        erected; on a rising ground near the camp; and henceforth
\n        assumed the proud title of Ghazi, Victorious in a Holy War.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                   1658<\/span><\/p>\n
        Rana Sanga himself escaped; it is said by the devotion of
\n        some of his followers, who threw themselves in the way of
\n        the pursuers, and sacrificed their lives for his safety; and
\n        the regret expressed by Baber for not having urged the
\n        pursuit in person has reference probably to the escape of
\n        his illustrious rival. It is remarkable that, since this defeat
\n        of Rana Sanga, no Rana of Cheitur has ever taken the field
\n        in person against any of the princes of the House of
\n        Taimur. When these princes were along with their armies,
\n        the Rana’s troops have been entrusted to some eminent
\n        Rajput chief, the Rana himself withdrawing to some one of
\n        the hill-forts of his country.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1545.      Baber returned to Agra on 25th April, 1527 and,
\nthereafter, gained Chandwar, Raberi and Etawa which were
\nsurrendered by Kutb Khan who held it. The victory of Babar
\nwithin a year after defeat of Ibrahim Lodi against Rajputs and
\nothers has been described on page 477 of Erskine’s History of
\nIndia (supra) as under :\n<\/p>\n
        “That battle has broken the power of the Afghans in India,
\n        as that of Kanwa had since broken that of the Hindu
\n        confederacy. He had evinced, to every class of men in the
\n        country, the decided superiority of his arms; and, with his
\n        mental resources, the awe inspired by his hardly northern
\n        troops, and his own bravery and conduct, the conquest of
\n        every part of India seems to lie open to his arms.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1546.       Baber took some rest as mentioned on page 478 of
\nErskine’s History of India:\n<\/p>\n
              “During the rains he visited Sikri, Dhulpur, and
\n        Bari, proceeding as far as the Chambal; he thence returned
\n        to Agra; and went to Kol or Koel in the Doad, and on to
\n                                                              1659<\/span><\/p>\n
        Sambhal, beyond the Ganges, returning by a different
\n        route.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1547.      He, thereafter, planned to march against Afghans of
\nthe East, who still held out, in considerable force, beyond the
\nGanges and in Behar and some of the Hindu chiefs in the West
\nwhose confederacy he had felt to be so formidable, i.e. Medini
\nRai of Chanderi. After defeating Medini Rai at Chanderi, he
\nproceeded to East, i.e., Kanauj. On page 484, Erskine’s History
\nof India, it is said that the Baber got information that his
\nsuspicion of Sheikh Bayezid’s fidelity are not unfounded.
\nBayezid had joined Baban and Maaruf, the leaders of the revolt
\nwith his whole army. As we have already noticed Sheikh
\nBayezid was posted at Oudh by Humayun to look after that area
\nbut on joining revolt, Baber had to move to Oudh. He reached
\nnear Ayodhya (Oudh) on 28th March 1528 A.D. and has narrated
\nthe events which took place thereafter as under :\n<\/p>\n
        “The light force was now divided into several parties, who
\n        followed the flying enemy in different directions. Their
\n        baggage and families were overtaken and seized; and
\n        several Afghans brought in as prisoners. The success was
\n        complete.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1548.      Here also we do not find anything so suggest that
\nBaber either entered Ayodhya or gave direction to anyone to
\nconstruct a Mosque or to demolish a temple so as to construct a
\nmosque.\n<\/p>\n
1549.      Lastly, we have Hindi Translation, i.e. “Mughal
\nKaleen Bharat Baber (1526-1530)” by Sayed Athar Abbas
\nRizvi (Supra). In the chapter titled as “Review” Rizvi has
\nobserved that due to lack of confidence on Afghans, Baber
\nalready separated them from his army except a few one of
\n                                                                              1660<\/span><\/p>\n
confidence.       Commenting          on    construction       activities     and
\navailable revenue on page 44, Chapter “Review”, Rizvi has said:\n<\/p>\n
               ^^ikuhir ds ;q) ds iwoZ tks dqN Hkh \/ku lEifRr izkIr gksrh Fkh
\n        mldk vf\/kdka’k Hkkx og yksxksa esa ckaV fn;k djrk FkkA 5 ekpZ dks gqek;wW
\n        ds gehn ij fot; izkIr djds ykSVus ds mijkUr mlus mls fglkj
\n        Q+hjkst+k rFkk mlds v\/khuLFk LFkku ,oa ,d djksM+ ud+n \/ku iqjLdkj
\n        LOk#Ik iznku dj fn;kA vkxjk ds [kt+kus dks Hkh mlus blh izdkj cM+h
\n        mnkjrk ls yksxksa dks ckaV fn;k vkSj vius vkidks d+yUnj dgykus esa xoZ
\n        dk vuqHko fd;k djrk FkkA fgUnqLrku esa Hkh mlus izpfyr ‘kklu Ik)fr
\n        dk vuqlj.k fd;k vkSj fofHkUu izns’kksa dks iw.kZ #Ik ls vf\/kdkj esa djus
\n        rFkk ogka ‘kkfUr LFkkfir j[kus ds fy, vD+rknkj ,oa f’kd+nkj fu;qDr
\n        fd;sA dqN izns’k [kkylk esa lfEefyr dj fy;s x;sA fdUrq fQj Hkh
\n        mlds fuekZ . k dk;k s aZ rFkk nku iq . ; ds dkj.k mls \/ku ds
\n        vHkko dk loZ n k gh lkeuk djuk iM+k A 22 vDVwcj 1528 bZ0
\n        dss o`rkUr esa og fy[krk gS fd ^^bl chp esa fldUnj rFkk bczkfge ds
\n        nsgyh ,oa vkxjk ds [kt+kukaas dk vUr gks x;kA vr% c`gLifrokj 8 lQ+j
\n        dks ;g ‘kkgh vkns’k gqvk fd izR;sd otgnkj ;q) dh lkexzh]
\n        vL+=&’kL= ,oa cUnwd+ rFkk rksi pykus okyksa ds osru gsrq viuh otg esa
\n        ls 100 esa ls 30 nhoku esa nkf[ky dj nsaA**
\n1550.       On page 46 Rizvi says :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               ^^ckcjukek esa rRdkyhu fofHkUu izkUrksa dh tek \u00bcjktLoa\u00bd dh Hkh
\n        ppkZ dh xbZ gSA bl dkj.k fd vkbus vdcjh ds vfrfjDr vdcj ds
\n        iwoZ ds bfrgklksa esa jktLo ds lEcU\/k esa bruk Hkh Kku fdlh xzUFk ls
\n        ugha izkIr gksrk ckcjukek dk ;g o`rkUr vR;Ur egRoiw.kZ gSA ckcjukek
\n        ls ;g Hkh irk pyrk gS fd ml le; rd fgUnq L rku ds leLr
\n        vkfey] dkjhxj ,oa Jfed fgUnw gk sr s Fk sA ekyxqtkjh dh
\n        olwyh esa rqdksZa ds jkT; esa Hkh cM+h dfBukbZ gksrh FkhA vykmn~nhu ds
\n        rRlEcU\/kh dBksj fu;e cM+s izfl) gSaA ckcjukek ds o`rkUrkuqlkj
\n        fgUnqLrku ds eSnku ds cgqr ls Hkkxksa esa cM+s cM+s dkaVsnkj taxy gksrs Fks
\n        tgka ijxuksa ds fuoklh ‘kj.k ys ysrs Fks vkSj fonzksg dj nsrs Fks rFkk dj
\n        ugha vnk djrs FksA nsgyh ds lqYrkuksa ds bfrgklksa esa eokl ‘kCn dk
\n        blh izlax esa cM+k vf\/kd iz;ksx gqvk gS ftldk vFkZ ;gh dkaVsnkj taxy
\n                                                                              1661<\/span><\/p>\n
        gSA blds vfrfjDr gypy ,oa v’kkafr ds le; Hkh blh izdkj ds
\n        lqjf{kr LFkkukas dk iz;ksx gksrk FkkA dksVyk dh cM+h >hy dh ppkZ djrs
\n        gq, og fy[krk gS fd]^^blds ,d vksj ls nwljs vksj \u00bcdh dksbZ oLrq\u00bd ugha
\n        fn[kkbZ iM+rhA blds e\/; esa ,d Vhyk gSA blds pkjksa vksj cgqr ls
\n        NksVh&NksVh ukSdk;sa FkhaA >hy ds lehi ds xzkeksa ds fuoklh gypy rFkk
\n        v’kkafr ds le; ukSdkvksa ij cSBdj mlh Vhys ij pys tkrs gSaA gekjs
\n        vkxeu ij Hkh ukSdkvksa esa cSBdj dqN yksx >hy ds e\/; esa pys x;sA**
\n               ckcjukek ls ;g Hkh irk pyrk gS fd lqYrku fldUnj us vius
\n        jkT;dky esa \/kkSyiqj esa ,d cka\/k dk fuekZ.k djk;k Fkk tgka \u00c5WapkbZ ij
\n        o”kkZ dk ty ,d= gksrk Fkk] ftlls ,d cgqr cM+h >hy cu tkrh FkhA
\n        bl >hy ds iwoZ esa ,d m|ku Hkh FkkA^^
\n1551.       Again on page 48, the Rizvi has mentioned about
\nBaber’s observation regarding workmen in India and says:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        ^^og fy[krk gS fd ^^fgUnqLrku dk ,d cgqr cM+k xq.k ;g gS fd ;gka gj
\n        izdkj ,oa gj dyk ds tkuus okys vla[; dkjhxj ik;s tkrs gSaA izR;sd
\n        dk;Z rFkk dyk ds fy, tkfr;ka fuf’pr gSa tks vius firk vkSj firk ds
\n        firk ds le; ls ogh dk;Z djrh pyh vk jgh gSaA eqYyk ‘kjQ+ us rhewj
\n        csx dh iRFkj dh efLtn ds fuekZ.k ds fo”k; esa bl ckr ij cM+k vf\/kd
\n        tksj fn;k gS fd blesa vt+jckbZtku] Q+kjl] fgUnqLrku rFkk vU; ns’kksa ds
\n        200 iRFkj dkVus okys jksst+kuk dke djrs Fks fdUrq dsoy vkxjk esas gh
\n        blh vkxjk ds iRFkj dkVus okyksa esa ls 680 O;fDr esjs vkxjk ds Hkouksa
\n        ds fuekZ.k esa dk;Z djrs FksA esjs vkxjk] lhdjh] O;kuk] nkSyiqj] Xokfy;j
\n        rFkk dksy ds Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k esa 1491 iRFkj dkVus okys jkst+kuk dk;Z
\n        djrs FksA blh izdkj fgUnqLrku esa izR;sd izdkj ds vxf.kr f’kYidkj
\n        rFkk dkjhxj gSaA**
\n1552.       The constrtuction activies in India have been detailed
\non page 49-50 by Rizvi in Mughalkalin Bharat as under :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        ^^fgUnq L rku es a fuekZ . k&dk;Z
\n              mls gkSt+] pcwrjs] ugj] cka\/k ,oa Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k ls cM+h #fp FkhA
\n        dkcqy rFkk x+t+uh esa vkSj fgUnqLrku vkrs gq, mlus fofHkUu LFkkuksa ij
\n        cgqr lh bekjrsa] pcwrjs bR;kfn cuok;sA fgUnqLrku igaqpdj mlus vkxjk]
\n        lhdjh] \/kkSyiqj] dksy] Xokfy;j rFkk vU; LFkkuksa ij vusd fuekZ.k&dk;Z
\n                                                                      1662<\/span><\/p>\n
djok;sA
\n       mldh jkt\/kkuh vkxjk dk orZeku #Ik lqYrku fldUnj yksnh ds
\nle; ls gh izkjEHk gqvk FkkA blls iwoZ jkt\/kkuh nsgyh esa jgrh FkhA
\nlqYrku Q+hjkst ‘kkg rqx+yqd+ ds jkT;dky ds vfUre o”kksZa ls gh mRrjh
\nHkkjr ds fofHkUu izns’k Lora= gksus yxs FksA vfUre lSf;n lqYrku dh
\nckn’kkgh rks nsgyh ls ikye rd gh lhfer jg xbZ FkhA lqYrku cgyksy
\ndk vf\/kd le; fonzksfg;ksa ds neu esa O;rhr gqvkA lqYrku fldUnj
\nyksnh ds le; esa ;|fi cgqr ls Hkkx fonzksfg;ksa ls eqDr gks x;s Fks fdUrq
\nmlds jkT; esa ‘kkfUr LFkkfir u gks ldh FkhA vius iwohZ jkT;ksa dks o’k
\nesa j[kus ds fy, rFkk bVkok] Xokfy;j] O;kuk] dkyih ,oa esokr ds
\nvf\/kd fudV jgus vkSj ekyok rFkk jktiwrksa ds LOkra= jkT;ksa ij n`f”V
\nj[kus ds mn~ns’; ls lqYrku fldUnj yksnh dks vkxjk dks clkus dh
\nvko’;drk iM+h fdUrq yksfn;ksa ds jkT;dky esa vkxjk dks vf\/kd mUufr
\nu izkIr gks ldhA ogka ds Hkou Hkh lEHkor% nsgyh ds Hkouksa dh vis{kk
\nlqUnj u Fks vr% ckcj dh muds izfr ?k`.kk LokHkkfod gh FkhA yksnh
\nlqYrkuksa us mi;ksfxrk dh n`f”V ls tks Hkh fuekZ.k&dk;Z fd;s gksaxs os ckcj
\ndks viuh vksj vkd`”V u dj lds vr% mlus vkxjk esa fo’ks”k #Ik ls
\nm|ku] Hkouk s a] gEeke] dq v k s a bR;kfn dk fuekZ . k djk;kA
\nmlus vius fuekZ.k&dk;Z ds fy, fldUnj yksnh ds vkxjk ds fudV
\ngh ;equk ds ml ikj mfpr Hkwfe dh Lo;a [kkst dhA ;|fi tks Hkwfe pquh
\nxbZ og mls ilUn u Fkh fdUrq fdlh vU; vPNh Hkwfe ds vHkko ds
\ndkj.k mls ogh Hkwfe pquuh iM+hA mlus ogka tks pkjckx+ vFkok ‘kkgh ckx+
\nyxok;k mldk uke g’r cfg’r jD[kkA vkxjk esa mlus egy cuok;sA
\ngEekeksa ds fuekZ.k ls rks mls cM+h [kq’kh gqbZA og fy[krk gS] ^^eq>s
\nfgUnqLrku dh rhu ckrksa ls cM+h ?k`.kk Fkh& xjeh] vka\/kh rFkk \/kwyA bu
\nrhuksa ls gEekeksa }kjk gh j{kk gks ldrh gSA ;gka \/kwy rFkk vka\/kh dgWk
\nizos’k\\ xjeh esa ;g bruk vf\/kd BaMk gks tkrk gS fd yksx BaMd ds
\ndkj.k dkaius yxrs gSaA **[kyhQ+k] ‘ks[k+ tSu] ;wlqQ+ vyh rFkk vU; vehjksa
\ndks Hkh tgka dgha dksbZ vPNh Hkwfe feyh ogha mUgksaus gkSt+ lfgr cM+s
\nlqMkSy rFkk mRre dqvksa ,oa Hkouksa bR;kfn dk fuekZ.k djk fy;kA ykgkSj
\nrFkk nhckyiqj ds leku jgWaV ;gka Hkh eaxokdj yxok;s x;sA ,d izdkj
\nds cM+s dq,a ftls ckbZ dgrs gSa] ml le; cM+s izpfyr FksA bcus crwrk us
\n                                                                              1663<\/span><\/p>\n
        dksy ds vfrfjDr tqjQ+Rru dh Hkh ,d ckbZ dk mYys[k fd;k gSA ckcj
\n        us Hkh vius vkxjk ds pkjckx ds fuekZ.k ds iwoZ gh ,d ckbZ dk fuekZ.k
\n        izkjEHk djk fn;k FkkA blesa jgWaV Hkh yxok;k x;k ftlds }kjk ty
\n        fd+ys pgkjnhokjh ls gksrk gqvk \u00c5ij ds m|kuksa esa tkrk FkkA \/kkS y iq j esa
\n        mlus 22 vxLr 1527 bZ0 dks igkM+h dks dVokdj ,d Nrnkj v”Vkdkj
\n        gkSt+ ds fuekZ.k dk vkns’k fn;kA mlus ogk a ,d efLtn Hkh
\n        cuokbZ A 5 vDVwcj 1528 bZ0 dks og ml Nrnkj gkSt+ dk fujh{k.k
\n        djus ds fy, Lo;a igaqpkA mldk izos’k }kj HkyhHkkWafr lh\/kk u gqvk FkkA
\n        mlus dqN iRFkj dkVus okyksa dks cqyokdj vkns’k fn;k fd os gkSt+ ds
\n        uhps dh lrg fpduh djds mlesa ty Hkj nsa vkSj ty dh lgk;rk ls
\n        nhokj dks ,dlk dj nsaA bl izdkj ckcj us LOk;a viuh ns[k&js[k esa
\n        nhokjska dks fpduk djk;kA blh izdkj lhdjh esa Hkh mlus vizSy 1527
\n        bZ0 ds iwoZ gh ckx+ yxokus dk vkns’k ns fn;k Fkk fdUrq tc 14 vDVwcj
\n        1528 bZ0 dks og lhdjh igqapk rks og ckx+ dh nhokj rFkk dq,a ds
\n        fuekZ.k&dk;Z ls lUrq”V u gqvk vr% ftu yksxksa ds fliqnZ ;g dk;Z fd;k
\n        x;k Fkk] mudks mlus rkM+uk Hkh nhA**
\n               ckx+ksa esa Qy rFkk ikS\/ks yxkus ls Hkh mls cM+h #fp FkhA dkcqy esa
\n        igqapus ds mijkUr mlus ogka vkyw ckyw dh d+yesa yxokbZaA 1523&24bZ0
\n        esa mlus tc igkM+ [kka dks ijkftr djds ykgkSj rFkk nhikyiqj dks
\n        fot; fd;k rks ckx+s& oQ+k esa] tks mlus dkcqy esa lEHkor% 1508&9bZ0 esa
\n        yxok;k Fkk] dsys ys tkdj yxok;sA blds iwoZ mlus ogka xUUks Hkh
\n        yxok;s Fks vkSj mls vius bl iz;kl esa cM+h lQyrk fey pqdh FkhA
\n        mlus xUus cq[kkjk rFkk cn[‘kka esa Hkh fHktok;sA fgUnqLrku esa Hkh mlus
\n        dkcqy dh vksj ds Qyksa dks yxokus dk iz;Ru fd;kA mlus cY[k+ ds
\n        [kjcwtk cksus okyksa dks cqyokdj vkxjk esa [kjcwts yxok;sA 24 twu 1529
\n        bZ0 dks tc og dqN [kjcwts ysdj mifLFkr gqvk rks ckcj cM+k izlUu
\n        gqvkA blh izdkj izdkj mlus vkxjk ds g’r cfg’r uked m|ku esa
\n        mRre vaxwj dh csyksa ds yxkus dk Hkh vkns’k fn;k FkkA 24 twu 1529
\n        bZ0 ds o`rkUr esa og fy[krk gS fd ^^ ‘ks[k xwju us eq>s Vksdjh Hkjdj
\n        vaxwj Hksts tks cqjs u FksA fgUnqLrku esa bl izdkj ds [kjcwts rFkk vaxwj
\n        mxkdj eq>s cM+h izlUurk gqbZA**
\n1553.       Rizvi has also not found Babar’s entry in Ayodhya or
\n                                                               1664<\/span><\/p>\n
construction of a mosque or direction to anyone including Mir
\nBaqi for construction of any building at Ayodhya.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
1554.     Some of the authors have appreciated the character of
\nBabar depicting him a holy, religious, kind hearted brave man
\nhaving respect for all the religions etc. This is placed before us
\nto deny even a possibility that Babar could have ordered to
\nconstruct a mosque in a religious place of others.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1555.    Dr. Radhey Shyam in his book “Babar” (supra) on
\npage 441 has observed that Babar was what his fortune and
\nmisfortune, man and environment, his foes and friends, his joys
\nand sorrows had made him. He was a soldier, a born warrior, a
\nseasoned statesman and an accomplished diplomat, a loving
\nhusband and a man of many virtues seldom to be found in one
\nsingle individual. Dr. Radhey Shyam thereafter referred to the
\ncomments of Abul Fazl about the qualities of Babar, describing
\nhim as “bakht buland, himmat arjumand, Qudarat Kishwar
\nkushai, mulkdai, Koshish dar mamulai balad, Sarfi niyat bar
\nRifayat abad, Khushdil wakhtan sipahi, zabt ashar az tabahi
\n(Akbar    Nama)”.    This   appreciation    by    Abul    Fazl   is
\nunderstandable since he had to show great regards to the
\ngrandfather of the Emperor in whose regime, he was employed.
\n1556.    Dr. Radhey Shyam has further referred to the
\ncomments of Nizamuddin Ahmad (Tabqat-i-Akbari), translation
\nII, page 40, Mirza Haidar Doghlat, the author of Tarikh-i-
\nRashidi. Dr. Radhey Shyam proceeded to characterise Babar as
\ncharitable,   benevolent,    liberal,   kind,    just,   adjustable
\ntemperament, robust vigour and dynamic personality. On page
\n443 Dr. Radhey Shyam said that “he was deeply imbued with
\nhumen feelings.” On page 444 Dr. Radhey Shyam said that “he
\nfollowed his religion like a comman man without allowing it to
\n                                                                 1665<\/span><\/p>\n
prejudice his mind against the followers of other religions. Even
\nafter the conquest of Hindustan he continued to maintain such an
\nattitude.” On page 447 he observed that “he never worked under
\nthe influence of religion. . . . . . To him Shias and Sunnis were all
\nalike.”\n<\/p>\n
1557.      We would not like to make any comment on the above
\nobservations as if we are sitting in appeal over the work of
\nlearned author but suffice it to mention that the learned author
\nhas ignored what is contained on page 554-555 of Beveridge’s
\nBaburnama (supra) where the breaking of the wine couplets in
\npieces has been compared with the dashing of the God of the
\nidolaters. To the same effect is what has been translated by
\nRizvi (supra) also.\n<\/p>\n
1558.      Besides, we may refer at this stage the own
\nobservations of Dr. Radhey Shyam on page 451 of the book:\n<\/p>\n
              “As regards the destruction of the HIndu temples
\n        there is historical evidence both in Babar’s support and
\n        against him. During the course of his campaigns or
\n        pleasure trips Babar occasionally came across large
\n        number of Hindu temples. These temples provoked great
\n        interest in him. Some of them he visited and appreciated
\n        their architectural beauty. While at Gwalior in 1528 Babar
\n        visited the fort, wherein he saw the places of Raja Man
\n        Singh and Vikramaditya. On the west of Rahim Dad’s
\n        garden he saw a “Lofty idol house.” This was famous Teli
\n        Mandir which is said to have been constructed by Raja
\n        Man Singh’s Gujari wife Mrignaini. Then in the Urwa
\n        valley he saw the idol statues and he writes, “three sides of
\n        the Urwa valley are solid rock, not the red rock of
\n        Bayana but one paler in colour. On these sides people
\n                                                              1666<\/span><\/p>\n
        have cut out idol – statues, large and small. One large on
\n        the south side being perhaps 20 qari (yards) high. These
\n        idols are shewn quite naked without covering for the
\n        privaties, ” writes that, “we rode ….to visit the idol-
\n        houses of Gualiar. Some are two, and some are three
\n        storeys high, each storey rather low, in the ancient
\n        fashion. On their stone plainths are sculptured images.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Some idol-houses in College fashion, have portico, large
\n        high cupola. In the lower celles are idols carved in the
\n        rock. Except in the case of Jain idols in the Urwa valley,
\n        Babar never gave orders for the destruction of the
\n        temple of other places. As regards the Jain statutes of
\n        the Urwa Valley he himself has mentioned, in his
\n        Memoirs that the, “naked idols are its defect, I for my
\n        part ordered them to be destroyed.” It is rather doubtful
\n        whether this order was ever carried out. Mrs. Beveridge
\n        in a brief note writes that, “they were already in a
\n        mutilated conditions and they continue to be so until the
\n        Jains repaired them with coloured plaster.”     (emphasis
\n        added)
\n1559.      Thereafter, he has considered an inscription found at
\nJami Masjid at Sambhal (in the State of U.P.), which is said to
\nhave been constructed by demolishing Hari Mandir out of the
\ndebris of that temple:\n<\/p>\n
             “It is related that at his orders famous Hari Mandir
\n        at Sambhal was demolished and a Jami mosque was
\n        constructed out of the debris of that temple by his famous
\n        general Hindu Beg. An inscription on one of the walls of
\n        the mosque reads :<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                                          1667<\/span>\n\n        \u202b\u0631\u0627\u0641\u0639 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u06cc\u06c1 \u0645\u0644\u06a9 \u0648\u0645\u0644\u0644\u202c                    \u202b\u062c\u0627\u0645\u0639 \u0627\u0634 \u0654\u06cc\u0645 \u0641\u0636\u0644 \u0648 \u06a9\u0645\u0627\u0644\u202c       \u06f1\n        \u202b\u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc \u0627\u0646\u0628\u06cc\u06c1 \u0639\u0644\u0645 \u0648\u0639\u0645\u0644\u202c                    \u202b\u0628\u0627\u0633\u0637 \u0627\u062c\u0646\u062d\u06c1 \u0627\u0645\u0646 \u0648 \u0627\u0645\u0627\u0646\u202c        \u06f2\n        \u202b\u062d\u0641\u0638 \u0627\u0644\u0651\u0644\u06c1 \u0639\u0632\u0648 \u062c\u0644\u202c                       \u202b\u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u062c\u0645 \u062c\u0627\u06c1 \u0645\u062d\u0645\u062f \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631\u202c\n        \u202b\u0631\u0648\u0634\u0646 \u0627\u0632 \u067e\u0631 \u062a\u0648 \u0653\u0627\u0646 \u0634\u062f \u0633\u0646\u0628\u0644\u202c              \u202b \u0634\u0645\u0639 \u062f\u0648\u0644\u062a \u0686\u0648\u0628\u0631\u0627\u0641\u0631\u0648\u062e\u062a \u0628\u06c1\u0646\u062f\u202c\u06f3\n        \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0645\u0635\u0648\u0646 \u0628\u0627\u062f\u0632\u0646\u0642\u0635\u0627\u0646 \u0648\u062e\u0644\u0644\u202c                 \u202b\u0627\u0632 \u067e\u06d2 \u0633\u0627\u062e\u062a\u0646 \u0627\u06cc\u06ba \u0645\u0633\u062c\u062f\u202c     \u06f4\n        \u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0628\u0648\u062f \u0639\u0645\u062f\u06c1 \u0627\u0631\u06a9\u0627\u0646 \u0648 \u062f\u0644\u202c                  \u202b\u06a9\u0631\u062f \u0641\u0631\u0645\u0627\u0646 \u0628\u06a9\u0645\u06cc\u06ba \u0628\u0646\u062f\u06c1 \u062e\u0648\u06cc\u0634\u202c\n        \u202b\u0622\u06ba \u0628\u0627\u062e\u0644\u0642 \u0646\u06a9\u0648 \u06af\u0634\u062a\u06c1 \u0645\u062b\u0644\u202c                  \u202b\u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627 \u0639\u0642\u0644 \u0648 \u062e\u0631\u062f\u06c1\u0646\u062f\u0648 \u0628\u06cc\u06af\u202c     \u06f5\n        \u202b\u06cc\u0627\u0641\u062a \u0627\u062a\u0645\u0627\u0645 \u0628\u06c1 \u062a\u0648\u0641\u06cc\u0642 \u0627\u0632\u0644\u202c                \u202b\u0686\u0648\u06ba \u0632\u0641\u0631\u0645\u0627\u0646 \u0634\u06c1\u0646\u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u06ba\u202c       \u06f6\n        \u202b\u06cc\u06a9\u0645 \u0627\u0632 \u0634\u06c1\u0631 \u0631\u0628\u06cc\u0639 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0644\u202c             \u202b\u0633\u0627\u0644 \u062a\u0627\u0631\u06cc\u062e \u0648 \u0645\u06c1 \u062f\u0648\u0632\u0634 \u06af\u0634\u062a\u06c1\u202c\n                           \"Translation by author\"\n<\/pre>\n
             The Collector of the buildings of grace and beauty the
\n                                                                        raiser
\n                                        of the standards of rule and faith,
\n  the spreader of the wings of peace and tranquillity, the builder
\n                                  of the buildings of knowledge and deed,
\n  Muhammad Babar, a Jam in dignity–May God Almighty have
\n                                                    him in His protection,
\n            Kindled in India the lamp of power, when a ray of it fell
\n                                                           upon Sambhal,
\n         To build this mosque may it be protected from destruction
\n                                                                and decay,
\n    He gave orders to his mean slave, who is one of the principal
\n                                                                   officers,
\n   Mir Hindu Beg, the intelligent and wise who is an example to
\n                                                others in polite manners,
\n    And when in consequence of the order of the sovereign of the
\n                 world by guidance of Providence to the mosque was
\n                                                              completed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1560.       Its date is first day of the month of Rabi L 933 H.
\n(December 1526 A.D.)
\n1561.       Dr. Radhey Shyam, however, has then doubted
\n                                                               1668<\/span><\/p>\n
correctness of the contents of the said inscription on pages 454-
\n457:\n<\/p>\n
             “This inscription clearly mentions that at Babar’s
\n       orders the mosque was built and completed on the first day
\n       of the month of Rabi-ul-Awwal 933 H.\/6th December 1526
\n       by Hindu Beg. But it is quite surprising that Babar who
\n       was quite festidious in mentioning about everything that
\n       concerned him or even others, has not mentioned about the
\n       construction of a mosque by Hindu Beg at Sambhal. Nor
\n       did he mention that he gave orders to Hindu Beg to
\n       demolish any Hindu temple and construct a mosque over it.
\n       There is no reference to any order for the destruction of a
\n       Hindu temple and construction of a mosque by Hindu Beg
\n       at Sambhal in his Memoirs. Babar visited Sambhal in
\n       Sept.-Oct. 1527 and stayed there for three days but in his
\n       Memoirs he does not say a word about the fanatical
\n       activities of Hindu Beg there. His annoyance at the
\n       destruction of the Hindu temple by Hindu Beg at Sambhal
\n       is reflected in his silence and his indifference towards the
\n       whole affair. During the years 1526-27 his position in
\n       Hindustan was so precarious that it was not possible for
\n       him to take any drastic action against any general, Hindu
\n       Beg being one of them; even though they might have
\n       continued to commit gruesome acts in the name of their
\n       master. However, it is definite that though Babar’s name
\n       was associated with the construction of the mosque, as was
\n       the prevailing practice, the Hindu temple was not
\n       demolished at his orders. Hindu Beg might have
\n       demolished the temple on his own account and even did not
\n       care to refer this matter to his master.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                         1669<\/span><\/p>\n
      Nevertheless,   the   whole    affair   has   aroused
\ncontroversy. Mr. Carlleyele is of the opinion that the Jami
\nmosque which is still standing amidst the beautiful
\nsurrounding was not constructed by Hindu Beg and it is of
\nmuch earlier period. The district Gazetteer of United
\nProvinces (Moradabad) mentions that “Babar’s inscription
\nin the mosque is a great historical forgery of all times.”
\nAnd the account of the temple and the mosque given in it is
\nas follows: ‘The erection of Hari Mandir is variously
\nascribed to Prithviraj, to a Raja named Jagat Singh and
\none Nar Singh, the grandson of Raja Vikram Sen one of the
\nDors of Baran. This temple no longer exists and its place is
\ntaken by a striking mosque, which forms the conspicuous
\nfeature in the landscape for miles around. This building is
\nmainly of stone, which is certainly the material employed
\nfor the great central dome, for the outer walls and porch
\nand for the flooring of the broad courtyard.” In 1874 Mr.
\nCarlleyele visited and inspected the mosque and was
\nconvinced that the dome was of Hindu workmanship, but
\nthe bricks were of Musalman workmanship. The whole of
\nthe mosque is coated with plaster so that it is impossible to
\nascertain the material. The wings are divided by a lateral
\nrow of pillars into two aisels and each had three arched
\nopenings on the courtyard. A flight of stone steps on either
\nside gives access to the roof of the mosque, from which fine
\nview of the town and the surrounding country can be
\nobtained. Mr. Carlleyele came to the conclusion that the
\nconversion of the temple into a mosque was of very
\nrecent date. He based his decision on the fact that there
\nhas been recent litigation on the subject of the site between
\n                                                         1670<\/span><\/p>\n
the Musalmans and Hindus and appears to have been
\ninfluenced by the arguments of the latter to the effect that
\nthe old inscriptions on the mosque walls were impudent
\nforgeries. This claim of the Hindus was of course rejected
\nin the civil courts. Mr. Carlleyele could not see the
\ndocuments going back to the days of Jahangir, now in
\npossession of the guardians of the mosque. General
\nCunningham has repudiated the suggestion that the
\ninscription were not genuine. The most important of these,
\nstates that the mosque was built by Hindu Beg at the orders
\nof Babar in December 1526. It is certainly curious that the
\ntemple should have remained till that date, for Sambhal
\nhad long been the seat of the Muslim government, and it is
\neven more surprising that a noted inconoclast like Sikandar
\nLodi should have allowed a building of such sanctity to
\nstand in his temporary capital. . . . . . But the mosque at
\nSambhal might well be older than Babar, to judge from its
\nappearance. The architecture resembles that of Pathan
\nbuildings such as great mosque of Badaon and the huge
\nsloping bastions on the west. The whole structure is very
\nplain, severe, and massive, and if the Hindu materials have
\nbeen employed the ornamentation has been very effectively
\nconcealed, since the only traces of Hindu covering visible
\nare two rosettes on the stone slabs of the steps leading from
\nthe eastern gateway to the quadrangle. In the middle of the
\nlatter is a tank and fountain, filled from a large well
\noutside the gateway. Whether Babar built it or simply
\nrepaired the mosque cannot be positively stated, but it is
\ncurious that the Ain-i-Akbari has referred to the celebrated
\ntemple of Vishnu at Sambhal. An inscription in the south
\n                                                           1671<\/span><\/p>\n
wing states that Rustam Khan Deccani repaired the
\nmosque in 1657, while a similar tablet in the north wing
\nwas erected by one Sayyid Qutb in 1626. The two
\ninscriptions above the outer and inner arches of the central
\nchamber record the restorations affected by the Musalmans
\nof the town and district about 1845.” Thus Carlleyele’s
\nreport asserts that Jami Masjid of Sambhal is of earlier
\ndate (ii) the inscription is fake (iii) that it was constructed
\nmuch later.\n<\/p>\n
      But the arguments given against the construction of
\nthe mosque by Hindu Beg are not tenable. Had the mosque
\nbeen of earlier date there should have been an inscription
\non it bearing the date of its construction. The grounds on
\nwhich the inscription which assigns the construction of the
\nmosque to Hindu Beg, has been declared fake, have not
\nbeen indicated. Then the report itself records that in the
\nmosque at places the use of the debris of a Hindu temple is
\nvisible. In addition to it may also be observed that ever
\nsince the occupation of Sambhal by the Mughals in
\nDecember 1526 or a little earlier till the date when it was
\nconferred on Humayun in jagir, the position of the Mughals
\nthere had always been very precarious. This is borne out
\nby the fact that after its occupation Ali Yusuf was appointed
\nto hold its charge. After his death Abdullah Kitabdar was
\nsent and thereafter Hindu Beg and both of them returned to
\nAgra after a few days and waited on Babar. Why did they
\nreturn from there without being summoned to emperor’s
\npresence? Babar does not mention the reason which forced
\nthem to return from Sambhal. Nor does any other
\nauthority. It can however be presumed that the Hindu
\n                                                                   1672<\/span><\/p>\n
        population which was so hostile to Hindu Beg did not
\n        permit him to stay there any longer and to continue to
\n        display the zeal of a fanatic. Nor did Babar like to send him
\n        again to Sambhal. Even if it is conceded that the mosque is
\n        of the earlier date, it can be presumed that its repair by
\n        Hindu Beg was not liked by the Hindu population.”
\n1562.         In the subsequent part Dr. Radhey Shyam proceeded
\nto consider Ayodhya dispute also as a parrelel to the Sambhal’s
\nbuilding.\n<\/p>\n
1563.       But if we consider what has been writeen in
\nBabarnama by the Babar in straight words without twisting or
\nmincing them we find that like any other brave, couragious,
\ntactful but brutal warrior, Babar also possess all these qualities.
\nIt is true that he was truly religious but it means that he was a
\ncomplete Islamic person and lacked tolerance atleast to the idol
\nworshippers. He had no hitch in destroying idols worshipped by
\nthe inhabitants of India at that time and this we find very visibly
\nfrom the words which are translated by Mrs. Beveridge from
\nBabar’s manuscript of “Tuzuk-i-babri” as is evident from page
\n554-555 as under:\n<\/p>\n
               “And I made public the resolution to abstain from
\n        wife, which had been hidden in the treasury of my breast.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        The     victorious   servants,   in   accordance   with    the
\n        illustratious order, dashed upon the earth of contempt and
\n        destruction the flagons and the cups, and the other utensils
\n        in gold and silver, which in their number and their
\n        brilliance were like the stars of the firmament. They
\n        dashed them in pieces, as, God willing! soon will be
\n        dashed the gods of the idolaters,–and they distributed the
\n        fragments among the poor and needy.” (emphasis added)
\n                                                                 1673<\/span><\/p>\n
1564.         In respect to the inhabitants of Hindustan, at page 518
\nof the aforesaid book it says as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “Most of the inhabitants of Hindustan are pagans;
\n        they call a pagan a Hindu. Most Hindus believe in the
\n        transmigration of souls. All artisans, wage-earners, and
\n        officials are Hindus. In our countries dwellers in the wilds
\n        (i.e. nomads) get tribal names.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1565.         Like other invaders whenever he defeated the local
\nRulers, his army did all such acts of loot, general massacre etc.
\nWhile conquering Sambhal on page 528 the act of the army of
\nBabur is mentioned as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “Malik Qasim cut off the heads of part of his force,
\n        took many horses, a few elephants and mass of booty.”
\n1566.         After defeating Rana Sanga and his other supporters,
\nat page 576 of the Babarnama by Beveridge it is mentioned
\nthat as a trophy of victory an order was given to set up a pillar of
\npagan heads on the infact-hill (koh-Bacha) between which and
\nhis camp the battle had been fought.\n<\/p>\n
1567.         Similarly, on page 587 of the aforesaid book on 27th
\nSeptember, 1527 AD he mentions:\n<\/p>\n
                “Humayun had left Darwish (-i-ali) and Yusuf-i-ali in
\n        Sambal; they crossed one river, fought Qutb Sirwani and a
\n        party of rajas, beat them well and killed a mass of men.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        They sent a few heads and an elephant into Kul while we
\n        were there.” (emphasis added)
\n1568.      Though in the army of Babur Hindustani soldiers were
\nalso included but it appears that he did not repose much
\nconfidence therein as is evident from page 547 of the aforesaid
\nbook:\n<\/p>\n
        “As     little   confidence   was   placed   in   Hindustani
\n                                                                 1674<\/span><\/p>\n
        people————”\n<\/p>\n
1569.      As an invader Babar entered the Indian subcontinent,
\nconquered it and did what he could or found necessary to claim
\nvictory which nobody can comment atleast today. It is said that
\nall is fair in love and war and laws of war are not set by pen
\nsince they are decided in a war field by those who are fighting
\nor by their commanders. Discussion may be held as to whether
\nthe manner in which a war took place, fought and the action of
\nthe soldiers therein was justified or not but the fact remains that
\nbefore the matter has been taken in 20th Century by various
\ncountries to lay down certain principles to be observed during
\nwar and also recognise certain rights of prisoners of war, prior
\nthereto no such principle in general were observed by the Rulers
\nof different countries though at local level some kind of practice
\nwith respect to time etc. might have been followed. What had
\nbeen done several hundreds years back by a king invading a
\ncountry or between war of two kings is obviously beyond the
\npale of judicial review of this Court and of any Court
\nfunctioning in independent India after the promulgation of our
\nConstitution on 26.01.1950. We have not been shown of any
\nauthority by any learned counsels that we can examine the
\nlegality, correctness or genuinity of an action of a Ruler prior to
\nthe enforcement of British enactments in the subcontinent.
\n1570.      However, the attempt by some of the authors to glorify
\nor justify brutal massacre or action of some of the invaders or
\nRulers even if they might have conquered the subcontinent, by
\nproviding justification, explanation etc. is not understandable for
\nthe reason that the things which are evident and straight cannot
\nbe clothed with a velvet cover and would not provide a shell to
\ngive it a different colour. It shall only mislead the public at large
\n                                                                 1675<\/span><\/p>\n
and in particular the students of history. In our view, the
\nhistorical events must be placed straight without any distortion,
\nwithout any addition of words and without providing any
\nexplanation or justification in the words of the author as the
\nsame would be nothing but a sheer conjecture and surmise. If
\nwe claim that Babar felt happy having seen the mound of human
\nheads and still we tell somebody that he was a kind hearted
\nreligious man, had no love for violence it would a blatant lie.
\nThis kind of attitude on the part of some of authors whose work
\nhas been placed before us for our consideration shows that these
\nauthors can go to the extent of glorification of any kind of
\nmisdeed which in the present day’s civilised society can never
\nappreciate or swallow. If innocent persons are killed either in
\nterrorist activities or naxalite activities, in our view the action of
\nthese persons ex facie is inhuman, amounts to henious offence,
\ndeserved to be condemned without mincing words so as not to
\ndilute the degree of violence and atrocity committed by them
\nirrespective of the purpose, objective or whatever is behind such
\nactivity. Any other view is nothing but a serious contempt to the
\nvery mankind and would be a clear disrespect to those innocents
\nwho become victim of such incidents. Though the present days
\nactivities may not have any comparison with the wars and
\nbattles fought hundreds and thousands years back but to find out
\na positive character in such activities of the the Ruler\/Kings
\nunder whom the army had done all these kind of brutalities
\nwould be a thought of abnormal minds. The lack of respect of
\nEmperor Babar to idols meant for worship has already been
\ndemonstrated above and is fortified from what has been
\nmentioned at page 611 of the Book “Baburnama” by Beveridge
\nstating that he did not hesitate in destroying the idols on
\n                                                                  1676<\/span><\/p>\n
28.09.1528 at Uruwa (Gwalior) where he found three sites
\noccupied by a solid rock wherein the people had cut out idols
\nstatue large and small and he ordered for destruction thereof.
\n1571.      Ex. 82 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 218C1\/1-20) contain certain
\npages from “Memoirs of Baber- Emperor of India” by Lieut.
\nColonel F.G. Talbot, first published 1974 by Ess Ess
\nPublications, Delhi. This work is mainly based on the English
\ntranslation of “Tuzuk-I-Babari” by John Leyden and William
\nErskine, first published in 1826 and it is said that the book being
\nout of print for many years, therefore the Memoirs of Babar are
\npractically now unknown. The author, however, has also taken
\nhelp from Stanley Lane-Poole’s Introduction to Babar. Pages no.
\nI to XV from Chapter “Introduction”, 1 to 3, 46 to 49 and 196 to
\n213 are before us. The attempt on the part of Sri Jilani is that
\nfrom no part of the book it does appear that Babar ever
\nencouraged destruction of Hindu temple or religious place of
\nother religions. Sri H.S. Jain, on the contrary, submitted that his
\ndisliking to Hindus and other religions is writlarge from the fact
\nthat he addressed Hindus as ‘Pagans’ and declared war against
\nRana Sanga as ‘Holy war’ which shows his character and
\nextreme religious fervour towards ‘Islam’. He referred to the
\nfollowing passage from page 207 of the book (Paper No.
\n218C1\/16) :\n<\/p>\n
              “From the eleventh year of my age till now, I had
\n        never spent two festivals of the Ramza in the same place.
\n        Last year’s festival I had spent in Agra. In order to keep up
\n        the usage, on Sunday night the thirtieth, I proceeded to
\n        Sikri to keep the feast there. A stone platform was erected
\n        on the north-east of the Garden-of-Victory, on which a set
\n        of large tents was pitched, and in them I passed the festival.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                 1677<\/span><\/p>\n
        The night on which we left Agra, Mir Ali departed. He was
\n        extremely fond of playing cards, and had asked for some,
\n        which I sent him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1572.      The issues need to be decided by this Court does not
\nget any help from the above documents. One thing, however, is
\nclear that the Babar came to India with a clear intention to stay
\nand rule. In furtherance therefor, for keeping the morale of his
\nforce high and for other reasons, he took all necessary steps as
\nhe found expedient. It is evident from page 208 (Paper No.
\n218C1\/17) and page 210 (Paper No. 218C1\/18) :\n<\/p>\n
              “Hitherto the peoples of India had regarded Baber
\n        as a temporary raider who would depart as soon as he had
\n        gathered enough spoil; but when they found he had come to
\n        stay they began to consider what policy to pursue, and in
\n        weariness of incessant warfare began to see the merits of a
\n        master.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Three thousand Afghans from the Doab were the first
\n        to come over to him, and were rewarded with territories in
\n        Oudh, which was still in revolt.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              One of the first acts of the Conqueror was to lay out
\n        a road from Agra to Kabul, and the distance having been
\n        actually measured, a tower twenty-four feet in height was
\n        erected at every fourteen miles, while at every sixteen miles
\n        a post-house for six horses was built, and an allowance
\n        fixed as a provision for post-house keeper, courier,
\n        grooms, and the keep of horses. Where the road lay
\n        through a rich man’s territory he was made to pay all the
\n        costs of maintenance.” (Page 208)
\n              “The affairs of Hindustan had now been reduced to a
\n        certain degree of order. The revenue from land was
\n                                                              1678<\/span><\/p>\n
        returned at 4,212,000\/-. This was from land alone and by
\n        no means represented the total income.” (Page 210)
\n1573.      The life of Babar after his conquest was very short
\ninasmuch it is not in dispute that he died on 26th December 1530
\nAD at Agra. Thereafter in the light of his last wish, he was
\nburied in the garden on the hillside at Kabul.
\n1574.      Ex. 83 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 220C1\/1-11) and Ex. 84
\n(Suit-4) (Paper No. 222C1\/1-5) are also the photocopies of
\ncertain pages from “Babarnama” translated by Yugjeet
\nNavalpuri Edn. 2002 and nothing has been referred therefrom
\nby the learned Counsels for the parties. We also do not find any
\nthing therefrom which may throw any light for deciding the
\nissues in question.\n<\/p>\n
1575.      Next in this context is about the persons whose name
\nis claimed to have been mentioned on the inscriptions at the
\ndisputed site, i.e., “Mir Baqi”. In the transcript of Fuhrer it
\nmentions “Mir Khan” while in other transcript it is mentioned as
\n“Mir Baqi”.\n<\/p>\n
1576.      Sri P.N. Misra, Advocate has vehemently argued that
\nthe entire Baburnama does not mention any person in the army
\nor otherwise relating to Babar with the name of Mir Baqi. He
\nsays that Baqi was a military decoration in the army of Babar
\nand Mir was a civil honour to the persons of respectability etc.
\nHe says that the part of the army sent to Ayodhya was headed
\nwith Timur Begh, Baqi Tashkindi etc. but it does not mention
\nany person as Mir Baqi.\n<\/p>\n
1577.      Sri P.N. Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
\ndefendant no. 20 (Suit-4) supported the above stand and also
\ncontended that there is nothing in the said diary maintained by
\nBabar that he ever entered Ayodhya either in March 1528 or in
\n                                                            1679<\/span><\/p>\n
April 1528. It is common ground that the Babar-Nama misses
\nthe text between 2nd April to 18th September 1528 AD. The
\nreason we are not concerned. Sri Jilani raised the above
\nargument in order to buttress his submission that the Babar
\nwhen did not enter Ayodhya himself there was no question of
\nany demolition of a temple by him and construction of mosque.
\nThe pleadings of Hindu parties in connected suits to this effect
\nare not correct, is what he tried to persuade us. Sri Misha,
\nhowever, agree so far as the former part is concerned that there
\nwas no occasion for Babar himself to direct for demolition of
\nany temple and construction of mosque since he did not enter
\nAyodhya but he tried to explain the things otherwise by
\nsubmitting that this also shows that the disputed building was
\nnot constructed in 1528 AD and there is no historical document
\nof contemporary period to substantiate the above claim of
\ndefendants no. 6 to 8 and 10 in Suit-1, the plaintiffs of Suit-4
\nand all muslim defendants in Suit-3 and 5. Sri Mishra also
\npointed out that Shaikh Bayazid was then governing
\nAwadh\/Ayodhya. The Army Commanders of Babar who
\ncrossed the river so as to enter Ayodhya were Tardi Beg of Quj
\nBeg, Baba Chuhra, Baqi Shaghawal and Chin Timur. It is
\npointed out that there is no person named as Mir Baqi in the
\nentire Babur-Nama. Sri Mishra placed before the Court Babur-
\nNama by Beveridge to show that it mentions Baqi Beg
\nChaghaniani; Qib Chaq Turk; Baqi Gagiani Afghan; Baqi Hiz;
\nKwaja Baqi son of Yahiya son of Ehrari who was murdered in
\n1500 AD; Baqi Beg Taskindi; Baqi Beg Shaghawal; Baqi Beg
\nMingbashi; Baqi Takhan. Sri Mishra submitted that there is no
\nmention of any Mir Baqi in Babur-Nama. Our attention was also
\ndrew to page 684 of Beveridge’s Babur-Nama to show that it is
\n                                                            1680<\/span><\/p>\n
Baqi Tashkindi who came from Awadh (Ayodhya) on
\n13.06.1529 AD to meet Babar. Page 685 of Babur-Nama shows
\nthat Babar sent Baqi Shaghawal on 16.06.1529 while camping
\nnear Kalpi to collect information about his enemy, i.e., Biban
\nand Bayazid. On 17.06.1529 AD it is mentioned that one of
\nBaqi Beg’s retainers came informing that Baqi had beaten scouts
\nof Biban and Bayazid, killed one of their good men, Mubarak
\nKhan Jalwani and some others, sent in several heads, and one
\nman alive. He says that Baqi Shaghawal has been addressed as
\nBaqi Beg and Baqi Tashkindi who came from Ayodhya has
\nbeen addressed as Baqi but there is no mention of any of the
\nperson addressed as Mir Baqi. It is contended by Sri Mishra,
\nAdvocate that the later historians\/translators, of their own,
\nidentified Baqi Tashkindi as Baqi Shaghawal as well as Mir
\nBaqi though in the entire Babur-Nama, Babar has not addressed
\nanybody or any one as Mir Baqi. He drew our attention to
\ncertain persons whose name started with the word Mir, namely,
\nMir Bujurg Tirmizi; Mir Khurd Bakawal; Mir Mughul son of
\nAbdul Wahab Saghawal; Mir Sang-Tarash; Mir Zadas of
\nKhwast and none of these persons, he submit, can be said to be
\npossibly addressed as Mir Baqi.\n<\/p>\n
1578.      In Lieut. Colonel F.G. Talbot’s under the title
\n“Memoirs of Baber Emperor of India First of the Great
\nMoghuls” (Supra) on page 90, with respect to the events of the
\nyear 1504 AD there is a reference of Baqi Beg and on page 91
\nfor the same period there is reference of Baqi Beg as well as
\nBaqi Chaghiani. The relevant extract whereof are mentioned as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
             “At this same period, Baki Beg repeatedly, and with
\n        much earnestness, urged his sentiments, that to have two
\n                                                       1681<\/span><\/p>\n
sovereigns in one country, and two generals in one army,
\nwas an unfailing source of confusion and ruin, and
\ninevitably productive of rebellion, mutiny, and finally of
\ndissolution; as the poet says–\n<\/p>\n
     ‘Ten dervishes may repose on one cloak,
\n     But two sovereigns cannot be contained in the same
\n     climate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The man of God, when he eats half a loaf,
\n     Divides the other half among the poor and needy.
\n     If a king subdues a whole kingdom, nay a climate,
\n     Still, as before, he covets yet another.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     At this period, information arrived that Sheibani
\nKhan had taken Andejan. On hearing this news, Khosrou
\nShah, unable to support himself in Kundez, took the route
\nof Kabul with his whole force. No sooner had he left
\nKundez, than one of his old and confidential servants
\noccupied that fortress, and declared for Sheibani Khan.
\nJust as I reached the Red River, three or four thousand
\nheads of houses of the Moghul clans, who had been
\ndependent on Khosrou Shah, came and joined me, with
\ntheir whole families. Here, in order to gratify Baki Beg, I
\nwas obliged to discharge Kamber Ali, the Moghul, who has
\nbeen so often mentioned. He was a thoughtless and rude
\ntalker; and Baki Beg could not put up with his manners.\n<\/p>\n
     When Khosrou Shah learned that the Moghul tribes
\nhad joined me, he felt his own helplessness; and, seeking
\nno remedy left, sent his son-in-law as his envoy, to make
\nprofessions of submission and allegiance, and to assure me
\nthat, if I would enter into terms with him, he would come
\nand submit himself. As Baki Cheghaniani, a man of much
\n                                                               1682<\/span><\/p>\n
        weight, though steadily attached to my service, yet was not
\n        without a natural bias in favour of his brother, he
\n        recommended a compromise to be made, on condition that
\n        Khosrou’s life should be spared, and his property left
\n        entirely to his own disposal. A treaty was accordingly
\n        concluded on these terms.”\n<\/p>\n
1579.       Another name, namely, Baqi Tarkhan is mentioned at
\npage 11 of Talbot’s Memoirs of Baber (supra) and that is also
\nwith reference to a much earlier period. The extract wherein the
\nabove name is mentioned on page 11 is as under:\n<\/p>\n
              “Baki Terkhan was another. In the time of Sultan
\n        Ali Mirza, he rose to great consequence, his retainers
\n        amounting to five or six thousand. He was far from being in
\n        a proper state of subjection or obedience to Sultan Ali
\n        Mirza. He was very fond of hawking, and is said to have
\n        had seven hundred falcons at one time. His manners and
\n        habits were such as cannot well be described; he was
\n        educated and grew up in the midst of magnificence and
\n        state.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1580.      Besides, on page 4 it mentions the name of Mir Ghias
\nTaghai; on page 26 it mentions about Mir Shaha and has
\nappreciated about his gallantries; on page 114 there is a
\nreference of Mir Beder and his dancing in the events relating to
\nthe year 1506 AD; on page 116 there is reference of Mir Jaan
\nand his singing; on page 174\/175 Mir Miran is mentioned and
\non page 207 Mir Ali is referred but there is no reference of any
\nMir Baqi. Talbot has not said anything about the Ayodhya visit
\nexcept that of page 208 where he has referred to Awadh once
\nonly in the following manner:\n<\/p>\n
              “Thee thousand Afghans from the Doab were the
\n                                                                          1683<\/span><\/p>\n
        first to come over to him, and were rewarded with
\n        territories in Oudh, which was still in revolt.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1581.       On behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-4) copies of certain pages
\nof “Mughal Kalin Bharat-Babar (1526-1530) by Syed Athar
\nAbbas Rizvi (Supra) have been filed which are marked as
\nExhibit 85, Suit-4 (paper No. 223C1 and 224C1\/1-62). These
\nphotocopies are from the 1960 edition of the book. Pages No.
\n19-20, 49-50, 232-233, 272-281, 310-313, 318-320, 328-341,
\n353, 375, 380-387 and 420-421 have been filed. We, however,
\nare referring from 2010 reprint since this book in its entirety is
\navailable to the Court. On page 272, the book narrates the
\nincidents of 28.03.1528 and 02.04.1528 which is almost similar
\nto what is contained in Beveridge’s Babur-Nama for the said
\ndate but since it is a translation by a Muslim writer having
\nauthority on the subject which is admitted to the plaintiffs of
\nSuit-4 also, we reproduce the same as under:\n<\/p>\n
        “vo\/k igaqpuk
\n                vo\/k ls nks ,d iM+ko iwoZ phu rhaewj lqYrku ds ikl ls vkdj
\n        fdlh us lwpuk nh fd] ” ‘k=q ljnk ds ml ikj MVk gqvk gS vr%
\n        dqed Hskth tk;sA ” 1000 ohjksa dks I`kFkd djds d+jkpk ds v\/khu dqed
\n        gsrq Hkstk A
\n                 \u00bc28 ekpZ\u00bd& ‘kfuokj 7 jtc dks geus vo\/k ls 2&3 dqjksg ij
\n        xxj ,oa ljnk ds laxe ds \u00c5ij iM+ko fd;k A ml fnu rd ‘ks[k
\n        ck;t+hn ljnk ds ml ikj vo\/k ds lkeus jgk gksxk A og lqYrku ds
\n        ikl Ik= Hkstrk ,oa \u00bclaf\/k ds fo”k; esa \u00bd okrkZ djrk jgk fdUrq lqYrku us
\n        mldh \/kwrZrk ls voxr gksus ds dkj.k d+jkpk dks e\/;kUgksRrj dh uekt+
\n        ds le; lwpuk fHktok;h vkSj unh ikj djus dh O;oLFkk djus yxk A
\n        tc d+jkpk lqYrku ds ikl igqap x;k rks mUgksaus rRdky unh ikj dh A
\n        ogka yxHkx 50 v’okjksgh rFkk 3 ;k 4 gkFkh FksA os ;q) u dj lds vkSj
\n        Hkkx [kMs+ gq, A dqN yksxksa dks ?kksM+s ls fxjkdj muds flj dkV Mkys
\n        x;s vkSj mUgsa \u00bc esjs ikl \u00bd Hskt fn;k x;k A
\n                                                                             1684<\/span><\/p>\n
                  lqYrku ds ihNs&ihNs ch[kwc lqYrku] d++wt csx ds \u00bcHkkbZ \u00bd rjnh
\n        csx] ckck pqgjk rFkk ckd+h ‘kx+k oy us Hkh unh ikj dh A ftu yksxksa
\n        us buds iwoZ unh ikj dh Fkh] mu yksxksa us ‘ks[k ck;t+hn dk lk;adky
\n        dh uekt+ rd ihNk fd;k fdUrq og taxy esa ?kqldj Hkkx x;k A phu
\n        rhewj   jkf= esa    caWa\/ks gq, ty ds rV ij Bgjk vkSj vk\/kh jkr esa
\n        fonzksfg;ksa ds ihNs jokuk gqvk A og 40 dqjksg dh ;k=k djds ml LFkku
\n        ij] tgka ‘ks[k ck;t+hn ds ifjokj okys ,oa lEcU\/kh Bgjs Fks] igqap x;k A
\n        os Hkh Hkkx x;s gksaxs A mlus ml LFkku ls nzqrxkeh v’okjksfg;ksa dks
\n        izR;sd fn’kk esa mudk ihNk djus ds fy, Hkstk A ckd+h ‘kx+k oy us
\n        dqN ohjksa lfgr ‘k=qvksa dks HksM+ ds leku Hkxk fn;k vkSj muds ifjokjksa
\n        ds ikl igaqp dj dqN vQx+kuksa dks cUnh cuk fy;k A ge dqN fnu rd
\n        vo\/k rFkk ml {sk= ds ‘kklu izcU\/k dks lqO;ofLFkr djus ds fy, ml
\n        iM+ko ij Bgjs jgs A vo\/k ds 7&8 dksl nwj ljnk unh ds rV ij ,d
\n        LFkku Fkk ftlds fo”k; esa dgk tkrk Fkk fd og cM+h vPNh f’kdkj&xkg
\n        gS A ehj eqgEen tkykcku dks bl vk’k; ls Hkstk x;k fd og xxj
\n        unh rFkk ljnk unh ds ?kkV dk fujh{k.k djds ykSV vk;sa A
\n                 \u00bc2 vizSy\u00bd& o`gLifrokj 12 jatc dks geus f’kdkj ds mn~ns’;
\n        ls izLFkku fd;kA”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1582.       The Rizvi’s translation has referred to a large number
\nof persons whose names have the title of ‘Mir’ on pages 716 and
\n717 as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “ehaj vrk mYykg; ehaj vcqy cd+k; ehaj vCnqy x+Q+wj; ehj
\n        vykmyeqYd frjfet+h; ehj vyh; ehj vyh csx; ehj vyh ‘ksj; ehj vyh
\n        ‘ksj uokbZ; ehj bczkghe; ehj bczkghe d+kuwuh; ehj [k+yhQ+k; ehj [kqnZ; ehj
\n        [kqnZ cdkoy; ehj x+;kl; ehj x+;kl rx+kbZ; ehj x+;klqn~nhu; ehj xslw;
\n        ehj tku; ehj tku bZjnh; ehj rhewjh [kjcwt+k; ehj njos’k eqgEen
\n        l+kjcku; ehj Q+kft+y; ehj cnz; ehj ehjku; ehj eqx+wy; ehj eqjrkt+; ehj
\n        eqgEen; ehj eqgEen vyh taxtax; ehj eqgEen tkykcku; ehj eqgEen
\n        ukfod; ehj eqgEen c[+’kh; ehj eqgEen ;wlqQ+; ehj ‘kkg d+wphu; ehj ‘kkg
\n        csx; ehj ‘ksjhe; ehj laxrjk’k; ehj ljs cjguk; ehj lqYrku vyh
\n        [+okcchu; ehj lSf;n vyh genkuh; ehj lSf;n jQ+hmn~nhu eqgfn~nl
\n                                                                   1685<\/span><\/p>\n
        lQ+oh; ehj geg; ehj gek; ehj gqlsu; ehj gqlsu eqvEekbZ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1583.       On page 659 he has mentioned the words Amir Mir
\nBaqi but that is with reference to his translation of stone
\ninscriptions said to be there on the disputed building with which
\nwe have already discussed. In the entire translation of Babur-
\nNama and other description there is no mention of anyone as
\nMir Baqi. The aforesaid work also nowhere mention or shows
\nthat Babar at any point of time did enter Ayodhya or Awadh
\nafter reaching near thereto on 28.03.1528 though it is said that
\nhe stayed thereat for about a few days.\n<\/p>\n
Traveller’s Account
\n1584.       There are two travellers account which have to be
\nconsidered at this stage. One that of “William Finch” and
\nanother is that of “Father Joseph Tieffenthaler”.
\n1585.       William Foster published a book, namely, “Early
\nTravels in India” (1985 First Edition distributed by Munshiram
\nManoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) which contains the narratives
\nof seven Englishmen who traveled in northern and western India
\nduring the reigns of Akbar and Jahangir. These travelers are
\nRalph Fitch (1583-91); John Mildenhall (1599-1606); William
\nHawkins (1608-13); William Finch (1608-11); Nicholas
\nWithington (1612-16); Thomas Coriyat (1612-17) and Edward
\nTerry (1616-19). William Finch came to India in August 1608
\nand landed at Surat with Capt. Hawkins. With respect to
\nAyodhya, Finch has written on page 176 of the book as under :\n<\/p>\n
        “To Oude (Ajodhya) from thence are 50 c.; a citie of
\n        ancient note, and seate of a Potan king, now much ruined;
\n        the castle built foure hundred yeeres agoe. Heere are
\n        also the ruines of Ranichand(s) castle and houses,
\n        which the Indians acknowled(g)e for the great God,
\n                                                                1686<\/span><\/p>\n
        saying that he tooke flesh upon him to see the tamasha
\n        of the world. In these ruines remayne certaine Bramenes,
\n        who record the names of all such Indians as wash
\n        themselves in the river running thereby; which custome,
\n        they say, hath continued foure Iackes of yeeres (which is
\n        three hundred ninetie foure thousand and five hundred
\n        yeeres before the worlds creation). Some two miles on the
\n        further side of the river is a cave of his with a narrow
\n        entrance, but so spacious and full of turnings within that a
\n        man may well loose himself there, if he take not better
\n        heed; where it is thought his ashes were buried. Hither
\n        resort many from all parts of India, which carry from
\n        hence in remembrance certaine graines of rice as blacke as
\n        gun-powder, which they say have beene reserved ever
\n        since. Out of the ruines of this castle is yet much gold
\n        tryed. Here is greate trade, and such abundance of Indian
\n        asse-horne that they make hereof bucklers and divers sorts
\n        of drinking cups. There are of these hornes, all the Indians
\n        affirme, some rare of great price, no jewell comparable,
\n        some esteeming them the right unicornes horne.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Photocopy of page 176 of the book is Exhibit 19 Suit-5
\n(Register 21 Page 271)
\n1586.      William Finch who visited Ayodhya between 1608-
\n1611 AD neither found any building of importance of Muslim
\nnor Muslim population nor any activity of Muslims noteworthy
\nin Ayodhya. Had the building in dispute been constructed in
\n1528 i.e. just about 80 years back, it is quite difficult to
\nunderstand that would not have been considered to be a place of
\nimportance and could have gone unnoticed by Finch. He has
\nspecifically referred to Castle of Lord Ram Chandra Ji which, in
\n                                                             1687<\/span><\/p>\n
his understanding, constructed about 400 years ago. Obviously,
\nit could not be related to the building in dispute as such. Here
\nalso what he says that there existed ruins of Ram Chandra’s
\ncastle and houses which the Indians acknowledge the Great
\nGod. He also says that in these ruins certain Brahmins used to
\nrecord the names of visiting Indians which is a practice still in
\ncontinuance in various holy places and those Brahmin people
\nare normally called as Panda\/Mahraj where one can find the
\nrecord of hundreds of years back belonging to their predecessors
\nwho had earlier visited these holy places.
\n1587.    Sri Jilani sought to argue that write up of William
\nFinch lends no credence for it does not mention very clearly as
\nto which place in Ayodhya he visited. However, Sri Jilani also
\ncould not suggest that in Ayodhya there is any place other than
\nthat which included the disputed site which may or could be
\nconsidered to be the fort of King Dashrath or Lord Rama in
\nancient times. At least this much cannot be disputed that
\nWilliam Finch’s travel account did not find mention of any big
\nbuilding known as “Babri Mosque” to have existed in Ayodhya
\nhaving been constructed just about 80 years ago before his visit.
\nHis travel account suggests that the number of Muslim
\ninhabitants in Ayodhya city in earlier 17th Century was
\nnegligible.\n<\/p>\n
1588.     Next comes another travel account of “Father Joseph
\nTieffenthaler” who visited India sometime in 1740 and
\nremained here for about 20-25 years. He also visited Ayodhya
\nduring his above stay and had written travel account which was
\nwritten in Latin in the book “DESCRIPTION : HISTORIQUE
\nET GEOGRAPHIQUE : D E L’ I N D E” under the title
\n“TOME         1.   NOUVELLE      EDITION.        Contenant     la
\n                                                               1688<\/span><\/p>\n
Geographic de l’Ind-Uftan, avec. 39,. Planches”. English
\ntranslation      of     which     is     “HISTORICAL         AND
\nGEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF INDIA” VOLUME 1
\nNEW EDITION containing the Geography of Hindustan, with
\n39 illustrations”. The account of Tieffenthaler was translated in
\nFrench and was published by M. Jean Bernoulli in 1786, photo
\ncopy of the first two pages of the French publication as well as
\npages no. 252 to 255 was provided to this Court which has been
\nmarked as Exhibit No. OOS 5-133 (Paper No. 107 C\/96-104)
\n(Register 21 page 273-289).\n<\/p>\n
1589.      The aforesaid documents were written in French
\n(except of very few words which were in Lati). Since the
\nEnglish translation supplied by plaintiffs (Suit-5) was seriously
\ndisputed, we directed the Government of India to get an
\nauthenticated English Translation of the aforementioned pages
\nwhich have been made available to us and after giving
\nopportunity to the parties to file their objection has been
\nadmitted vide order dated 10.03.2010. The relevant part in the
\naforesaid report, i.e.,pages 253 is reproduced as under:\n<\/p>\n
              “L’empereur Aurengzebe a fait demolir la fortereffe
\n        appelee ramcot,    & a eleve au meme lieu un temple
\n        mahometan, a triple coupole. D’autres difent qu’il a etc
\n        conftruit par Babor. On y voit I 4 colonnes de pierre
\n        noire, hautes de 5 empans, qui occupoient l’emplacement
\n        de la fortereffe. Douze de ces colonnes portent maintenant
\n        les arcades intericures de la Mosquee: deux (de ces I 2)
\n        font placees a la porte du cloitre. Les deux autres font
\n        partie du tombeau d’un certain Maure. On raconte que ces
\n        colonnes, ou plutot ces debris de colonnes artiftement
\n        travaillees ont etc apportees de l’ile de Lanca ou Selendip
\n                                                                  1689<\/span><\/p>\n
        [appelee Ceylan par les Europeens] par Hanumann, Roi
\n        des Singes.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Emperor Aurengzebe got the fortress called
\n        Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple
\n        domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that is
\n        was constructed by ‘Babor’. Fourteen black stone pillars
\n        of 5 span high, which had existed at the site of the
\n        fortress, are seen there. Twelve of these pillars now
\n        support the interior arcades of the mosque. Two (of these\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        12) are placed at the entrance of the cloister. The two
\n        others are part of the tomb of some ‘Moor’. It is narrated
\n        that these pillars, or rather this debris of the pillars
\n        skillfully made, were brought from the island of Lanca or
\n        Selendip (called Ceylan by the Europeans) by Hanuman,
\n        King of Monkeys.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          (English transliteration)
\n1590.          Sri Mishra pointed out that there appears to be an
\nenglish translation also of the travel record of Tieffenthaler. He
\nrefers to the english translation of Tieffenthaler in para 5 of his
\nwritten argument and gave a brief biodata of father Tieffenthaler
\nin para 6 which read:\n<\/p>\n
        “5. Father Josef Tieffenthaler, a Jesuit Missionary and
\n        noted geographer on Hindustan visited Ayodhya in 1770
\n        did not find any Inscriptions even that superscription
\n        “Allah” mentioned by the Ld. District Judge in 1886.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        From Josef Tiffenthaler’s description it appears that at that
\n        time     also   Hindus   were   worshipping     inside    the
\n        Ramjanmsthan Temple alleged to be converted into
\n        mosque either by Aurangzeb or by Babar. As he was not
\n        only a Missionary but an excellent Historian, Geographer
\n                                                         1690<\/span><\/p>\n
and great linguistic having mastery over several languages
\nincluding Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit, there was no
\npossibility of overlooking the alleged Inscriptions by him
\nas it would have enabled him to tell the people with
\ncertainty the name of the Tyrant Emperor who attempted
\nto convert Sri Ramajanmasthan Temple into Mosque.
\nEnglish translation of a portion of his book “Descriptio
\nIndiae” being     description of Oude including the Sri
\nRamajanmasthan has been published on pages 312 to 317
\nin the ” Modern Traveller, a Popular Description,
\nGeographical, Historical, and Topographical of the
\nVarious Countries of the Globe- India. Vol. III” ; London
\nEdn.1828    published by James Duncan and has been
\ndigitalised by Google. Relevant extracts thereof read as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
   “Its appearance, in 1770, is thus described by Tieffen
\n   Thaler: “Avad with Ajudea by the learned Hindoos, is
\n   a city of the highest Antiquity.” ………   (Ibid.312)
\n   “The most remarkable place is that which is called
\n   Sorgodoari, that is to say, the heavenly temple;
\n   because they say, that Ram carried away from thence
\n   to heaven all the inhabitants of the city. The deserted
\n   town was repeopled and restored to its former
\n   condition by Bikaramajit, the famous King of Oojein.
\n   There was a temple here on the high bank of the river;
\n   but Aurangzebe, ever attentive to the propagation of
\n   faith of Mohammed, and holding the heathen in
\n   abhorrence, caused it to be demolished, and replaced it
\n   with a mosque with minarets, in order to abolish the
\n   very memory of Hindoo superstition. Another mosque
\n                                                     1691<\/span><\/p>\n
has been built by the Moors, to the East of this near
\nthe Sorgodoari in an edifice erected by Nabalroy, a
\nformer Hindoo governor. But a place more particularly
\nfamous is that which is called Sitha Rassoce, a table of
\nSitha (Seeta), wife of Ram; situated on an eminence to
\nthe south of the city. The emperor Aurangzebe
\ndemolished the fortress called Ramcote, and erected
\non the site of Mohammedan temple with a triple dome.
\nAccording to others, it was erected by Baber. There
\nare to be seen fourteen columns of black stone, five
\nspans in height, occupied the site of the fortress.
\nTwelve of these columns now support the interior
\narcades of the mosque: the two other form part of the
\ntomb of a certain Moor. They tell us that these
\ncolumnsms, are rather these remains of skillfully
\nwrought columns, were brought from the Isle of Lanca
\nor   Selendip (Ceylon) by Hanuman, King of the
\nMonkeys. On the left is seen a square chest, raised
\nfive inches from the ground covered with lime about 5
\nells in length by not more than four in breadth. The
\nHindoos call it Bedi. The cradle; and the reason is, that
\nthere formerly stood here the house in which Beshan
\n(Vishnoo) was born in the form of Ram, and were
\nalso, they say, is three brothers were born. Afterwards,
\nAurangzebe or, according to others, Baber caused the
\nplace to be destroyed, in order to deprive the heathen
\nof   the   opportunity    of   practising   there   their
\nsuperstitions. Nevertheless, they still pay superstitious
\nreverence to both these places; namely, to that on
\nwhich the Natal dwelling Ram stood, by going three
\n                                                       1692<\/span><\/p>\n
   times around it, prostrate on the earth. The two places
\n   are surrounded with a low wall adorned with
\n   battlements. Not far from this is a place where they
\n   dig up grains of black rice changed into little stones,
\n   which are affirmed to have been hidden under ground
\n   ever since the time of Rama. On the 24th of the month
\n   of Tshet (Choitru), a large concourse of people
\n   celebrate here the birth-day of Ram, so famous
\n   throughout India.”……                 (Ibid. 313- 314)\n<\/p>\n
6. Josef Tieffenthaler was born at Bozen in the Tyrol, on
\n27th August, 1710 and died at Lucknow on 5 July, 1785.
\nHe entered the Society of Jesus 9 October, 1729, and went
\nin 1740 to the East Indian mission where he occupied
\nvarious positions, chiefly in the empire of the Great
\nMoghul. After the suppression of the Society he
\nremained in India, and on his death was buried in the
\nmission cemetery at Agra, where his tombstone still
\nstands. He was a fine scholar with an unusual talent for
\nlanguages; besides his native tongue he understood Latin,
\nItalian, Spanish, French, Hindustani, Arabic, Persian, and
\nSanskrit. He was the first European who wrote an exact
\ndescription of Hindustan. A brief list of his works is the
\nbest proof of his extraordinary power of work and his
\nvaried   scholarship. In geography, he wrote a “Descriptio
\nIndiae”, that is a circumstantial description of the twenty
\ntwo provinces of India, of its cities, fortresses, and the
\nmost important smaller towns, together with an exact
\nstatement of geographical positions, calculated by means
\nof a simple quadrant. He wrote a large book on the courses
\nof the Ganga. In history, he wrote many books. He wrote
\n                                                                1693<\/span><\/p>\n
        on the origin of the Hindus and their religion in Latin,
\n        expeditions of Nadir Shah to India in German, the Deeds
\n        of the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam in Persian, Incursions
\n        of the Afghans and the Conquest of Delhi in French. He
\n        wrote a book on contemporary history 1757-64. In
\n        linguistics he prepared a Sanskrit-Parsee Lexicon, treatises
\n        in Latin on the language of the Parsees, on the proper
\n        pronunciation of Latin, etc.. In the area of religion, he
\n        wrote ‘Brahmanism’ and works on Indian polytheism,
\n        Indian asceticism, the religion of Parsee Islam and
\n        relations of these religions to one another.In the field of
\n        the natural sciences he wrote on astronomical observations
\n        on the sunspots and zodiacal light, studies on the Hindu
\n        astronomy, astrology and cosmology. In addition, he
\n        wrote on the descriptions and observations of the flora and
\n        fauna of India. Thus he was an intellectual giant and a
\n        linguistic wizard and not mere a traveller or a merchant
\n        who made casual remarks. His published works along
\n        with biographical notes can be lucidly gleaned from
\n        Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) and ‘Christianty in India’
\n        through Wikisource and Wikipedia’s website respectively.
\n        His writings and contributions also find place in the books\n<\/p>\n
        -HUONDER, Deutsche Jesuitenmission\u00e4re des 17. und\n<\/p>\n
        18. Jahrh. (Freiberg, 1899), 179; NOTI. Jos.Tieffentaller,
\n        S. J., A Forgotten Geographer of India (Bombay, 1906);
\n        HOSTEN, Jesuit Missionaries in Northern India (Calcutta,
\n        1907).\n<\/p>\n
1591.      Sri   P.N.   Mishra     argued   that   Father    Joseph
\nTieffenthaler himself was a linguist knowing Persian and Arabic
\nvery well. Had the inscriptions two or three, as the case may be,
\n                                                              1694<\/span><\/p>\n
whatever, fixed to the disputed building till the time he visited
\nAyodhya including the disputed site, he could have himself read
\nthe same and would have mentioned categorically that the
\nbuilding in dispute was constructed by Babur. There could not
\nhave been any occasion in such a case to mention that there was
\na demolition by Aurangzeb and construction of mosque by him
\nand thereafter further that some says that it was done by Babur.
\nSri Mishra suggested that Aurangzeb died in 1707 A.D. and had
\nruled the most part of the country for about forty-eight years.
\nWhether he himself visited Ayodhya or not is irrelevant for the
\nreason that his Farman (command) for demolition of Hindu
\ntemples is referred to in several history books including some of
\nthe contemporary Muslim literature written by Muslim authors.
\nHe argued that the existing Hindu temple was demolished by
\nAurangzeb and it is during his regime, the disputed building was
\nconstructed but at that time no inscription was installed thereat.
\nThese inscriptions did not exist till Father Joseph Tieffenthaler
\nvisited Ayodhya including the disputed site between 1740 to
\n1760-65. He pointed out that the inscriptions on the disputed
\nbuilding came to be noticed for the first time by Dr. Francis
\nBuchanan who was appointed by the Governor General in
\nCouncil to undergo a survey of the Provinces ruled by the
\nPresidency of Bengal in 1807 AD visited Ayodhya in 1810 AD.
\n1592.    Here it would of some importance to have an idea of
\nbiography of Dr. Francis Buchanan. He was borne at Bardowie,
\nCallander Perthshire on 15th February, 1762. His family
\noriginated in Spittal and claim the Chiefdom of the name of
\nBuchanan. He studied medicines at the University of Edinburgh.
\nHe also studied Botany under John Hope in Edinburgh. After
\nseveral voyages on merchant navy ship to area, he served in the
\n                                                              1695<\/span><\/p>\n
Bengal Medical Service from 1794 to 1815 AD. From 1803 to
\n1804 AD he was Surgeon to the Governor General of India,
\nLord Wellesley in Calcutta. There he organised a Zoo, later
\nknown as Calcutta Alipore Zoo. He worked on Indian Fish
\nSpecies entitled “An account of fishes found in the river Ganges
\nand its branches (1822)” which describes over 100 species not
\nformerly recognised scientifically. He also collected and
\ndescribed very new plants in the region and collected a series of
\nWatercolours of Indian and Nepalese plants and animals,
\nprobably painted by Indian artists, which they say that they are
\nnow in the library of Linnean Society of London. After Tipu
\nSultan’s defeat in 1799 AD he was asked to survey Southern
\nIndia resulting in a journey from Madras through the countries
\nof Mysore, Canara and Malabar (1807 AD). From 1807 to 1814
\nAD under the instructions of the Governor General and Council,
\nBengal he made a survey of the areas within the jurisdiction of
\nthe British East India Company, i.e., the provinces subject to the
\nPresidency of Bengal. He became Superintendent of the
\nCalcutta Botanical Garden      in 1814 but due to his ill health
\nreturn to Britain in 1815 AD. In the same year he inherited his
\nmother’s estate and in consequence took her surname of
\nHamilton, referring himself as “Francis Hamilton, formerly
\nBuchanan” or simply “Francis Hamilton”. However, he is
\nvariously referred to by others as “Buchanan Hamilton”,
\n“Francis Hamilton Buchanan” or “Francis Buchanan Hamilton”.
\nHe is considered to be Scottish Physician who made significant
\ncontribution as a Geographer, Zoologist and Botanist while
\nliving in India. He died on 15.06.1829.\n<\/p>\n
1593.    Apparently work of Dr. Buchanan could not be given
\nfinal shape by him. However, it appears that three journals were
\n                                                              1696<\/span><\/p>\n
published by the government of Bihar and Orissa sometime in
\n1923 AD and onwards. One was published relating to Patna and
\nGaya districts sometimes in 1923 AD under the editorship of
\nMr. Jackson, another was published soon thereafter dealing with
\nthe district of Sahabad under the care of Mr. Oldham and third
\none was published narrating the survey of District Bhagalpur
\nconducted in the cold weather of 1810-11 AD edited by Mr.
\nOldham.\n<\/p>\n
1594.      As already said, in 1807 AD under the orders of
\nGovernor General and Council, East India Company Dr. Francis
\nBuchanan was directed to conduct survey of all the provinces
\nsubject to the Presidency of Bengal. He was required to collect
\ninformation upon the general topography of each districts; the
\ncondition of the inhabitants, their religious customs, the natural
\nproductions of the country, fisheries, forests, mines and
\nquarries; the state of agriculture; the condition of landed
\nproperty and tenures; the progress made in the arts and
\nmanufactures; the operations of commerce, and every particular
\nthat can be recorded, as forming an element, in the prosperity or
\ndepression of the people. The survey was pursued for seven
\nyears and in 1816 AD the results were transmitted to England.
\n1595.     Due to bad health of Dr. Buchanan the matter could
\nnot proceed and it      appears that the East India Company
\nthereafter took the help of Mr. Robert Montgomery Martin. The
\nCourt of Directors permitted Mr. Martin to inspect the
\nmanuscripts with a view to selection for publication. It was
\nsometimes in 1836 or 1838 Mr. Martin was required to study the
\nmaterial collected by Dr. Buchanan, prepare a report so as to
\nplace before the British public.\n<\/p>\n
1596.     This leads us to look into the biography of “Robert
\n                                                              1697<\/span><\/p>\n
Montgomery Martin”. Born in Dublin of Protestant Irish Stock
\nin 1801 AD he spent 10 years in medical practice in Shillong,
\nEast Africa and New South Wells and working as journalist in
\nCalcutta. There he helped, found and edit “The Bengal Herald”
\nbefore he return to Britten. He wrote on the colonies and
\ncolonial policy. On return he become embroiled in domestic,
\npolitical and economic debate. In politics he initially supported
\nRepeal of the Act of Union between England and Ireland but
\nlater switched to pro-unionism on religious and economic
\ngrounds. In economics he was an opponent of popular
\nrecardianism. He called for repeal of the 1819 AD currency
\nlegislation; vigorously advocated protectionism for British
\nagricultural; concern himself with the principle of taxation. Due
\nto limited personal finances and an interest in policy matters he
\nsought Government patronage for official employment or
\nfinancial support.\n<\/p>\n
1597.     Buchanan made survey in the then territory of District
\nBehar,    Shahabad,        Bhagulpoor,   Goruckpoor,   Dinajpoor,
\nPuraniya, Ronggopoor and Assam. Mr. Martin found that the
\ntime when the survey was made and when he was required to
\ninspect the manuscripts has made certain matters irrelevant. He,
\ntherefore, in his wisdom confined his views to an examination
\nof the geography and physical aspect of the country; to its
\ntraditional or recorded history, to the monuments or relics of
\nantiquity; physical and moral conditions of the people
\namounting (according to the survey estimates) to 1.6 crore and
\nto the resources of the soil which they till; the manufactures
\nwhich carry on; and to the products and profits of agricultural
\nand commercial industry. In his views the survey depicted a
\npainful   picture     of     human   poverty,   debasement   and
\n                                                                1698<\/span><\/p>\n
wretchedness. The report was submitted by Mr. Martin in
\nFebruary’ 1838 which was first published in 1838. It has now
\nbeen reprinted in 1976 in India by Cosmo Publications, Delhi.
\nMartin’s report has been published under the title “Eastern
\nIndia” and is running in six volumes. It is a matter of
\nimportance that Martin has not claimed to have visited North
\nWest Provinces of India under East India Company. His entire
\nopinion is based only on the perusal of record sent by Buchanan.
\n1598.      In the Chapter “District Gorukhpoor”, certain facts
\nabout Ayodhya have been given. District Gorukhpoor (now
\nspelt as “Gorakhpur”) at that time situated to the left or north of
\nthe river Ghoghra. According to survey map published in Vol-2
\nand printed between page 290 and 291, book titled as “Eastern
\nIndia” by Mortin, we find that on the western and southern side,
\nthe boundary wall is depicted by the rivers Gharghara\/Ghaghara
\nand Saryu; and on the northern and western side, the entire area
\ntermed as Domain of Nawab Vazir of Oudh. About river
\nGhaghra, description is on page 297 as under :\n<\/p>\n
              “Ghaghra. – The accounts of the great river, which
\n        passes the ancient city of Ayodhya, that I have received,
\n        differ not only very much from the maps of Danville and
\n        Rennell, but disagree very much among themselves. The
\n        confusion is increased to the most perplexing degree by
\n        very different names being not only given to different parts
\n        of the same river ; but even the very same portion by
\n        different people and tribes is called by different names.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Finally the native maps, that I have received of the
\n        country; through which the remote branches of this river
\n        flow, are more imperfect than those of the country either to
\n        the east or west, so that what I have to advance on the
\n                                                         1699<\/span><\/p>\n
subject is liable to great doubt ; but as the information, if
\ntrue is curious, I think, that until more accurate
\ninformation is obtained, it should not be neglected.\n<\/p>\n
      At the city of Ayodhya this great river among the
\nHindus is usually called Sarayu (Soorjew, Rennell), and
\nthis name is in use in their sacred language; but by the
\nMuhammedans it is called Ghaghra, from the Sangskrita
\nword Gharghara. This name Mr. Gladwin (Ayeen Akbery)
\nwrote sometimes Gehgher, sometimes Goghar; and Major
\nRennell writes it Gogra. The mountaineers from the east
\nside of this river assure me, that neither name is known on
\nthe hills, and that the Sarayu celebrated in their legends is
\nformed by the junction of the Bheri river, which I take to be
\nthe Soorjew of Major Rennell, with the Karanali Salasu, or
\nSanbhadrik, which is no doubt the Gogra of that eminent
\ngeographer, as the remarkable fountains emitting flame at
\nDulubasandra are situated near its bank. The inhabitants
\nof the low country also in general agree with Major
\nRennell, in calling the eastern branch the Sarayu, and the
\nwestern the Ghaghra, but the western branch which they
\nmean, is quite different from that on which Dulubasandra
\nis situated, and at any rate its principal branch on the
\nmountains is the Kalinadi. Both these authorities therefore,
\nthat is, the mountaineers east from the river, and the people
\nof the low country agree, that a great river coming from the
\nwest, and named the Ghaghra, unites with the Sarayu,
\ncoming from the east, and that this latter among the Hindus
\nis considered as the principal river, and communicates its
\nname to the united stream while the Muhammedans adopt
\nthe opposite opinion, and continue the name Ghaghra to
\n                                                       1700<\/span><\/p>\n
the river at Ayodhya. A learned and intelligent Brahman,
\nhowever, Hariballabh of Kuman, from the mountains on
\nthe west side of the river, and perfectly acquainted both
\nwith the country and the legends, says, that the names
\nSarayu and Ghaghra are applicable to the same river,
\nthrough the whole length of its course. That it rises by
\ntwo petty sources in the Pergunahs of Karuvirpoor and
\nDanapoor, on the hills north form Almorha ; but far
\nremoved from the snowy peaks of Emodus. These two
\ntorrents uniting at Bagheswar form the Sarayu, which
\ncontinues to run east, receiving the Panar a small channel
\nproducing gold, and the Ramagangga of considerable size.
\nSome way east from the junction of the latter, the Sarayu
\nreceives a river much larger than itself, which rises from
\nthe perennial snows of Emodus, and is called the Kalinadi.
\nThe united stream is the Sarayu, or Gharghara, and passes
\nsouth-westerly towards the plains, nor does my informant
\nknow more of its course ; but, that it passes by Ayodhya to
\njoin the Ganges at Dadri, he has learned from legend.\n<\/p>\n
     The account of the most intelligent boatmen that I
\ncould procure at Ayodhya, is as follows. The boats which
\nload timber, can proceed no higher up the Ghaghra than
\nMundiya ghat, which is in the Bareli district, about 18
\ncoss, or 27 miles, road measure, from Pilibhit. The channel
\nis there very wide, but the stream is not large, and is not
\nabove two cubits deep. The territory of Gorkha commences
\nabout seven or eight coss from Mundiya, at a large forest
\nnamed Langsar, from which much timber comes. About
\ntwelve coss below Mundiya the Ghaghra receives from the
\nmountains a branch called Neaula, down which much
\n                                                         1701<\/span><\/p>\n
timber comes from the territory subject to Gorkha. Twelve
\ncoss lower down, it receives the Kauriya, and immediately
\nbelow its mouth a third named the Geruya enters. Timber
\nis brought down both these rivers, and on the latter, in the
\ndominions of Gorkha, are two great forest, Amba and
\nPalamu. I suspect, that the Kauriyar and Geruya, and
\nperhaps even the Neaula are only different mouths of the
\nsame river, which in the mountains is called Setigangga, or
\nthe white river. The Hindus have given the preference to
\nthe Sarayu, which is said to be the smallest, nor is the
\nlarger branch any where fordable below the mouth of the
\nBhakosa. The united channel begins to form the
\nboundary between this district and the territories of the
\nNawab Vazir, just at the city of Ayodhya, where its
\nchannel and stream seem fully larger than that of the
\nGanges at Chunar. For about 18 miles below Ayodhya
\nits width is from one to three miles, as it surrounds two
\nvery large islands, the property of the upper of which is
\ndisputed by the landholders of the two governments; but
\nthe   lower   is   the   undisputed     property   of   the
\nMuhammedan prince. About ten miles above where the
\nGhaghra comes to be the boundary, it sends off a channel
\nmerely called the Sota, or branch, which runs parallel to
\nthe main river for above six miles, forming for more than
\nfour the boundary between the two governments, when it
\njoins the Teri river. I crossed this branch on the 11th of
\nDecember, where it was about a quarter of a mile wide,
\nand perhaps a fourth of the channel might be covered with
\nwater knee deep, but nearly stagnant.\n<\/p>\n
      The Teri comes to the boundary of this district, about
\n                                                                1702<\/span><\/p>\n
        14 miles from where it receives the above-mentioned
\n        branch of the Ghaghra, and, at the boundary receives from
\n        the north-west a marshy channel called the Nawara jhil,
\n        which forms the boundary for about four miles. The united
\n        channel called Teri is inconsiderable, and winds much,
\n        partly along the boundary, and partly on both sides of it,
\n        until about four miles from where it receives the branch of
\n        the Ghaghra called Sota. It there joins with a similar
\n        branch of that river called Bhagala, which for some way
\n        serves as the boundary. The united channel is called the
\n        Teri.” (pages 297-300)
\n1599.      Dealing with historical and topographical part of
\nDistrict Gorakhpur, on page 325 and onwards it says :\n<\/p>\n
              “This district forms a considerable part of the
\n        territory, which in ancient legend is called Maha Kosala.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        ……. This very extensive and fertile region has always been
\n        considered as the proper patrimony of the family of the
\n        sun, as it is called, which for a very long period governed
\n        large portions of India and at times produced its
\n        paramount lords.” (page 325)
\n1600.      The study which was conducted by Martin, the source
\nof his information etc. in writing this chapter and in particular
\nwhat he has observed on pages 325 to 337 can not be well
\nunderstood unless we go through details of his entire discussion
\non the matter and, therefore, it would be necessary to reproduce
\nthe following from his book :\n<\/p>\n
              “The history of the Hindus has been thrown into such
\n        confusion by an attempt to reconcile the actual
\n        succession of their princes with a modern system of
\n        astronomy, as most ably explained by Mr. Bentley in the
\n                                                         1703<\/span><\/p>\n
eighth volume of the Asiatic Researches, that the utmost
\ndifficulty attends all attempts to reconcile with any thing
\nlike reason such ancient accounts as have been preserved
\nin the monstrous and modern legends called the Purans.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The difficulties attending this subject may be fully
\nappreciated by examining the different attempts of Sri
\nWilliam Jones in the second volume, of Major Wilford in
\nthe fifth volume, and of Mr. Bentley in the eighth volume of
\nthe Asiatic Researches, although in the latter the real
\nsource of the difficulties seems to have been fully
\ndiscovered. Still, however, many great difficulties exist,
\nwhich these authors have not fully explained, and of which
\nthe two first do not seem to have been fully aware. Sir
\nWilliam Jones seems, without examination, to have
\nadopted the account given of the Indian dynasties by
\nRadhakanta, in his Puranartha-prakasa, as the doctrine
\ngenerally received by the Hindus on the subject, and
\nalleges (Asiatic Researches, vol. 2, page 26), that it begins
\nwith an absurdity so monstrous as to overthrow the
\nwhole system, he then endeavours to turn the whole of
\nthe early pedigree into an allegory, denying altogether
\nthe existence of many princes, because their names
\nsignify light, sky, sun, moon and so forth; although he
\nmight have considered, that such names are sometimes
\nused for men among ourselves, and among the present
\nHindus are very common. The grand objection to the
\nsystem of Radhakanta is, however, his having adopted as a
\nmaxim, that there was always a supreme king of each of the
\nfamilies of the sun and moon, so that India, according to
\nhim, was governed like Lacedaemon, by two chiefs of two
\n                                                          1704<\/span><\/p>\n
families possessing equal power ; and that each dynasty
\ncontained exactly the same number of generations in the
\nrespective periods, into which the history is divided. This is
\na fable like many others, usually called opinions
\nuniversally received among the Hindus, which Mr. Bantley
\n(Asiatic Researches, vol. 8, page 244) so justly exposes.
\nBut the receiving it, as an universally acknowledged
\nopinion, led Sir William Jones, from the imperfect lists
\ncomposed by Radhakanta, to doubt whether any such
\npersonages as the Indian princes of the families of the sun
\nand moon existed (Asiatic Researches, vol. 2, page 131).
\nHad Sir Willam consulted the various genealogies
\ncontained in the different Purans, he would have found,
\nthat this opinion, by which he was staggered, rested
\nentirely on the imagination of Radhakanta, or of some
\nperson from whom he borrowed it, and could not be
\nsupported by the remains of history in the Purans. So far
\nas I can learn from Pandits, that I have employed to
\nextract the Hindu genealogies from their books, there
\nwas only one paramount king admitted at a time, and in
\ngeneral the succession to this power was totally irregular,
\nnot only between the tow great families, but among the
\nbranches of the same family, and, as I have mentioned in
\nthe account of Shahabad, was as irregular as the
\nsuccession in Ireland during the government of the families
\ndescended of Heber and Heremon. It would even appear,
\nthat the succession to the supremacy was not strictly
\nconfined to the two families of the sun and moon, as Pandu
\nand his successors were in fact descended of Vayasa ; and
\nalso that many intervals occurred, in which no one king
\n                                                         1705<\/span><\/p>\n
possessed paramount authority.\n<\/p>\n
      The table given by Major Wilfort is highly valuable ;
\nalthough, when he says, that it is extracted from the Vishnu
\nPuran, the Bhagawat, and other Puranas, without the least
\nalteration whatever, we are only to understand, that Major
\nWilford made no alteration on the table, after it was
\nextracted by his assistants from the Hindu records ; for the
\ngenealogies contained in the different books, to which he
\nalludes, differ so much from each other, that no one table
\ncould be constructed from them without making numerous
\nalterations. This interesting table is however exceedingly
\nvaluable in showing how nearly these genealogies, by
\ntaking the human age at a just valuation may be reconciled
\nwith the real eras pointed out by Mr. Bentley, on
\nastronomical data. It must however be evident, that both
\nsystems are liable to some doubt. In the first place there is
\na very great difficulty in establishing any calculation upon
\nthe number of generations contained in the Hindu
\ngenealogies, owing to the very great carelessness, with
\nwhich they have been constructed. Besides numerous
\ntranspositions it would seem, that in many parts, what in
\none Genealogy is detailed as a succession of several
\ngenerations, is given in another genealogy as a list of
\nbrothers, so that by the former process the length of a
\ndynasty   is   monstrously   enlarged.    Again    in   some
\ngenealogies a whole dynasty is represented by a single
\nname, which occasions the most absurd anachronisms to
\nbe commonly received as canonical, by such as have
\nstudied only a part of these genealogies. These
\nanachronisms are so distressing, that some learned persons
\n                                                       1706<\/span><\/p>\n
have considered as quite vain the attempt of founding any
\nthing like a regular chronology on the Hindu genealogies. I
\nhope however, that this judgement is too harsh, and that a
\ncareful perusal of all the remains may lead to something as
\nsatisfactory as chronologies of equal antiquity usually
\nadmit. So far as I can at present judge, for I have not yet
\nprocured any thing like a full copy of the genealogies,
\nthe eras, even as curtailed by Major Wilford and Mr.
\nBentley, would require to be considerably reduced. I
\nconsider it necessary to reduce the former from the
\nnumerous interpolations of brothers and collaterals in
\nplace of sons. The argument of Mr. Bentley goes only to
\nshow the manner, in which some former systems of
\nchronology, detailed in the Graha Mangjari, have been
\ndeformed by the present system of Varaha Mihira ; but
\nthese ancient systems were also mere astronomical
\nfictions, and, although their application to history was
\nnot attended with such monstrous difficulties, as the
\npresent system, there is nothing in its nature to show,
\nthat it is in any degree connected with what actually
\nhappened. One great difficulty occurs relative to the
\ndeluge, which Mr. Bentley and Major Wilford agree in
\nplacing immediately before the government of the family of
\nthe Sun in Kosala commenced, so that they consider the
\ngovernment of Swayambhuwa and his successors, kings of
\nVithora (Betoor Rennell) near Kanpoor, as in the
\nantediluvian age, while Swayambhuwa they call Adam,
\nand Vaiwaswata father of the first king of Kosala, they
\ncall Noah. One of the legends, on which this opinion
\nrests has been given by Sir William Jones (Asiatic
\n                                                        1707<\/span><\/p>\n
Researches, vol.2, page 117); but this, as explained by
\nthe Pandits, whom I have consulted, is not reconcilable
\nwith the opinion above mentioned; and these Brahmans
\ninsist, that no general deluge (Pralaya) has taken place
\nsince the time of Swayambhuwa. The mistake consists in
\nsupposing, that Satyabrata (Satjavrata) and Vaiwaswata
\nare the same person, and that whatever is related of one,
\nmay be attributed to the era of the other. But the Brahmans
\nsay, that these two personages, although the same soul in
\ndifferent transmigrations, lived at very remote periods,
\nSatyavrata having been saved in an ark by God, when the
\ndeluge happened, while in his subsequent birth as
\nVaiwaswata, after an interval of many ages, he became a
\nlaw-giver (Manu or Mamu), and founded the city of
\nAyodhya. It must be farther observed, that although the
\nlegend concerning the escape of Satyabrata or Satyarupa
\nhas a strong resemblance to the history of Noah, he is far
\nfrom being considered by the Hindus as being like Noah
\nthe second father of the human race ; but he is said to have
\ndied without children, and was born again in the family of
\nthe Sun ; while Swayambhuwa was created to people the
\nworld after the deluge ; and from him were descended the
\nfirst kings of India, who governed at Vithora, and who were
\nperhaps natives, although it is possible, that they may
\nhave been Assyrians. In place therefore of allowing the
\nfamily of the Sun to have governed from the time of the
\ndeluge, and that the Treta yug or silver age extended to
\nthat event, we must, I imagine, allow the golden age or
\nSatya yug, and the government of the descendants of
\nSwayambhuwa to be subsequent to that period, and of
\n                                                         1708<\/span><\/p>\n
course must bring the time, when the kingdom of Kosala
\nwas founded, much latter than Major Wilford and Mr.
\nBentley do. Could we depend on the accuracy of the
\nnumbers, as Sir William Jones observes, there is
\ncircumstance mentioned by Abul Fazil, that could throw
\nmuch light on this subject. It would appear that, the
\nBrahmans, whom that person consulted, had not always
\napplied to the history of their princes the astronomical
\nfictions of Varaha Mihira, and they placed the birth of
\nBudha, I presume the grandson of Atri, and son in law
\nof Vaiwaswata first king of Ayodhya, in the year 1366
\nbefore the birth of Christ (Asiatic Researches vol.\n<\/p>\n
2.p.125). This entirely coincides with the opinion I have
\nabove stated, and places the commencement of the
\nhistorical silver age, commencing with Budha, in the
\n1366th year before Christ, in place of the 2204th as given
\nby Mr. Bentley from the astronomical systems of the Graha
\nMungjari. Such a reduction on the era of the silver age,
\nand foundation of the kingdom of Kosala I am far from
\nthinking absolutely necessary; but on the whole I am
\ninclined to believe, that it approaches near the truth than
\nthe systems of Major Wilford or Mr. Bentley, although I
\nmust confess, as I have mentioned, that the coincidence of
\nthe two systems, founded on principles totally different,
\naffords a strong presumption in favour of the result.\n<\/p>\n
      In Hindu legend the appearance of certain persons
\nnamed Brahmadikas created by God, and commonly
\ncalled the progenitors of every living thing, forms a
\nremarkable era, but the accounts concerning these
\npersonages are totally dissonant, as may be seen in the
\n                                                         1709<\/span><\/p>\n
account of Major Wilford (Asiatic Researches, vol. 5, page\n<\/p>\n
246). One authority makes the three sons of Swayambhuwa
\nto have been the Brahmadikas, placing them thus at the
\ncommencement of the golden, and not at the beginning of
\nthe silver age; and I have already stated my opinion, that
\nthese were the aboriginal inhabitants or earliest
\nconquerors of India, but other authority give another
\nclass totally different, and always containing Marichi, Atri,
\nAnggirasa, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kritu, and Vasishtha, while
\nothers add Daksha, Bhrigu and Narada. The descendants
\nof these personages governed India both in spirituals and
\ntemporals from the commencement of the silver age until
\nabout the time when the Greeks made their appearance,
\nand numerous chiefs still claim to be of their family. They
\nare all called Brahmans, either as being created by the
\nGod of that name, or perhaps more probably as being
\npersons more intelligent than those who preceded them; far
\nfrom being all of the sacred order, the greater part of their
\ndescendants were princes, statesmen and soldiers, and one
\nin particular is stated to have been a merchant (Vaisya).\n<\/p>\n
      We have seen that Swayambhuwa, the founder of the
\nkingdom of Vithora, by the whole of what is called the
\ngolden age (Satya yug), preceded Vaiwaswata, the founder
\nof the kingdom of Kosala, and the latter was the great
\ngrandson of Marichi, while Budha, who founded the
\nadjacent kingdom of Kuru, and reigned at Pratisthan,
\nopposite to Prayag, about the same time with Vaiwaswata,
\nwhose daughter he married, was the grandson of Atri. I
\nlook upon these Brahmadikas, therefore, as the leaders
\nof a colony, which at the end of the golden age, settled in
\n                                                     1710<\/span><\/p>\n
India, and assumed the name of Brahmans , as being
\nfarther advanced in the arts than the descendants of
\nSwaymbhuwa, its more early princes. I look upon it also
\nas probable, that these personages came from western
\nAsia, introducing with them the Sangskrita language,
\ngenerally admitted to be radically the same with the
\nPersian dialect, while the languages spoken among all
\nthe rude tribes that inhabit the fastnesses of India, and
\nwhich are probably remains of its ancient tongue, have
\nno sort of analogy to the languages of the west. In the
\nhistory of Kasmira, preserved by Abul Fazil, Kasyap, who
\nwas the son of Marichi, is said to have introduced the
\nBrahmans (that is, a colony of civilized men) into that
\ncountry, and the traditions of Behar state, that he there
\nfounded a city, of which I was shown some of the remains.
\nThese no doubt were of much later date than the time of
\nKasyap, although he may have been the founder of the city
\nto which they once belonged. One of the sons of Kasyap,
\nnamed Viwaswa, is supposed to be now the deity
\npresiding over the sun, owing probably to his having
\nintroduced from Persia the worship of that luminary,
\nand, from flattery, his descendants were usually called
\nthe family of the sun (Suryabangsa).            His son
\nVaiwaswata, who, in a former transmigration, had been
\nSatyabrata (perhaps Noah), founded the kingdom of
\nKosala, long one of the most powerful in India, and built
\nthe city of Kosalapoori, or Ayodhya.\n<\/p>\n
     If I am right in supposing that Budha was born about
\n1366 years before Christ, he being the son-in-laws of
\nVaiwaswata, it is probable that this prince may have been
\n                                                         1711<\/span><\/p>\n
born about the year 1399, and we may allow him to have
\nbeen 33 years old when he founded Ayodhya, and the
\nkingdom of Kosala. In the genealogies may be found
\nseveral different lists of his successors, who are commonly
\nsupposed by Pandits to have succeeded each other from
\nfather to son, by right of primogeniture, nor did one prince
\nfail to leave his kingdom to his eldest son for many
\ngenerations (Asiatic Researches, vol. 2, p. 130). This,
\nhowever, seems to be a mere supposition taken for granted,
\nbecause in some of the genealogies the names follow each
\nother without any remark, for the direct line failed in
\nAmbarisha, and went to the descendants of his brother;
\nand Bharata usurped the government for 14 years from his
\nelder brother Rama. The genealogies differ so much in the
\nnames, number of persons, and order of succession, that
\nwithout a very careful examination of all that is to be found
\nconcerning each person, little reliance can be placed on
\nthe particulars, although it is evident, that these
\ngenealogies have been taken from some common source;
\nand I have no doubt, that a careful examination would
\nenable the intelligent antiquary to remove many difficulties
\nand contradictions, that now appear.\n<\/p>\n
      Far from the princes of Ayodhya having enjoyed an
\nuninterrupted succession of supreme power for numerous
\nages, and from father to son, very few of them would
\nappear to have been Chhatradharis, or lords paramount of
\nIndia; and there is even reason to suspect, that the family
\nat different periods was subject to great disasters, and
\nrepeatedly lost the dominion of even Kosala. The learned
\nof Ayodhya informed the Pandit of the Mission, that
\n                                                       1712<\/span><\/p>\n
their city had been three times destroyed, and that on
\nthese occasions all the people were carried to heaven with
\ntheir Rajas Harischandra, Ambarisha, and Rama. The
\nsuccessors of these princes again collected people to
\noccupy the city. The Pandits, whom I have employed,
\nhave not been able to trace the passages in which the
\ntwo first catastrophes are mentioned; but the third is
\nknown to every one. Several traditions, however, that I
\nhave heard, confirm the opinion of Harischandra having
\nbeen expelled from Ayodhya, as he is said to have removed
\nthe seat of government to Ellora, while his son Rohitaswa
\nlived at Rautas, and his grandson founded Champa, at
\nBhagulpoor in Bengal. That Ambarisha also met with some
\nmisfortune is probable; as in the Sri Bhagwat, he is not
\nsucceeded by his son, and the line is carried on by
\nSindhudwipa, his brother, while in the Bangsalata, his
\nimmediate successor is Ritaparna, who, according to the
\nSri Bhagwat was the grandson of Sindhudwipa, and until
\nthe time of Ritaparna it is probable that the family did
\nnot recover from its misfortune. The severe treatment of
\nhis wife Sita, is said to have induced that princes to
\nexcite her sons to rebel against their father Rama, and
\nthis, more probably than his piety, sent him and his
\nadherents to heaven. Ayodhya, however, was rebuilt by
\nthe son Kusha, who left a numerous offspring, that held the
\nuntil the reign of Vrihadbala. From Vaiwaswata to Rama
\ninclusive, the Sri Bhagwat reckons 55 princes, the
\nMahabharat reckons 69, and the Bangsalata 78; but the
\nRamayana of Valmika reckons only 36. This being it is
\nsupposed by far the most ancient account, is probably the
\n                                                         1713<\/span><\/p>\n
most correct, and we may suppose it to be free from the
\ninterpolations of collateral successions and dynasties
\nintroduced by later writers, and to be the actual succession
\nof the kings of Ayodhya; unfortunately Valmiki gives no
\nlist of Rama’s successors and the Purans, as usual, are
\nfilled with numerous discordance. Vrihadbala, killed by
\nAbhimanaya in the great war at the commencement of the
\niron age, was one of the most remarkable successors of
\nRama. According to the Sri Bhagwat, he was the 27th
\ndescent from Rama. In the Mahabharat he is the 33rd, and
\nin the Bangsalata he is the 25th. As, owing to similar causes
\nthese numbers are probably as much increased as the
\npredecessors of Rama, the number of princes, taking the
\nscale of the Sri Bhagwat reduced by that of Valmiki as a
\nguide, from Rama to Vrihadbala may have been 17, or
\nfrom the commencement of the silver to the commencement
\nof the iron age, 53 princes, which, they were also
\ngenerations of 3 to a century, would give a duration of
\n1766 years. There is no impossibility in admitting such a
\nduration; but I think, as I have said, that in all
\nprobability it must be reduced. Major Wilford (table in 5th
\nVol. of Asiatic Researches ) has found in the Purans. 59
\nprinces from the time of Rama to that of Chandragupta,
\ncontemporary nearly with Alexander. Reducing these by
\nthe scale of Rama’s predecessors, we shall have 31
\nprinces, which added to Rama and his predecessors, will
\ngive in all 67 princess, if these commenced their
\ngovernment 1366 years before Christ and ended it 300
\nyears before this event, there will be on an average about
\n15 \u00bd years for each prince which can only be understood
\n                                                         1714<\/span><\/p>\n
of reigns, and not of generations. On these grounds,
\nVaiwaswata being placed in the year before Christ, 1366,
\nRama will be placed in 775, and Vrihadbala, or the
\ncommencement of the historical iron age in the year\n<\/p>\n
512. But, if the antiquary prefers with Major Wilford to
\nconsider these 67 as generations, we must double the
\nlength of each period; that is, we must say, that Ayodhya
\nwas founded 2732 years before Christ, that Rama
\nflourished 1550 years before that event, and that
\nVrihadbala was killed in the 1024.\n<\/p>\n
      It must be observed, that in the Purans, little
\namplification seems to have been made in the family of the
\nmoon, as from Budha, one generation after Vaiwaswata to
\nKrishna, contemporary with Vrihadbala, the Sri Bhagwat
\nreckons 55 persons, a difference of only two persons from
\nthat which is given by the correction that is required in the
\nlist of the family of the sun, by comparing Valmiki with the
\nSri Bhagwat; and this coincidence, I consider as in a great
\nmeasure proving, that the nature of the correction which I
\nhave adopted is not subject to material error, so far as
\nrelates to the number of successions; but it decides nothing
\nas to the points of whether we are to consider these as
\nreigns or as generations.\n<\/p>\n
      The people of Ayodhya imagine, that after the
\ndeath of Vrihadbala, their city was deserted, and
\ncontinued so until the time of Vikrama of Ujjain, who
\ncame in search of the holy city, erected a fort called
\nRamgar, cut down the forests by which the ruins were
\ncovered, and erected 360 temples on the places sanctified
\nby the extraordinary actions of Rama, of his wife Sita, of
\n                                                        1715<\/span><\/p>\n
his brother Lakshman, and of his General Mahavira. The
\nonly foundation probably for      such a tradition is, that
\nVikrama may have erected some temples, and that in the
\nMahabharata the genealogy of the family it continued no
\nlower than the time of Vrihadbala, as being foreign to the
\nsubject of the book; but in the Sri Bhagwat Vrihadbala is
\nsucceeded by 29 princes, and in the Bangsalata by 24.
\nThese,   taken   according   to   the scales    of   Ramas
\npredecessors in Valmiki and the Sri Bhagwat, would give
\n18 princes, and this will give us 279, or 558 years,
\naccording as we call these successions reigns or
\ngenerations, brining the existence of the family down to the
\ntime nearly of Alexander; but none of the latter princes
\nrose to considerable power, and they were vassals of the
\nKings of Magadha. Their existence, however, throws a
\ngreat doubt on the whole story concerning Vikrama.\n<\/p>\n
      This Vikrama is usually suppose to have been the
\npersonage from which the era called Sambat is derived,
\nand, according to the reckoning used in Kosala, this era
\ncommences 57 years before the birth of Christ, so that
\nthe city had been then deserted about 280 years. How the
\nplaces remarkable for the actions of the God could be
\ntraced after such a long interval, and amidst the forest,
\nseems rather doubtful; and the doubt will be increased,
\nif it supposed that they latter Vikarama, the son in law of
\nthe Emperor Bhoja, was the person who constructed the
\ntemples at Ayodhya. This I am inclined to think was
\nprobably the case, for although Rama was probably
\nworshipped before the time of elder Vikrama, yet his
\nworship as that peculiarly distinguishing a sect of
\n                                                         1716<\/span><\/p>\n
begots, seems to have been first established by
\nRamanuja about the time of the latter Vikrama, who
\nmay from thence be supposed peculiarly eager to
\ndiscover the traces of the deity of his own sect.
\nUnfortunately if these temples ever existed, not the smallest
\ntrace of them remains to enable us to judge of the period
\nwhen they were built; and the destruction is very
\ngenerally attributed by the Hindus to the furious zeal of
\nAurangzebe, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of
\nthe temples in Benares and Mathura. What may have
\nbeen the case in the two latter, I shall not now take upon
\nmyself to say, but with respect to Ayodhya the tradition
\nseems very ill founded. The begot by whom the temples
\nwere destroyed is said to have erected mosques on the
\nsituations of the most remarkable temples; but the
\nmosque at Ayodhya, which by far the most entire, and
\nwhich has every appearance of being the most modern,
\nis ascertained by an inscription on its walls (of which a
\ncopy is given) to have been built by Babur, five
\ngenerations before Aurangzebe. This renders the whole
\nstory of Vikrama exceedingly doubtful, specially as what
\nare said to be the ruins of his fort, do not in any essential
\ndegree differ from those said to have belong to the ancient
\ncity, that is consist entirely of irregular heaps of broken
\nbricks, covered with soil, and remarkably productive of
\ntobacco; and, from its name, Ramgar, I am inclined to
\nsuppose that is was a part of the building actually
\nerected by Rama.\n<\/p>\n
      Although I did not fail to visit the place, and
\nwhatever the Hindus reckon remarkable, I did not choose
\n                                                         1717<\/span><\/p>\n
to take any measurements, so as to draw with any
\naccuracy of plan of the space which the ruins occupy, as
\nthe doing so might have given offence to government of
\nthe Nawab Vazir, in whose territory, separated from this
\ndistrict only by the river Sarayu, they are situated.\n<\/p>\n
      I may in a general manner observe, that the heaps of
\nbricks, although much seems to have been carried away by
\nthe river, extend a great way, that is, more than a mile in
\nlength, and more than half a mile in width; and that
\nalthough vast quantities of materials have been removed
\nto built the Muhammedan Ayodhya or Fyzabad, yet the
\nruins in many parts retain a very considerable elevation;
\nnor is there any reason to doubt, that the structure to
\nwhich they belong, has been very great; when we
\nconsider, that it has been ruined for above 2000 years.
\nNone of the Hindu buildings at present existing are in the
\nleast remarkable either for size or architecture, and they
\nare all not only evidently, but avowedly, quite modern, that
\nis, they have been all erected since the reign of
\nAurangzebe, or most of them even within the memory of
\nman. Although they are built on what I have no doubt
\nare the ruins of the palace that was occupied by the
\nprinces of the family of the sun, their being built on the
\nspots, where the events which they are intended to
\ncelebrate, actually happened, would have been extremely
\ndoubtful, even had the elder Vikrama built temples on
\nthe various places which had been destroyed by
\nAurangzebe, so that the spots selected by Vikrama might
\nbe known by tradition; but the whole of that story being
\nliable to strong suspicion, we may consider the present
\n                                                         1718<\/span><\/p>\n
appropriation of names to different places as no better
\nfounded than the miracles, with several of them are said to
\ncommemorate.\n<\/p>\n
      It is said that in digging for bricks many images
\nhave been discover, but the few which I was able to trace
\nwere too much broken to ascertain what they were meant to
\nrepresent, except one at the convent (Akhara) of Guptar,
\nwhere Lakshman supposed to have disappeared. This
\nrepresents a man and women carved on one stone. The
\nlatter carries somewhat on her head, and neither has
\nany resemblance to what I have before seen. The only
\nthing except these two figures and the bricks, that could
\nwith probability be traced to the ancient city, are some
\npillars in the mosques built by Babur. These are of black
\nstone, and of an order which I have seen nowhere else,
\nand which will be understood from the accompanying
\ndrawing. That they have been taken from a Hindu
\nbuilding, is evident, from the traces of images being
\nobservable on some of their bases; although the images
\nhave been cut off to satisfy the conscience of the begot.
\nIt is possible that these pillars have belonged to a temple
\nbuilt by Vikrama; but I think the existence of such temples
\ndoubtful; and, if they did not exist, it is probable that the
\npillars were taken from the ruins of the palace. They are
\nonly 6 feet high. There is a Shiva Lingga called
\nNageshwar, which is called on by all the pilgrims to
\nwitness their faith, when they have performed the usual
\nceremonies; and this supposed to be the oldest image of the
\nplace. As Lakshman the brother of Rama is supposed to
\nhave founded one of the orders of Yogis, there is a
\n                                                          1719<\/span><\/p>\n
probability that the great God was a principal object of
\nworship at the court of his brother, and this image may
\nactually have then existed, as from its form, if kept from the
\nweather, it may have lasted from the first origin of
\nthings; but it leads to no conclusions, and may be of very
\nmodern date. Could we believe what is said of the chief
\nobjects of worship now at the place, they would be of
\nsingular curiosity. They are images said to the present
\nRama, Lakshman, and Sita, made by the first personage,
\nand thrown by him into the Sarayu, when he was about to
\nproceed on an expedition to the Indus. In modern times
\nthey were divulged to a fortunate merchant by the
\nordinary course of dreaming. He drew them from the
\nriver, and built temple for them, which was destroyed by
\nAurangzebe, but the images were allowed to escape, and
\nAhilya, the widow of Holkar, lately built for them a
\nsmall temple, which is only opened at peculiar times,
\nand only to the faithful. Sitting aside the dream, the
\nescape of the images from Aurangzebe, as they are made of
\ngold, renders the story very problematical. They are about
\na span high, and were so covered with flowers, and shown
\nin so dark a place, that my people who went to worship
\ncould form no opinion either as to their shape or
\nmaterials.\n<\/p>\n
      I procured a good many old copper coins, and many
\nwere said to be of the Hindu Kings; but on examination,
\nexcept two, all appear to contain Arabic inscriptions, but in
\nvery old characters, and I had similar ones at Agra. One
\nsaid to have been found in the Sarayu retains a defaced
\nfigure in the human form; and another the figure of a
\n                                                               1720<\/span><\/p>\n
        lion. These are probably Hindu coins, but they contain
\n        no legend, nor anything to indicate that they belonged to
\n        princes of the family of the sun.\n<\/p>\n
             The person who finally expelled the family of the sun
\n        from Ayodhya, is not stated by tradition, nor, so far as I
\n        can learn, in legend, but the learned of this district have
\n        heard of the dominion of the Cheros, although this impure
\n        tribe has here left no monuments of its power, the place
\n        being far removed from the seat of government.” (pages
\n        325-337)
\n1601.      What is apparent from the above report of Martin is
\nthat he was the first person to tell us about inscriptions on the
\nwall of the disputed building to say that it was built by Babar.
\nWe have also noticed that Buchanan must have visited the area
\nbetween 1807 to 1814, i.e. after about 280 years (if the disputed
\nbuilding was constructed by Babar in 1528 AD). Martin
\nhowever, has observed that the building appears to be most
\nmodern. He also found that locally the people said that after
\ndestructing a temple, the Mosque was constructed by
\nAurangzeb. It is difficult to believe that till 1807 there was no
\nHindu person capable of reading and writing Persian or Arabic,
\nas the case may be, to find out what was written in the said
\ninscriptions in the Mosque and to tell others that the disputed
\nbuilding was actually constructed by Babar. Buchanan also does
\nnot appear to have actually visited the disputed building in order
\nto collect the details as is evident from the next para that he did
\nnot do so (collect measurement) for the reason that it might have
\noffended the Government of Nawab Vazir. We may notice
\nhereat that upto 1814 and even thereafter, the entire area of
\nAvadh was within the sovereignty of Nawab Vazir of Lucknow
\n                                                              1721<\/span><\/p>\n
though for some part of defence etc. Nawab Vazir has entered
\ninto a treaty with East India Company in 1801 but only the area
\nwhich was in the territory of Banaras was within the authority of
\nEast India Company and rest of the part, particularly Avadh,
\nwas not within the reigning territory of East India Company.
\nThe text of the alleged inscriptions, the number of inscriptions
\netc. are not mentioned in the report. The language, however,
\nshows that there was only one inscription which could be seen
\nby Buchanan. The text of the inscription, as existed when
\nBuchanan visited Ayodhya between 1807 to 1814, has not been
\nplaced before us in an authentic manner though plaintiffs (Suit-\n<\/p>\n
5) has sought to rely on a text of the inscription which he claims
\nto have collected from British Museum but the same having not
\nbeen proved in accordance with Evidence Act, we find it
\ndifficult to place any reliance thereon. Even if we place reliance
\nthereon, nothing helps us to form an opinion that the building in
\ndispute was actually constructed in 1528 by Mir Baqi under the
\ncommand of Babar.\n<\/p>\n
1602.         The affidavit dated 17th December, 1999 was filed by
\nSri Deoki Nandan Agarwala plaintiff no.3 (Suit-5) where in para
\n3, 4 and 5 he said:\n<\/p>\n
        “3.     That the English documents written in hand script
\n        prevalent in the past and Persian\/Arabic and Nustalik
\n        annexures thereto were obtained by Vishwa Hindu
\n        Parishad, New Delhi through the Vishwa Hindu Parishad
\n        (U.K.) during the course of negotiations for resolving the
\n        tangle relating to the Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, by mutual
\n        dialogue through the mediation of the then Prime Minister
\n        of India in the year 1992, from the British Library where
\n        the original manuscript of the document is lodged. The
\n                                                                 1722<\/span><\/p>\n
        original leter from the General Secretary of the VHP U.K.
\n        Dated 23 Sept. 1992 to the VHP New Delhi is also being
\n        filed with this affidavit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4.     That the documents obtained from the British Library
\n        U.K. are not available anywhere else and appear to be
\n        unpublished. The originals cannot be moved from the
\n        Library and cannot therefore be produced. Their copies
\n        supplied by the Library are thus admissible in evidence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        5.     That the documents in English are in old style hand
\n        written script of the early nineteenth century, with which I
\n        am well acquainted. I have deciphered them and made a
\n        typescript of the same, which is also being filed. I say that
\n        the type script of the handwritten documents in English is a
\n        correct copy of the same.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1603.        The letter dated 23rd September, 1992 referred to in
\npara 3 of the aforesaid affidavit appears to have been sent by
\none Sri Kishor Ruparelia- Gen. Sec. 48 Wharfedale Gardens,
\nThornton Heath, Surrey UK addressed to Sri Jashwant Rai
\nGupta, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Sankat Mochan Ashram, New
\nDelhi. The relevant extract thereof is as under:\n<\/p>\n
        “I am sending herewith photocopies, obtained from the
\n        British Library, of the following documents kept under Ref
\n        MSS. EUR. E73 and filed as records by Dr Buchanan\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        1.     Pages 1 & 2, written by Dr. Buchanan, heading:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Translation Gorakhpur Inscript No. 1<\/span><\/p>\n
        2.     Pages 3 & 4, a letter written by Dr Buchanan\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        3.     Page 5, a Sanskrit inscription – this does not seem to
\n        relate to Ayodhya, but I am sending this because the page
\n        is part of continuation\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4.     Page 6, heading: Inscription on a mosque at
\n                                                                                              1723<\/span><\/p>\n
        Ayodhya Gorakhpur No.1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        5.     Page 7, this page seems to contain Persian and
\n        Arabic writing but no heading or description i.e. om
\n        English written on the page.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1604.        This letter is paper No.189C2\/3. Paper No.189C2\/4-5
\nappears to be translation of some Persian or Arabic words by
\nsomebody at Gorakhpur. In respect to the period Paper
\nno.189C2\/4-5 the following extract refers to AH935.\n<\/p>\n
        “N.B. The words \u202b \u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc\u202csignifying “There is lasting
\n        charity” or “good works are lasting” also mean “the
\n        charity of Baqee” and form an anagram of the year of the
\n        erection viz : 935.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1605.        Thereafter paper no.189C2\/8-9 contains the Persian or
\nArabic text to which we are not clear as to whether it is in
\nrespect to the inscriptions said to be fixed on the building in
\ndispute or else.\n<\/p>\n
                                                (Caligraphy page-1)
\n        \u202b\u0635\u0627\u062d\u0628 \u0642\u0631\u0627\u0646 \u0645\u06cc\u0631\u062a\u06cc\u0645\u0648\u0631 \u0627\u0628\u0646 \u0645\u06cc\u0631\u0627\u0646 \u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0627\u06cc\u06ba \u0633\u0644\u0637\u0627\u0646 \u0645\u062d\u0645\u062f \u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0627\u0628\u0646 \u0633\u0644\u0637\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u0628\u0648\u202c
\n        \u202b\u0633\u0639\u06cc\u062f \u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0627\u0628\u0646 \u0639\u0645\u0631\u0634\u06cc\u062e \u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0627\u0628\u0646 \u0628\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u062f\u0634\u062c\u062c\u0627\u06c1 \u0627\u0628\u062c\u062c\u0646 \u06c1\u0645\u062c\u062c\u0627\u06cc\u0648\u0646 \u0628\u0627\u062f\u0634\u062c\u062c\u0627\u06c1 \u0627\u0628\u062c\u062c\u0646 \u0627\u06a9\u062c\u062c\u0628\u0631\u202c
\n        \u202b\u0628\u0627\u062f\u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0627\u0628\u0646 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u0646\u06af\u06cc\u0631\u0628\u0627\u062f\u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0627\u0628\u0646 \u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u062c\u06c1\u0627\u0646 \u0628\u0627\u062f\u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0627\u0628\u0646 \u0627\u0628\u0648 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u0638\u0641\u062c\u062c\u0631 \u0645\u062d\u062c\u062c\u06cc \u0627\u0644\u062c\u062c\u062f\u06cc\u0646\u202c
\n        \u202b\u0639\u0627\u0644\u0645 \u06a9\u0628\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u062f\u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u063a\u0627\u0632\u06cc\u202c
\n                                                           (Translation not available)
\n                                     \u202b\u0628\u0633\u0645 \u0627\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u06cc\u0645\u202c
\n                  \u202b\u0633\u0648\u064f\u0644\u0647\u202c
\n                      \u064f \u202b\u0639\u0652\u0628\u064f\u062f\u0647 \u064e\u0648\u064e\u0631\u202c
\n                                  \u064e \u202b\u062d\u0651\u0645\u064b\u062f \u0627\u202c
\n                                          \u064e \u202b\u0646 \u064f\u0645\u202c
\n                                               \u0651 \u202b\u0634\u064e\u0647\u064f\u062f \u064e\u0627\u202c
\n                                                        \u0652 \u202b\u0644 \u064e\u0648 \u064e\u0627\u202c
\n                                                                \u0651 \u202b\u0644\u0627\u202c
\n                                                                   \u0651 \u202b\u0644 \u0650\u0627\u0644\u064e\u0647 \u0650\u0627\u202c
\n                                                                              \u0651 \u202b\u0646\u202c
\n                                                                                \u0652 \u202b\u0634\u064e\u0647\u064f\u062f \u0627\u202c
\n                                                                                        \u0652\u202b\u0627\u202c
\n                            (\u202b)\u0631\u0628\u0646\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u06c1 \u06c1\u0648 \u0628\u062e\u0637 \u0639\u0628\u062f \u0636\u0621\u06cc\u0641 \u0645\u062d\u0645\u062f \u0641\u0627\u062a\u062d\u202c
\n                                     (Transliteration)
\n                          Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim
\n                 A\u0161hadu an la ilaha ill lallah, wa a\u0161hadu anna
\n                        Muhammadun Aabduhu wa rasuluhu.\n<\/p>\n
             (Rab-un-Allahu Bakkhittin Abdezaif Mohammad Fateh)
\n                                      (English Translation)
\n                                                                         \u202b\u202a1724\u202c\u202c<\/p>\n
   \u202b\u202aIn the name of Allah, the most Gracious, and the Most\u202c\u202c
\n                          \u202b\u202aMerciful.\u202c\u202c
\n\u202b\u202aI bear witness that there is no God except Allah, and I bear\u202c\u202c
\n     \u202b\u202awitness that Muhammad is Allah’s devotee and His\u202c\u202c
\n                         \u202b)\u202aMessenger (Prophet\u202c\u202c<\/p>\n
     \u202b)\u202a(Rab-un-Allahu Bakkhittin Abdezaif Mohammad Fateh\u202c\u202c
\n                                          \u202b)\u202a(Name of the Calligrapher\u202c\u202c
\n\u202b\u0627\u0632\u0642\u062f\u06cc\u0645\u0627\u0646 \u0648 \u0648\u0627\u0641\u063a\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u06cc\u06ba \u0627\u062d\u0648\u0627\u0644 \u0686\u0646\u0627\u0646 \u0628\u062f\u0631\u06cc\u0627\u0641\u062a \u0631\u0633\u06cc\u062f \u067e\u06cc\u0634\u062a\u0631\u0627\u0632\u06cc\u06ba\u0646\u06c1 \u0648\u0628\u0627\u062f\u0634\u0627\u06c1\u06cc \u0628\u0648\u062f\u202c
\n\u202b\u06a9\u06c1 \u0627\u0648\u0631\u0633\u06cc\u0641 \u062e\u0627\u0646 \u0639\u0627\u0644\u06cc \u0645\u0633\u0646\u062f \u0645\u06cc\u06a9\u0642\u0646\u062f\u0648\u0632\u06cc\u0631\u0627\u0648\u0631\u062f\u062e\u062a\u0631\u06cc \u0628\u0648\u062f \u06a9\u06c1 \u0628\u0627\u0645\u0648\u0633\u062c\u062c\u06cc \u0639\u0627\u0634\u062c\u062c\u0642\u0627\u0646\u202c
\n\u202b\u0646\u0627\u0645\u0632\u062f\u06a9\u0631\u062f\u06c1 \u0628\u0648\u0646\u062c\u062f \u0628\u0639\u062c\u062f \u0627\u0632\u0686\u0646\u062c\u062f\u06cc \u0648\u0632\u06cc\u0631\u0627\u0631\u062f\u0627\u0631\u0627\u0644\u0646\u0641\u062c\u062c\u0627 \u06cc\u062c\u062f\u0627\u0631\u0644\u0628\u0642\u0627 \u0631\u062d\u0644\u062c\u062a \u06a9\u062c\u0631\u062f \u0628\u0627\u062f\u0634\u062c\u0627\u06c1\u202c
\n\u202b\u0628\u0631\u0627\u06cc \u0636\u0628\u0637 \u06a9\u0631\u0648\u06ba \u06a9\u0627\u0644\u0628\u06cc \u062e\u0627\u0646\u06c1 \u0648\u0632\u06cc\u0631\u0637\u0644\u0642\u06cc \u0648 \u067e\u06c1\u0631\u06c1 \u0641\u0631\u0633\u062a\u06a9\u06c1 \u0628\u0645\u0648\u0628\u062c\u062c\u0648\u0642\u062a \u0645\u0648\u0633\u062c\u062c\u06cc\u202c
\n\u202b\u0639\u0627\u0634\u0642\u0627\u0646 \u0631\u0627 \u062e\u06cc\u0627\u0644 \u06a9\u0630\u0634\u062a \u0631\u0627 \u062f\u0646\u06cc\u0627 \u0628\u06be\u0633\u062a \u0641\u0631\u0645\u0648\u0646\u062f \u06a9\u06c1 \u067e\u0631 \u0686\u06c1 \u0646\u0642\u062c\u062c\u062f \u0648 \u062c\u0646\u062c\u062c\u0633 \u0648 \u062f\u062e\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0646\u06c1\u202c
\n\u202b\u0627\u0633\u062a \u0627\u0648 \u0631\u0627 \u06c1\u0645\u06c1 \u06a9\u0633\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0646 \u063a\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0631 \u062a\u06a9\u062c\u062c\u0631\u062f\u06c1 \u0628\u0628\u0631\u0646\u062c\u062c\u062f\u0628\u0641\u0631\u0645\u0648\u062f\u06c1 \u06c1\u0645\u06cc\u062c\u06ba \u0645\u0631\u062f\u0645\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0646 \u06a9\u0631\u062f\u0646\u062c\u062c\u062f \u0628\u0639\u062c\u062c\u062f\u202c
\n\u202b\u0627\u0632\u063a\u0627\u0631\u062a \u0628\u0631\u0648\u0646 \u062f\u0631\u06cc\u0627\u0641\u062a \u0646\u0645\u0648\u062f\u0646\u062f \u06a9\u06c1 \u062d\u0627\u0644 \u0686\u06cc\u0632\u06cc \u0628\u0627 \u0642\u0633\u0628\u062a \u06cc\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0646\u06c1 \u0645\u0644\u0632\u0645\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0646 \u0639\u062c\u062c\u0631\u0636\u202c
\n\u202b\u06a9\u0631\u0646\u062f \u06a9\u06c1 \u0627\u0632\u0642\u0633\u0645 \u063a\u0644\u06c1 \u0686\u06cc\u0632\u06cc \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc\u0633\u062a \u0641\u0631\u0645\u0648\u062f\u0646\u062f \u06a9\u06c1 \u0627\u0648\u0631\u0627 \u06c1\u0645 \u0628\u063a\u0627\u0631\u062a \u0628\u0631\u0646\u062f\u06c1\u06cc\u06ba \u0641\u0631\u0645\u0648\u062f\u0646\u062f\u202c
\n\u202b\u0631\u0627 \u0644\u062d\u0627\u0644 \u06a9\u062f\u0627\u0645 \u062e\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627 \u0642\u06cc\u0633\u062a \u0645\u0631\u062f\u0645\u0627\u0646 \u0639\u0631\u0636 \u0646\u0645\u0648\u062f\u0646\u062f \u06cc\u06a9 \u067e\u0631\u0686\u06c1 \u0628\u0644\u0633 \u06cc\u0639\u0646\u06cc \u0679\u0627\u06c1\u0679\u06c1\u202c
\n\u202b\u0627 \u06cc\u0632\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u0633\u0628\u0627\u0646 \u0648 \u0628\u06c1 \u0645\u06cc\u062e\u0648\u0631\u062f\u0646\u062f \u0628\u0627 \u0642\u06cc\u0633\u062a \u0641\u0631\u0645\u0648\u062f\u0646\u062c\u062c\u062f \u06a9\u062c\u06c1 \u0627\u0648\u0628\u06a9\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0631 \u0645\u062c\u062c\u0627 \u062e\u0648\u0627 \u06c1\u062f \u0627\u0646\u062c\u062c\u062f\u0644\u06cc\u0633\u202c
\n\u202b\u0627\u0648\u0631\u0627 \u0628\u06cc\u0627\u062f\u0631 \u062f\u06c1 \u0627\u0631\u062f\u0631\u0645\u06cc\u0627\u0646 \u062f\u0631\u06cc\u06ba \u062f\u0631 \u06a9\u0627\u0644 \u0648\u0627 \u062e\u062a\u06c1 \u062f\u0631\u062f\u06cc\u0634\u062c\u062c\u06cc \u0627\u062e\u062a\u06cc\u062c\u062c\u0627 \u06a9\u0631\u062f\u0646\u062c\u062c\u062f \u0646\u06cc\u062f\u0627\u0631\u0627\u0633\u062c\u06c1\u202c
\n\u202b\u0644\u0648\u06c1\u0627\u06cc \u0628\u0648\u062f\u0646\u062f \u067e\u0648\u0634\u06cc\u062f\u06c1 \u0627\u0648\u0627\u0632\u06c1 \u062f\u0631 \u062f\u06cc\u0634\u06d2 \u0648 \u0645\u0639\u062c\u0632\u06c1 \u0631\u0627 \u0646\u0634\u062c\u062c\u06cc\u0646 \u062f\u0631\u062e\u062c\u062c\u062f\u0645\u062a \u062e\u0636\u062c\u062c\u0631\u062a\u202c
\n\u202b\u062d\u0627\u0636\u0631\u0634\u062c\u062c\u062f\u0646\u062f \u062d\u0636\u062c\u062c\u0631\u062a \u062d\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0644 \u0628\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0631 \u0631\u0627 \u067e\u0631\u06cc\u0634\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0646 \u0645\u0644\u062d\u0638\u062c\u062c\u06c1 \u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u06d4\u062e\u062c\u062c\u0628\u0631\u06cc \u0634\u062c\u062c\u06cc\u0631\u0646\u06cc\u202c
\n\u202b\u062e\u0648\u0627\u0631\u0646\u06cc\u06ba \u0641\u0631\u0645\u062f\u0646\u062f \u06a9\u06c1 \u0628\u0648\u062f\u0628\u0627\u062f\u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u062e\u0648\u0627\u06c1\u06cc \u0634\u0646\u062f \u0628\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u0628\u062c\u062c\u0631 \u062e\u0648\u0627\u0634\u062c\u062c\u062a\u06c1 \u062a\u0633\u062c\u062c\u0644\u06cc\u0645 \u06a9\u0639\u0628\u062c\u06c1 \u0631\u0648\u0627\u0646\u062c\u06c1\u202c
\n\u202b\u0646\u0634\u062f\u0646\u062f \u0628\u0627\u062f \u062d\u0636\u0631\u062a \u0641\u0631\u0645\u0648\u062f\u0646\u062f \u06a9\u06c1 \u0645\u0646 \u0648 \u0631\u0627 \u0628\u062c\u0627 \u0628\u0627\u0639\u062b \u06c1\u0646\u062f\u0648\u0627\u06ba \u06a9\u06c1 \u0646\u0627\u0641\u0648\u0633 \u06c1\u06d2 \u0646\u0648\u0627\u0631\u0646\u062f\u202c
\n\u202b\u062c\u0631\u0627\u06cc\u0645 \u0648\u062c\u0628\u06a9\u06c1 \u0628\u0648\u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0641\u062a\u0648\u06cc \u0648 \u0631\u0627 \u06cc\u062c\u0627 \u0646\u0633\u062c\u062c\u0646\u062f\u06cc \u0628\u0646\u062c\u062c\u0627\u062e\u0648\u0627\u06c1\u06cc \u06a9\u062c\u062c\u0631 \u0648 \u0628\u0639\u062c\u062c\u062f \u0627\u0632\u062e\u0646\u062c\u062c\u062f\u202c
\n\u202b\u0641\u0631\u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u0628\u0631 \u062a\u062e\u062a \u0634\u0627\u06c1\u06cc \u0631\u0633\u06cc\u062f \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u0646\u0627\u0645 \u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u062a\u0646\u062f\u06cc\u062f \u0648 \u0641\u0631\u0645\u0648\u062f\u06c1 \u062d\u0636\u0631\u062a \u0631\u0641\u0631\u0627\u0645\u0648\u0634\u202c
\n\u202b\u06a9\u0639\u0646\u062f \u0645\u0648\u0633\u06cc \u0639\u0627\u0634\u0642\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u0632\u0631\u0627 \u0634\u062e\u0635 \u0631\u0627 \u0641\u0631\u0633\u0627 \u06a9\u06c1 \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u0648 \u06c1\u0627\u0646\u0646\u062f\u0628\u06c1 \u0627\u0644\u062c\u062c\u0648\u0642\u062a \u062d\u06a9\u062c\u062c\u0645 \u0628\u062c\u062c\u0627\u0628\u0631\u202c
\n\u202b\u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0628\u0631 \u0633\u0648\u0628\u06c1 \u062f\u0627\u0631 \u0631\u0634\u06cc\u062f \u0648 \u062f\u0631\u0627 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0642\u062a \u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0646\u0642\u0627\u0627\u0644\u0644\u06c1 \u062e\u0627\u0646 \u0635\u0648\u0628\u06c1 \u0628\u0648\u062f \u0646\u062f \u0627\u0648 \u0646\u0634\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u06cc \u062c\u06ba\u202c
\n\u202b\u0645\u0633\u062c\u062f \u0631\u0627 \u0628\u0646\u0627 \u0646\u0645\u0648\u062f\u0646\u062f\u202c
\n                                       \u202b)\u202a(Translation not available\u202c\u202c
\n                       \u202b)\u202a(Calligraphy page-2\u202c\u202c
\n                       \u202b\u0628\u0641\u0631\u0645\u0648\u062f\u06c1 \u0634\u0627\u06c1 \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0631 \u06a9\u06c1 \u0639\u062f\u0644\u0634\u202c
\n                       \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627\u06cc\u0633\u062a \u062a\u0623 \u06a9\u0627\u062e \u06af\u0631\u062f\u0648\u06ba \u064f\u0645\u0644\u0642\u06cc\u202c
\n                                                                                               1725<\/span><\/p>\n
                                 \u202b\u0628\u0646\u0627 \u06a9\u0631\u062f \u0627\u06cc\u06ba \u064f\u0645\u06c1\u0628\u0637 \u064f\u0642\u062f\u0633\u06cc\u0627\u06ba\u202c
\n                                 \u202b\u0627\u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0633\u0639\u0627\u062f\u062a \u0646\u0634\u0627\u0646 \u0645\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc\u202c
\n                                 \u202b\u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc \u0633\u0627\u0644 \u0628\u0646\u0627\u06cc\u0634\u202c
\n                                 \u202b\u0639\u06cc\u0627\u06ba \u0634\u062f \u06a9\u06c1 \u06af\u0641\u062a\u0645 \u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc\u202c
\n                                                                 (Translation not available)
\n                             \u0651 \u202b\u0633\u064f\u0648\u0644 \u0627\u202c
\n                             \u202b\u0644\u202c      \u064f \u202b\u062d\u0651\u0645\u064c\u062f \u064e\u0631\u202c
\n                                             \u064e \u202b\u0644 \u064f\u0645\u202c
\n                                                  \u0651 \u202b\u0644\u0627\u202c
\n                                                     \u0651 \u202b\u0644 \u0650\u0627\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0647 \u0650\u0627\u202c
\n                                \u202b\u0628\u0633\u0645 \u0627\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u06cc\u0645\u202c
\n                        \u0662- \u202b\u0635\u064e\u0645\u064f\u062f\u202c   \u0651 \u202b\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u202c\u0651\u064f \u202b \u0627\u202c-\u0661- \u202b\u062d\u064c\u062f\u202c \u064e \u202b\u0644 \u064e\u0623\u202c
\n                                                           \u0651\u064f \u202b\u0644 \u064f\u0647\u064e\u0648 \u0627\u202c
\n                                                                     \u0652 \u202b\u064f\u0642\u202c
\n                  \u0664- \u202b\u062d\u064c\u062f\u202c
\n                       \u064e \u202b \u064e\u0648\u064e\u0644\u0652\u0645 \u064e\u06cc\u064f\u0643\u0646 \u0651\u0644\u064f\u0647 \u064f\u0643\u064f\u0641\u064b\u0648\u0627 \u064e\u0623\u202c-\u0663- \u202b\u064e\u0644\u0652\u0645 \u064e\u06cc\u0650\u0644\u0652\u062f \u064e\u0648\u064e\u0644\u0652\u0645 \u064f\u06cc\u0648\u064e\u0644\u0652\u062f\u202c
\n                                    Transliteration
\n              La ilaha illa-llah, Muhammadu-rasulu-llah
\n                        Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim
\n                      Qul huwa Allahu ahad                                             (1)
\n                      Allahus-samad                                                    (2)
\n                      Lam yalid walam yulad                                            (3)
\n                      Walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad                                    (4)
\n                             ( Englidh Translation)
\n         There is no God except the Allah, Muhammad is the devotee
\n                                    and Prophet of Allah.\n<\/p>\n
           In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
\n         Say: He is God, the One and Only;                                              (1)
\n         God, the Eternal, Absolute;                                                    (2)
\n         He does not beget, nor is He begotten;                                         (3)
\n         And there is none comparable to Him.                                           (4)
\n                                                                         (Surah 112: Al-Ikhlas)<\/p>\n
1606.       The English translation (interpretation) of the aforesaid
\nverses (though incomplete) has been given in paper no.
\n189C2\/10-11, which has also been checked by the Court since
\none of us fortunately is conversant in Persian and Urdu. It reads
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
              “By order of King Babur whose Justice is a building
\n        reaching to the mansions of heaven, this alighting place of
\n        the angels was erected by Meer Baqee a nobleman
\n                                                          1726<\/span><\/p>\n
impressed with the seal of happiness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      There is lasting charity in the year of its construction
\nwhat declares is manifest “that good works are lasting”\n<\/p>\n
      N.B. The words \u202b( \u0628\u0648\u062f \u062e\u06cc\u0631 \u0628\u0628\u0627\u0642\u06cc\u202cBavad Khair Baqee)
\nsignifying “There is lasting charity” or “good works are
\nlasting” also mean “the charity of Baqee” and form an
\nanagram of the year of the erection viz : 935.\n<\/p>\n
                   From the Tughra
\n      There is no God but God, and Moohammad is the
\nProphet of God –\n<\/p>\n
      Say, O’Moohammad, that God is one, that God is
\nholy, unbegetting and unbegotten, and that he hath no
\nequal.\n<\/p>\n
    (Rab-un-Allahu Bakkhittin Abdezaif Mohammad Fateh)
\n                               (Name of the Calligrapher)
\n                               2d
\n                            Nustalick
\n      The victorious lord, Moohey ood Deen, Aulumgir,
\nBadshah, the destroyer of Infidels; the son of Shah
\nJuhan; the son of Juhangeer Shah; the son of Ukbar
\nShah; the son of Humayoon Shah; the son of Babur
\nShah; the son of OOmar Sheikh Shah; the son of
\nSoolatan Uboo Saeed; the son of Sooltan Moohummad
\nShah; the son of Meeran Shah; the son of the Shahib i
\nQiran Meer Tymoor-\n<\/p>\n
      N.B. Sahib i qiran is applied to a Prince who has
\nreigned above 30 years.\n<\/p>\n
                   From the Tughra
\n      In the name of God, most merciful. I testify that there
\nis no God but God- He is one, and without equal- I also
\ntestify that Moohummad is his Servant and Prophet.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         1727<\/span><\/p>\n
      This was engraced\/ upon the propitious date of this
\nnoble erection, by this weak slave Moohummud Funa Ullah\n<\/p>\n
– N.B. The words in the parenthisis are not on the Insc., but
\nunderstood.\n<\/p>\n
                      Nustalick writing
\n      We are informed by the ancients who were acquainted
\nwith the these facts that there was formerly a Prince named
\nTugli Khan Oimyeed throne. His Wuzeer had a daughter
\nbetrothed to Moosa Ashiquan. (Lit. The comforter of
\nLovers). After some time the Wuzeer departed from this
\ndwelling of mortality to the abode of Eternity. —\n<\/p>\n
      The king having sent written orders for the purpose of
\nsezing the property in the Wuzeer’s house; at that moment
\nMoosa Ashiqan was struck with the reflection that “This
\nWorld is nothing”. He gave orders that all the people should
\nplunder and carry off whatever money and effects were in
\nhis house’ – The people did as he directed. As soon as the
\nplundering was over, he enquired whether anything
\nremained. The attendants told him that there remained some
\ngrain. He directed them to carry off that also. After this he
\nagain made enquiry, if anything was yet left. The servants
\nreplied that there was only a piece of coarse canvas or Taut,
\nupon which the horses were wont to eat their gram”. “That”
\nsaid he “will be of use to me”. In short having taken and
\ntorn althrough the middle and threw it over his shoulders
\n(or neck) he became a Durwish. —\n<\/p>\n
      Babur one of the Princes, hearing the report of his
\nbecoming a Durwish and the other circumstances, privately
\npresented himself before his Highness. Beholding the
\nwretched condition of Babur, he gave him some sweetmeats
\nto eat and (addressing him) “Thou”, said his Highness”
\nshalt be King “Babur arose and having made his Salam,
\n                                                                 1728<\/span><\/p>\n
        was departing. His Highness again said “I am annoyed by
\n        the Hindoos who are constantly ringing their Bells- When
\n        thou becomest King thou shalt build a Musjid at this place.\n<\/p>\n
              Sometime afterwards Babur mounting the royal
\n        throne was created King; but forgot His Highness’s
\n        directions. Moosa Ashiqan sending a person from himself
\n        reminded him of it. Upon this the Soobadar received His
\n        Majoxty’s commands–Meer Buqaoola Khan then Soobedar,
\n        and he erected this Massjid.”\n<\/p>\n
1607.      Sri Ravi Shankar, Senior Advocate, Sri P.N.Mishra,
\nSri Hari Shankar Jain, Sri R.L.Verma, Advocates, learned
\ncounsels for Hindu parties sought to refer to the above
\ndocuments to show that this is the extract of the report and
\ndocuments of Dr. Buchanan himself and makes it very clear that
\nthe building in dispute was constructed much later what is being
\nclaimed as it contains the name of Emperor Alamgir
\n(Aurangzab) also. As we have already said, the above
\ndocuments were not proved by the concerned party and a
\nproperly obtained document from British Library, Oriental
\nand India Office Collections has also not been produced. It is
\ntherefore difficult for us to place any reliance on the said
\ndocuments.\n<\/p>\n
1608.      The worship of places by Hindus, however, has been
\nnoticed in the History, Antiquities, Topography And Statistics
\nof Eastern India (supra) published in 1838. In Vol. I at page
\n195, Martin has observed:\n<\/p>\n
        “It must be observed, that the Hindus very often worship
\n        (Puja) without any temple or images. … There are places,
\n        however, that are reckoned more holy than the house…”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1609.      The long passage we have quoted from several pages
\nof Martin’s Eastern India, Vol. II above has some reason. We
\n                                                              1729<\/span><\/p>\n
have no bias or prejudice against the agents of East India
\nCompany or the then British Government, but the manner in
\nwhich they have dealt with the Indian ancient scriptures and
\nhave written down about its culture, religion, society etc. needs
\nsome deeper consideration. In fact, the history of India, which is
\nsubstantially embodied in ancient religious scriptures, has been
\ninitially attempted to be penned down by the western writers
\nafter advent of East India Company. In 18th and 19th century a
\nmass of work has been undertaken by them which has aroused
\nanxiety and has drawn attention of the people abroad to know
\nmore about India. Before making further comments, one thing
\nwhich is a matter of appreciation, we cannot forget is that
\nwhatever was written by western so called intelligentsia mainly
\nin the two centuries as said above, at least has given a
\nfoundation or a point of commencement to others, whether in
\nIndia or outside, to go for further research in the matter and
\nendeavour to place the correct history of this sub-continent
\nbefore the world at large.\n<\/p>\n
1610.    The ancient scriptures in India was basically written in
\nSanskrit irrespective of the script. It was not a language of the
\ncommon man. Therefore, virtually substantial section of the
\nsub-continent comprising Hindustan at that time was in dark
\nabout the contents, meaning and the message derivable from
\nthose scriptures. It was confined to a particular class, i.e.,
\nBrahmans and there also a very few were learned having some
\ndeeper knowledge of those scriptures, otherwise general class
\nwas more satisfied with the superficial working knowledge
\nsufficient for their day to day earning and survival.
\n1611.    The East India Company after its initial few steps
\ntowards India, brought such a huge revenue to England that the
\n                                                              1730<\/span><\/p>\n
people thereat were simply stunned and shocked to find out as
\nto how this part of the Country could muster such a huge wealth.
\nAnother surprising aspect was that the Indian sub-continent was
\nunder the attack\/invasion by outsiders for almost a thousand and
\nmore years in the past and had continuously been looted by
\nthem. Massive wealth continuously was driven off from the
\nCountry, yet when the merchant companies of Britishers in the
\nform of East India Company visited India, in the first one and
\nhalf decade i.e. upto 1613, it showed remarkable earning to their
\nshareholders and public at large in England. This created great
\nanxiety amongst the Britishers to know more about India. It also
\ninspired other European Countries as we have seen that almost
\nsimultaneously the merchant ships travelled India through sea
\nroutes from the Countries like Portugal, France and England
\nobvious. Trade from India to other Countries, i.e. Africa, Arab,
\nChina etc. had been going on since long and time immemorial
\nas a result whereof merchants were able to garner extraordinary
\nwealth by exporting several things like spices, sandalwood etc.
\nfrom India. Besides fertile land of this Country also help in
\nproducing wealth. They also found that amongst the Hindus, age
\nold traditions, religious faith carried down from generations to
\ngenerations from time immemorial and had not got diluted
\ndespite several religious attacks, conversions, etc. All these
\nthings, which were really surprising, aroused lot of anxiety
\namongst the Europeans to know more about this Country.
\n1612.    According to their concept, the oldest culture in the
\nworld was Roman and Greek and they knew nothing more than
\nthat. It was really difficult for them to believe that a much more
\nadvanced and that too more ancient culture could have existed
\nin this part of the world for such a long time and has
\n                                                                 1731<\/span><\/p>\n
successfully faced all bad times to survive while the Roman and
\nGreek culture has perished long back. With this idea lots of
\npeople from Europe came to India and tried to find out the
\nsource of its cultural and religious history from the written work
\nwhatever was available. Since, the work was mainly in Sanskrit,
\nthus the written material was also available with the selected
\nBrahmans. Several kinds of manuscripts they possessed which
\nwere collected by these western people in one or other way.
\nThey tried to find out in their own way the most authenticated
\nand original manuscripts on the subject concerned. A language,
\na culture which was several thousands and more years old, it is
\nsurprising that these western intelligentsia class claim to have
\nlearnt and understood and that too achieved mastery. They dealt
\nwith the above collected material in their own way. Without
\nmaking any serious comment on this aspect, suffice to mention
\nthat the spirit, the context of real intention of a culture which has
\ndeveloped in several thousand years is improbable, if not
\nimpossible, to be understood in such a short time. Even today
\nthose who are constantly studying and dealing with those
\nmatters, are still undergoing rigorous discussion, research and
\ninvestigation to understand the correct and real intention behind
\nthe particular words, sentences, phrases and verses, as the case
\nmay be.\n<\/p>\n
1613.     The only thing which we really find commendable is
\nthat the zeal of the western intelligentsia to know more about the
\nIndian ancient culture brought out the ancient literature from the
\nconfines of the Brahmans and as a result of its translation in
\nEnglish and other languages, the things became accessible to the
\nentire lot so that they may also look into the matter, ponder over
\nit so as to appreciate and understand. In fact this translation
\n                                                              1732<\/span><\/p>\n
attracted the world people to go for more indepth research,
\ndiscoveries and investigation and that is how the things started
\nand today in 21st century we find several new and startling facts
\nwhich belie a lot of settled concepts of the western writers of
\n18th or 19th century.\n<\/p>\n
1614.      The casual manner in which the long          genealogy
\ncovering a very long period was found inconceivable by these
\nwriters and has been shortened at their whims and conjectures
\nonly because they could not have a complete chain is really
\nstartling. It means that if I am unable to tell the chain of my
\nancestors to five or seven or ten generations, that would mean
\nthat I have no such past chain of generation or it can be reduced
\nto the extent of missing part. Non-availability does not mean
\nnon existent. No one can accept that merely because somebody
\ncould not give the detail of past generations, that would mean
\nthat he has no such ancestry. The casual and contemptuous
\nmanner in which Dr. Buchanan or Martin in the above work,
\ni.e., Eastern India (supra) have dealt with the things we have
\nquoted give a few example. If some needs a little more can be
\ndemonstrated from page 433 and onwards, some part of which
\nwe may notice hereunder :\n<\/p>\n
             “The highest science is here reckoned the theology of
\n        the Vedas, which is more studied, than would appear from
\n        the reports of the Pandit of the survey, who like other
\n        Bengalese holds this science, if such it can be called, in
\n        great contempt. The doctrines of Sangkara are chiefly
\n        followed; and the works most commonly studied are the
\n        Vedantasar, composed by a pupil of Awaitananda, a
\n        Brahman of the south, who dedicated his life to religion;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        the Pangchadasi, and the ten Upanishad Bhashyas of
\n                                                        1733<\/span><\/p>\n
Sangkara. The theologians here insist, that every word,
\nsentence and verse in the Vedas, as they now exist, was
\nformed by Brahma before the earth, and that Vyasa did not
\nalter a syllable; but only arranged the original parts into
\nfour books, which previously had been comprehended in
\none. All mention therefore of events, that have happened
\nsince the creation, is supposed to be prophetical. Such, I
\nbelieve, is the opinion, that very generally prevails among
\nthe Brahmans of the south, as well as those here; and,
\nhaving been communicated to the learned in Europe, was
\nsupposed by them to imply, that the books now called the
\nVedas were the work of a great lawgiver named Brahma,
\nwho formed the laws of the Hindu nation, and introduced
\nscience. When it was discovered, that these works
\nmentioned many personages, who lived very long after the
\ncommencement of the Hindu government, as the power of
\nprophecy could not be received by any one but a Hindu, it
\nwas justly concluded, that they were not the works of the
\nlawgiver Brahma, who in fact is a mere creature of
\nimagination; and Mr. Pinkerton is fully justified in calling
\nthe Vedas modern forgeries, even had Mr. Colebrooke
\nproved that they were written by Vyasa, and that Vyasa
\nlived 12 centuries before the birth of Christ; for in
\ncomparison of the commencement of the Hindu history,
\nbefore which the Vedas are alleged to have been written,
\neven this distant period of Vyasa is but as yesterday. But
\nthat the Vedas, which now exist, were written by Vyasa the
\nson of Parasara, or so early, seems to me completely
\nincompatible with the mention made in them of the success,
\nthat had attended the ceremony used at the coronation of
\n                                                        1734<\/span><\/p>\n
Janmejaya the son of Parikshita, by which he had
\nconquered the world; for Janmejaya was grandson of
\nAbhimanya, who was the great grandson of Vyasa the son
\nof Parasara, and it is altogether impossible, that so remote
\nan ancestor should live to celebrate the conquest of the
\nworld by his descendant. But besides this conquest is not
\nlikely to have been mentioned by any contemporary author;
\nfor in all probability the supreme government of India was
\nnot then vested in the spurious offspring of Vyasa, but in
\nthe house of Jarasandha. Mr. Colebrooke indeed states,
\nthat besides the descendant of Vyasa he has heard from the
\nBrahmans of another Janmejaya son of Parikshita; but on
\na careful examination of the genealogies, extracted from
\nthe Purans by Manogyadatta, I can find no such person;
\nnor can that learned Pandit recollect any such, although
\nthere are many Janmejayas, especially the son of Puru,
\nkind of Pratishthan, and the names are so alike, that they
\nmay readily have misled the Pandits consulted by Mr.
\nColebrooke, speaking from recollection. If a Vyasa,
\ntherefore, was author of the present Vedas, it was not the
\nson of Parasara, but some person, who probably lived
\nshortly before Sangkara Acharya; and many in fact allege,
\nthat the instructor of this great doctor was named Vyasa. If
\nso, the author, or compiler, or perhaps rather corrupter of
\nthe Vedas, lived about the ninth or tenth century of the
\nChristian era, in the age emphatically called dark, and to
\njudge from the account given of the Vedas by Mr.
\nColebrooke, the work is worthy of the age.\n<\/p>\n
      It is probable, however, that before this time, there
\nexisted a system of science (Veda), extending, according to
\n                                                                  1735<\/span><\/p>\n
        a passage quoted by Mr. Colebrooke, not only to the four
\n        kinds of sacred knowledge, detailed in the present Vedas,
\n        but to grammar and history, the first of which in the
\n        passage alluded to is called the chief of the (Vedas)
\n        sciences, although the books now called Vedas do not treat
\n        on the subject. The historical part, there is reason to think,
\n        was valuable; but being irreconcilable with doctrines,
\n        which the author wished to establish, was totally new
\n        modelled in separate works called the Purans. Although all
\n        these go under the name of Vyasa, there is certain grounds
\n        to doubt of his having composed the whole, as it seems
\n        scarcely possible, that any one man in his senses would
\n        attempt to pass on the credulity of mankind a number of
\n        books, treating on the same subject in manners totally
\n        discordant and contradictory, as happens in these works.
\n        Many circumstances mentioned in these Purans, would
\n        show the time in which Vyasa actually lived, could any of
\n        these works be traced with certainty to him; and I suspect,
\n        that not only the historical part (Purana) of the ancient
\n        system of science, but that written by Vyasa has been new
\n        modelled in the various works now called Purans, all
\n        probably very modern, and composed by various persons.”
\n1615.      The long observations, we have just made are in the
\ncontext of the fact that the Buchanan’s survey relates to the
\nearliest part of 19th century, i.e., 1807 to 1814. Aurangzeb died
\nin 1707 after having ruled for about 50 years. Therefore, the
\nmemory of the people in respect to the incidents which took
\nplace during Aurangzeb were just 100 to 150 years old in
\ncomparison to that of Babar who was there about more than 275
\nyears back. The people’s memory is better reliable in respect to
\n                                                              1736<\/span><\/p>\n
the recent incidents in comparison to ancient one. The belief of
\nthe local people about the destruction or construction at the
\ndisputed site, in the same way noticed by Tieffenthaler about 50
\nyears back from the period of Buchanan and same thing noticed
\nby Buchanan, in our view, ought to have been given more
\nreliability than simply discarding the same on the basis of an
\ninscription, the possibility whereof was always to be installed at
\nany later point of time. In the absence of any material or
\nanything to show that it was fixed almost 272 years back and the
\nbelief of the local people was perverse, we find it difficult to
\nrely only on the observations of Buchanan based on inscriptions,
\nthe language whereof was not known to him and there is nothing
\nto show that he could read or understood it.
\n1616.    Sri P.N. Mishra, learned counsel further submitted that
\nhad the building in dispute constructed in 1528 and that too at
\nthe command of Emperor Babar, it would be inconceivable that
\nAbul Fazal Allami in his work “Ain-e-Akbari” would have
\nfailed to notice the same though, if correct, it would have been
\nthe work of Akbar’s grandfather. He refers to the “Ain-e-
\nAkbari” written by Abul Fazal Allami, translated in English by
\nH. Blochmann edited by Leiut. Colonel D.C. Phillott, first
\npublished 1927-1949 reprint 1989 published by Low Price
\nPublications, Delhi. He pointed out that Abul Fazal Allami has
\nreferred to “Ayodhya” and its religious importance for Hindus
\nand also certain religious places of Muslims. Therefore, it is
\nimprobable that he would have missed or ignored to mention
\nabout a grand mosque constructed by grandfather of Emperor
\nAkbar though has mentioned about other places of Ayodhya.
\nThis shows that till the date when the aforesaid work was
\nwritten by Abul Fazal, building in dispute had not came into
\n                                                                1737<\/span><\/p>\n
existence and it is incorrect to suggest that it was constructed in
\n1528 AD. He explained that this is the reason why we do not
\nfind any such mention in the work of Goswami Tulsidas, a great
\nfollower of Lord Ram. From Volume 1 of “Ain-e-Akbari”, Sri
\nP.N.Mishra placed certain extracts from page 162 and onwards
\nto show that a large number of places of worship were
\nconstructed in 983 AH and onwards (see page 179, “Ain-e-
\nAkbari”) and that tax levelled on non-Muslims was abolished in
\n987 AH. About the abolition of tax on non-Muslims, page 198
\nof “Ain-e-Akbari” Vol.-1 quote as under :\n<\/p>\n
              “In this year the Tamgha (inland tolls) and the Jazya
\n        (tax on infidels), which brought in several krors of dam
\n        were abolished, and edicts to this effect were sent over the
\n        whole empire.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1617.      He also referred to pages 201, 202 and 203 to show
\nthat the policy of Akbar was not so fanatic and was judicious to
\nHindus also. Had there been such a construction at the religious
\nplace of Hindus, the Akbar would have allowed it to be
\nremoved. The various orders and actions as noticed by Allami
\nin “Ain-e-Akbari” Vol.-1 on pages 201 and onwards are as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
              “His majesty was now [990] convinced that the
\n        Millenium of the Islamitio dispensation was drawing near.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        No obstacle, therefore, remained to promulgating the design
\n        which he had planned in secret. The Shaykhs and Ulamas
\n        who, on account of their obstinacy and pride, had to be
\n        entirely discarded, were gone, and His Majesty was free to
\n        disprove the orders and principles of the Islam, and to ruin
\n        the faith of the nation by making new and absurd
\n        regulations. The first order which was passed was that the
\n        coinage should show the era of the Millenum, and that a
\n                                                         1738<\/span><\/p>\n
history of the one thousand years should be written, but
\ncommencing from the death of the Prophet. Other
\nextraordinary   innovation   were    devised   as   political
\nexpedients, and such orders were given that one’s senses got
\nquite perplexed. Thus the sijda, or prostration, was ordered
\nto be performed as being proper for kings; but instead of
\nsijda, the word zaminbos was used. Wine also was allowed,
\nif used for strengthening the body, as recommended by
\ndoctors; no mischief or impropriety was to result from the
\nuse of it, and strict punishments were laid down for
\ndrunkenness, or gatherings and uproars. ….\n<\/p>\n
      “Beef was interdicted, and to touch beef was
\nconsidered defiling. The reason of this was that, from his
\nyouth, His Majesty had been in company with Hindu
\nliberation, and had thus learnt to look upon a cow- which
\nin their opinion is one of the reasons why the world still
\nexists- as something holy. Besides the Emperor was subject
\nto the influence of the numerous Hindu princess of the
\nHarem, who had gained so great ascendancy over him as to
\nmake his forswear beef, garlic, onion, and the wearing of a
\nbeard, which things His majesty still avoids. He had also
\nintroduced, though modified by his peculiar views, Hindu
\ncustoms and heresies into the court assemblies, and
\nintroduces them still, in order to please and win the
\nHindus and their castes; he abstained from everything
\nwhich they think repugnant to their nature, and looked upon
\nshaving the beard as the highest sign of friendship and
\naffection for him. Hence this custom has become very
\ngeneral. Pandering pimps also expressed the opinion that
\nthe beard takes its nourishment from the testicles; for no
\neunnch had a beard; and one could not could exactly see of
\nwhat merit or importance it was       to cultivate a beard.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           1739<\/span><\/p>\n
Moreover, former ascetics and looked upon carelessness in
\nletting the beard grow as one way of mortifying one’s flesh,
\nbecause such carelessness exposed them to the reproach of
\nthe world; and so, at present, the silly lawyers of the Islam
\nlooked upon cutting down the beard as reproachful, it was
\nclear that shaving was now a way of mortifying the flesh,
\nand therefore praiseworthy, but not letting the beard grow.
\n(But if any one considers this argument calmly, he will soon
\ndetect the fallacy.) Lying, cheating Muftis also quoted an
\nunknown tradition, in which it was stated that ‘some Qasis’
\nof Persia had shaved their beards. But the words ka-ma gaf
\nalu ba’z’ ‘l-quzdt (as some Qasis have done), which occur in
\nthis tradition, are based upon a corrupt reading, and should
\nbe ka-ma yaf ‘a’ u ba l-gusat (as some wicked men have
\ndone). . .\n<\/p>\n
      “The ringing of bells as in use with the Christians,
\nand the showing of the figure of the cross, and . . . . . . and
\nother childish anything of theirs; were daily in practice. The
\nwords Kufr shay shud, or ‘heresy’ ‘became common’,
\nexpress the Tdrikh (985). Ten or twelve years after the
\ncommencement of these doings, matters had gone so far that
\nwretches like Mirza Jani, chief of Tattah, and other
\napostates, wrote their confessions on paper as follows :- ‘I,
\nsuch a one, son of such a one, have willingly and cheerfully
\nrenounced and rejected the Islam in all its phases, whether
\nlow or high, as I have witnessed it in my ancestors and have
\njoined the Divine Faith of Shah Akbar, and declare myself
\nwilling to sacrifice to him my property and life, my honour
\nand religion’. And these papers- there could be no more
\neffective letters of damnation- were handed over to the
\nMujtahid ( Abu’l Fazl) of the new creed, and were
\nconsidered a source of confidence or promotion. The
\n                                                          1740<\/span><\/p>\n
Heavens might have parted as under, and earth might have
\nopened her abyss and the mountains have crumbled to dust!
\n      “In opposition to the Islam, pigs and dogs were no
\nlonger looked upon as unclean. A large number of these
\nanimals was kept in the Harem, and in the vaults of the
\ncastle, and to inspect them daily was considered a religious
\nexercise. The Hindus, who believe in incarnations, said
\nthat the boar belonged to the ten forms which God
\nAlmighty had once assumed.\n<\/p>\n
      “God is indeed Almighty- but not what they say.”
\n      “The saying of some wise men that a dong had ten
\nvirtues, and that a man, if he possesses one of them, was
\nsaint, was also quoted as a proof. Certain courtiers and
\nfriends of His Majesty, who were known for their excellence
\nin every department, and proverbial as court poets, used to
\nput dogs on a tablecloth and feed them, whilst other
\nheretical poets. Persians and Hindustanis, followed this
\nexample, even taking the tongues of dogs into their own
\nmouths, and then boasting of it.\n<\/p>\n
      “Tell the Mir that thou hast, within thy skin, a dog and
\na carcass.\n<\/p>\n
      “A dog runs about in front of the house; don’t make
\nhim a messmate.\n<\/p>\n
      “The ceremonial ablution after emission of semen was
\nno longer considered binding, and people quoted as proof
\nthat the essence of man was the sperma genitale, which was
\nthe origin of good and bad man. It was absurd that voiding
\nurine and excrements should not require ceremonial
\nablutions, whilst the emission of so tender a fluid should
\nnecessitate ablution; it would be far better, if people would
\nfirst bathe, and then have connexion.\n<\/p>\n
      “Further, it was absurd to prepare a feast in honour
\n                                                          1741<\/span><\/p>\n
of a dead person; for the corpse was mere matter, and could
\nderive no pleasure from the feast. People should therefore
\nmake a grand feast on their birthdays. Such feasts were
\ncalled Ash i haydt, food of life.\n<\/p>\n
        “The flesh of a wild boar and the tiger was also
\npermitted, because the courage which these two animals
\npossess would be transferred to any one who fed on such
\nmeat.\n<\/p>\n
        “It was also forbidden to marry one’s cousins or near
\nrelations, because such marriages are destructive of mutual
\nlove. Boys were not to marry before the age of 16, nor girls
\nbefore 14, because the offspring of early marriages was
\nweakly. The wearing of ornaments and silk dresses at the
\ntime of prayer was made obligatory.\n<\/p>\n
        “The prayers of the Islam, the fast, nay even the
\npilgrimage, were henceforth forbidden. Some bastards, as
\nthe son of Mulla Mubarak, a worthy disciple of Shaykh
\nAbu’l Fazl wrote treatises, in order to revile and ridicule
\nour religious practices, of course with proofs. His Majesty
\nliked such productions, and promoted the authors.\n<\/p>\n
        “The era of the Hijrah was now abolished, and a
\nnew era was introduced, of which the first year was the
\nyear of the emperor’s accession (963). The months had the
\nsame names as at the time of the old Persian kings, and as
\ngiven in the Nisab” ‘s.sibniyan’. Fourteen festivals also were
\nintroduced, corresponding to the feasts of the Zoroastrians;
\nbut the feasts of the Musalmans, and their glory were
\ntrodden down, the Friday prayer alone being retained
\nbecause some old, decrepit, silly people used to go to it. The
\nnew era was called Tdrikh I llahi, or ‘Divine Era’. On
\ncopper coins and gold muhrs, the era of the Millennium was
\nused, as indicating that the end of the religion of
\n                                                           1742<\/span><\/p>\n
Muhammad, which was to last one thousand years, was
\ndrawing near. Reading and learning Arabio was looked
\nupon as a crime; and Muhammadan law, the exegesis of the
\nQuran, and the Tradition, as also those who studied them,
\nwere considered bad and deserving of disapproval.
\nAstronomy, philosophy, medicine, mathematics, poetry,
\nhistory and novels, were cultivated and thought necessary.
\nEven the letters which are peculiar to the Arabic language,
\n                                                        \u0651\u0670
\nas the \u202b\u062b\u06d4\u202c\u060c\u202b\u0639\u202c\u060c\u202b\u062d\u202c\u060c\u202b \u0635\u202c\u060c\u202b \u0636\u202cand \u202b \u0638\u06d4\u202cwere avoided. Thus for \u202b\u0639\u0628\u0628\u062f\u0627\u0644\u0644\u06c1\u202c
\n               \u0651\u0670
\npeople wrote \u202b \u0627\u0628\u062f\u0627\u0644\u0644\u06c1\u202cAbdullah; and for \u202b \u0627\u062d\u062f\u06cc\u202cAhadi, \u202b \u0627\u06be\u062f\u202cAhadi
\netc. All this pleased His Majesty. Two verses from the
\nShahnama, which Firdawsi gives as part of a story, were
\nfrequently quoted at court-\n<\/p>\n
            From eating the flesh of camels and lizards
\n            The Arabs have made such progress,
\n            That they now wish to get hold of the kingdom
\n            of Persia.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Fie upon Fate! Fie upon Fate!
\n      “Similarly other verses were eagerly seized, if they
\nconveyed a calumny, as the verses from the ……….., in
\nwhich the falling out of the teeth of our prophet is alluded
\nto.\n<\/p>\n
      “In the same manner, every doctrine and command of
\nthe Islam, whether special or general as the prophetship,
\nthe harmony of the Islam with reason, the doctrines of Ru
\nyat, Taklif, and Takwin, the details of the day of
\nresurrection and judgment- all were doubted and ridiculed.
\nAnd if anyone did object to this mode of arguing, his answer
\nwas not accepted. But it is well known how little chance a
\nman has who cite proofs against one who will reject them,
\nespecially when his opponent has the power of life and
\ndeath in his hands; for equality in condition in a sine qud
\n                                                         1743<\/span><\/p>\n
won in arguing.” (Page 201-206)
\n       “Here Bada, on mentions the translations from
\nSanscrit into Persian, which have been alluded to above,
\np.110. It is not quite certain whether the translation were
\nmade from Sanscrit or from Hindi translations, or from
\nboth. Bada, on clearly states that for some translations, as
\nat the Atharban, Hindus were used as interpreters. For
\nother works as the Mahabharat, there may have been Hindi
\ntranslations or extracts, because Akbar himself (vide p.111,
\nnote 2) translated passages to Naqib Khan. Abu’l-Fazl also
\nstates that he was assisted by Pandits when writing the
\nfourth book of the A-in. Compare Sir H. Elliott’s Index to
\nthe Historians of India, p. 259.” (Page 209)
\n       “In these days (991) new orders were given. The
\nkilling of animals on certain days was forbidden as on
\nSundays, because this day is sacred to the Sun; during the
\nfirst eighteen days of the month of Farwardin; the whole
\nmonth of Ahan (the month in which His Majesty was born);
\nand on several other days to please the Hindus. This order
\nwas extended over the whole realm, and capital punishment
\nwas inflicted on every one who acted against the command.
\nMany a family was ruined. During the time of those fasts,
\nHis Majesty abstained altogether from meat, as a religious
\npenance, gradually extending the several fasts during a
\nyear over six months and even more, with the view of
\neventually discontinuing the use of meat altogether.” (Page
\n209-210)
\n       “In the same year (991) His Majesty built outside the
\ntown    two   places   for   feeding   poor    Hindus   and
\nMuhammadans, one of them being called Khayrpura and
\nthe other Dharmpura. Some of Abu’l-Fazl’s people were put
\nin charge of them. They spent His Majesty’s money in
\n                                                                   1744<\/span><\/p>\n
        feeding the poor. As an immense number of Jogis also
\n        flocked to this establishment, a third place was built, which
\n        got the name of Jogipura.” (Page 210)
\n              “His Majesty once ordered that the Sunnis should
\n        stand separately from the Shiahs, when the Hindustanis,
\n        without exception, went to the Sunni side, and the Persians
\n        to the Shiah side.” (Page 212)
\n1618.      Vol. 2 “Ain-e-Akbari” Page 181 and onwards deals
\nwith “Oudh” and Sri Mishra placed the following part thereof :\n<\/p>\n
              “It is situated in the second climate. Its length from
\n        the Sarkar of Gorakhpur to Kanauj is 185 kos. Its breadth
\n        from the northern mountains to Sidhpur on the frontier of
\n        the Subah of Allahabad is 115 kos. To the east is Bihar; to
\n        the north, the mountains; to the south, Manikpur, and to the
\n        west Kanauj. Its climate is good. Summer and winter are
\n        nearly temperate. Its principal streams are the Saru (Sarju),
\n        the Ghaghar (Gogra) the Sai and the Godi (Gumti). In the
\n        first mentioned, divers aquatic animals and foms of strange
\n        appearance show themselves. Agriculture is in a flourishing
\n        state, especially rice of the kinds called Sukhdas, Madhkar,
\n        and Jhanwan, which for whiteness, delicacy, fragrance and
\n        wholesomeness are scarcely to be matched. They sow their
\n        rice three months earlier than in other parts of Hindustan.
\n        When the drought begins, the Sai and Gogra rise high in
\n        flood and before the beginning of the rains, the land is
\n        inundated, and as the waters rise, the stalks of rice shoot up
\n        and proportionately lengthen: the crop, however, is
\n        destroyed if the floods are in full force before the rice is in
\n        ear. Flowers, fruits and game are abundant. Wild buffaloes
\n        are numerous. When the plains are inundated the animals
\n        take to the high ground where the people find sport in
\n                                                                   1745<\/span><\/p>\n
        hunting them. Some of the animals remain all day in the
\n        water and only at night approach the dry ground and
\n        breathe in freedom. Awadh (Ajodhya) is one of the largest
\n        cities of India. In is situated in longitude 118\u00b0, 0′, and
\n        latitude 27\u00b0, 22′. It ancient times its populous site covered
\n        an extent of 148 kos in length and 86 in breadth, and it is
\n        esteemed one of the holiest places of antiquity. Around the
\n        environs of the city, they sift the earth and gold is
\n        obtained. It was the residence of Rama Chandra who in
\n        the Treta age combined in his own person both the
\n        spiritual supremacy and the kingly office.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              At the distance of one kos from the city, the Gogra,
\n        after its junction with the Sai, [Saraju] flows below the fort.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Near the city stand two considerable tombs of six and seven
\n        yards in length respectively. The vulgar believe them to be
\n        the resting places of Seth and the prophet Job, and
\n        extraordinary tales are related of them. Some say that at
\n        Ratanpur is the tomb of Kabir, the assertor of the unity of
\n        God.” (Page 181-182)
\n1619.      The above contents are published on pages 170-172 of
\n“Ain-e-Akbari” by Abul Fazal Allami, translated by Colonel
\nH.S. Jarrett, Vol. 2, published in 1891 at Calcutta and the
\nphotocopy thereof alongwith its frontispiece has been filed as
\nExhibit T6 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 43A-1\/25-28) (Register 18,
\npages 51-57).\n<\/p>\n
1620.      He also referred to the two footnotes one of which is
\nwith respect to Ram and another with respect to Sant Kabir and
\nread as under : .\n<\/p>\n
              “The 7th avatar, who in this capital of the solar
\n        dynasty founded on the chariot wheel of Brahma,
\n        consummated the glories of sixty generations of solar
\n                                                                 1746<\/span><\/p>\n
        princes and as the incarnate Rama, i.e. the hero of the
\n        famous epic that bears his name.” (Page 182)
\n              “His doctrines were preached between A.D. 1380 and
\n        1420 and attempted the union of Hindu and Muhammadan
\n        in the worship of one God whether invoked as Ali or Rama.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        On his deceased both these sects claimed the body and
\n        while they contested it, Kabir suddenly stood in their midst
\n        and commanding them to look under the shoud, vanished. A
\n        heap of beautiful flowers was there discovered, which,
\n        divided among the rival worshippers, were buried or burnt
\n        according to their respective rites. Pilgrims from upper
\n        India to this day beg a spoonful of rice water from the Kabir
\n        Monastery at Puri in Orissa.” (Page 182)
\n1621.      He also pointed out to page 184 which gives certain
\nother statistics of Oudh showing that main castes residing
\ntherein were “Brahmans” and “Kumbi”. Then on page 311 of
\nVol. 2 Sri Mishra says that Abul Fazal has also taken note of
\nvarious incarnations of Lord Vishnu in the form of Varahavatara
\nor Boar-Incarnation, Nara-Sinha or Man-Lion Incarnation,
\nVamana or Dwarj-Incarnation, Parasurama or Incarnation of
\nRam with axe, then Ramavatara or Ram Incarnation,
\nKrishnavatara or Incarnation as Krishna, Buddhavatara or
\nBuddha Incarnation, Kalkyavatara or Kalki Incarnation. On
\npages 316-317, Ramavatara has been described as under :\n<\/p>\n
              “They relate that Ravana one of Rakshasas two
\n        generation in descent from Brahma, had ten heads and
\n        twenty hands. He underwent austerities for a period of ten
\n        thousand years in the Kailasa mountain and devoted his
\n        heads, one after another in this penance in the hope of
\n        obtaining the sovereignty of the three worlds. The deity
\n        appeared to him and granted his prayer. The gods were
\n                                                                   1747<\/span><\/p>\n
        afflicted by his rule and as in the former instances, solicited
\n        his dethronement which was vouchsafed, and Rama was
\n        appointed to accomplish this end. He was accordingly born
\n        during the Treta Yuga on the ninth of the light half of the
\n        month of Chaitra (March-April) in the city of Ayodhya, of
\n        Kausalya wife of Raja Dasaratha. At the first dawn of
\n        intelligence, he acquired much learning and withdrawing
\n        from all worldly pursuits, set out journeying through wilds
\n        and gave a fresh beauty to his life by visiting holy shrines.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        He became lord of the earth and slew Ravana. He ruled for
\n        eleven thousand years and introduced just laws of
\n        administration.” (Page 316-317)
\n1622.      Chapter IX Vol. 2 of “Ain-e-Akbari” deals with
\nsacred places of pilgrimages and it includes a number of rivers
\nas well as several places including Ayodhya as under :\n<\/p>\n
                              “CHAPTER IX
\n              SACRED PLACES OF PILGRIMAGE
\n              Although profound and enlightened moralists are
\n        convinced that true happiness consists in the acquisition of
\n        virtue and recognise no other temple of God but a pure
\n        heart, nevertheless the physicians of the spiritual order,
\n        from their knowledge of the pulsation of human feeling,
\n        have bestowed on certain places a reputation for sanctity
\n        and thus rousing the slumberers in forgetfulness and
\n        instilling in them the enthusiastic desire of seeking God,
\n        have made these shrines instruments for their reverencing
\n        of the just, and the toils of the pilgrimage a means of
\n        facilitating the attainment of their aim.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              These holy places are of four degrees.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              The first is termed deva or divine and dedicated to
\n        Brahma, Vishnu and Mahadeva. The greatest among these
\n                                                         1748<\/span><\/p>\n
are twenty-eight rivers in the following orders:- [P.177] (1)
\nGanges, (2) Sarasvati, (3) Jamuna, (4) Narbada, (5) Vipasa,
\nKnown as Biah (Hyphasis), (6) Vitasta (Hydaspes or
\nBidaspes) known as the Bihat, (7) Kausiki, a river near
\nRhotas in the Panjab, but some place it in the neighborhood
\nof Garhi in the eastern districts (8) Nandavati (9)
\nChandrabhaga, known as the Chenab, (10) Sarayu (Sarju)
\nknown as the Sarau, (11) Satyavati, (12) Tapi known as
\nTapti upon the (north) bank of which is Burhanpur. (13)
\nParavati, (14) Pasavati (15) Gomati (Gumti) near Dvaraka.
\n(16) Gandaki, upon the banks of which is Sultanpur of the
\nSubah of Oudh, (17) Bahuda, (18) Devika (Deva or Gogra).
\n(19) Godavari, called also Banganga. Pattan of the Dekhan
\nis situated on its bank. (20) Tamraparni at the extremity of
\nthe Dekhan. Here pearls are found. (21) Charmanvati (22)
\nVarana, near Benares (23) Iravti, known as the Ravi
\n(Hydraotes), Lahor is on its bank. (24) Satadru (the
\nhundred-Channelled), known as the Sutlej. Ludhiana is
\nupon its bank. (25) Bhimarathi, [178] called also the
\nBhima, in the Dekhan. (26) Parnasona. (27) Vanjara, in the
\nDekhan, (28) Achamiyya, Some include the Indus, but it is
\nnot of the same sanctity.\n<\/p>\n
  Each of these rivers as dedicated to one of these deities,
\nhas peculiar characteristics ascribed to it: Some of the
\nplaces situated on their banks are esteemed holy, as, for
\nexample, the village of Soron on the Ganges, to which
\nmultitudes flock on the twelfth of the month of Aghan (Nov-
\nDec). Some regard certain cities as dedicated to the
\ndivinities. Among these are Kasi, commonly called
\nBenares. The Adjacent country for five kos around the city
\nis held sacred. Although pilgrimages take place throughout
\n                                                         1749<\/span><\/p>\n
the year, on the Siva-ratri multitudes resort thither from
\ndistant parts and it is considered one of the most chosen
\nplaces in which to die. Final liberation is said to be
\nfourfold: (1) Salokya passing from the degrees of paradise
\nto Kailasa. They say that when a man goes to heaven
\nthrough good works, he must return to earth, but when
\nafter various transmigrations, he attains that region, he
\nreturns no more (2) Sarupya (assimilation to the deity);
\nwhen a man partakes of the divine elementary form, he
\ndoes nor revisit the earth. (3) Samipya (nearness to the
\ndeity) is when a man after breaking the elemental bonds,
\nby the power of good works is admitted into the presence
\nof God’s elect, and does not return to earth. (4) Sayuiya
\n(absorption into    the deity); after passing through all
\nintermediate stages, he obtains the bliss of true liberation.
\nThey have likewise divided the territory of Benares into
\nfour kinds. The characteristic of two parts is that when a
\nbeing dies therein, he attains the fourth degree of Mukti; if
\nhe dies in one of the others, he reaches the third degree,
\nand if in the remaining one, the second degree.\n<\/p>\n
      Ayodhya, commonly called Awadh. The distance of
\nforty kos to the east, and twenty to the north is regarded as
\nsacred ground. On the ninth of the light half of the
\nmonth of Chaitra a great religious festival is held.\n<\/p>\n
      Avantika, Ujjain. All around it for thirty-two kos is
\naccounted holy and a large concourse takes place on the
\nSiva-ratri.\n<\/p>\n
      Kanchi (Conjervaram) in the Dekhan. For twenty
\nkos around it is considered sacred. On the eighth of every
\nHindu month that falls on a Tuesday, there is a great
\nconcourse of pilgrims.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         1750<\/span><\/p>\n
        Mathura is sacred for forty-eight kos around, and
\neven before it became the birthplace of Krishna, was held in
\nveneration. Religious festivals are held on the 23rd of the
\nmonth of Bhadra (Aug-Sept) and the 15th of Karitika (Oct-
\nNov).\n<\/p>\n
        Duaraka. The country for forty kos in length and
\ntwenty in breadth is esteemed holy. On the Dlwalt festival,
\ncrowds resort hither.\n<\/p>\n
        Maya, known as Haridvra (Hardwar) on the Ganges.
\nIt is held sacred for eighteen kos in length. Large numbers
\nof pilgrims assemble on the 10th of Chaitra.
\nThese seven are called the seven (sacred) cities.\n<\/p>\n
        Prayaga now called Illahabas. The distance for
\ntwenty kos around is venerated. They say that the desires
\nof a man that dies here are gratified in his next birth. They
\nalso hold that whoever commits suicide is guilty of a great
\ncrime except in this spot where it meets with exceeding
\nreward. Throughout the year it is considered holy, but
\nespecially so during the month of Magha (Jan-Fab).\n<\/p>\n
        Nagarkot For eight kos round it is venerated. On the
\neighth of the months of Chaitra and Kartika, many
\npilgrims assemble.\n<\/p>\n
        Kashmir is also accounted of this class and is
\ndedicated to Mahadeva. Many places in it are held in great
\nveneration.\n<\/p>\n
        The second are the shrines of the Asuras, which are
\ntemples dedicated to the Daitya race. In many things they
\nshare the privileges of the devatas; but the latter are more
\npure, while the others are filled with the principle of tamas
\n(darkness). Their temples are said to be in the lower
\nregions (Patala).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Unknown vs Ms Written By Babur 1 1501 description regarding India’s Travel is the same.” (E.T.C.) ^^fofy;e fQUp us vius ;k=k o`rkUr esa ;g fy[kk gS fd tc og v;ks\/;k x;k Fkk] mlus v;ks\/;k dk fdyk] fxjh&iM+h gkyr esa ik;kA ;g lgh gS fd fofy;e fQUp ds vuqlkj ml fdys dks jkek […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3298","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnknown vs Ms Written By Babur - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Unknown vs Ms Written By Babur - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-12-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-07T16:01:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"333 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Unknown vs Ms Written By Babur\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-12-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-07T16:01:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur\"},\"wordCount\":44629,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur\",\"name\":\"Unknown vs Ms Written By Babur - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-12-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-07T16:01:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Unknown vs Ms Written By Babur\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Unknown vs Ms Written By Babur - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Unknown vs Ms Written By Babur - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-12-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-07T16:01:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"333 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Unknown vs Ms Written By Babur","datePublished":"1969-12-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-07T16:01:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur"},"wordCount":44629,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur","name":"Unknown vs Ms Written By Babur - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-12-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-07T16:01:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-ms-written-by-babur#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Unknown vs Ms Written By Babur"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3298","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3298"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3298\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3298"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3298"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}